You are on page 1of 176

1

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL ●
ALLIANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES ● SAVE THE
DUNES ● HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ●
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE, PORTER COUNTY
CHAPTER ● SIERRA CLUB HOOSIER CHAPTER


April 28, 2013


Via electronic mail (sroush@idem.in.gov)
and United States Mail

Mr. Steve Roush
Office of Water Quality
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
100 North Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Re: Comments on Draft NPDES Permit for BP Products North America Inc.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Alliance for the Great Lakes, Save the Dunes, Isaak
Walton League Porter County Chapter, Sierra Club Hoosier Chapter, and Hoosier Environmental
Council (“Commenters”) respectfully submit these comments concerning the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Draft Permit No. N0000108 issued by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM” or the “Department”) to BP Products
North America Inc. (“BP” or “Applicant”) on March 28, 2013 (“Draft Permit”) for BP’s refinery
in Whiting, Indiana (“Refinery”).

As the Refinery ramps up its processing of extra-heavy Canadian tar sands derivatives, it
is vital that its permit protect Lake Michigan from the pollution generated by such processing.
Lake Michigan provides a source of drinking water and recreation for millions in the region and
deserves strong protection from industrial pollutants. The reissuance of BP’s NPDES permit now
provides an opportunity to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged into Great Lakes waters
by properly applying the Clean Water Act and Indiana’s regulations.
Commenters appreciate that IDEM agreed to an informal meeting during the public
comment period to discuss the Draft Permit. They further appreciate the fact that BP has acted on
its assurances, made in the wake of the public controversy surrounding its 2007 permit, to
request reinstatement of its pervious permit limits for ammonia and total suspended solids.
However, as discussed below, Commenters have multiple concerns with the Draft in its
current form. The comments below address the following issues:
2

I. Stormwater
II. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
III. Mercury Discharge
IV. Cooling Water Intake
V. Effluent Characterization
VI. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
VII. Monitoring
Commenters note, in addition, that a number of their Public Records Act requests made
in February of this year still have not been complied with. We reserve the right to supplement
these comments if and when we receive such documents.
The exhibits to this comment are attached to the email version of this comment letter
(delivered in multiple parts), and are being provided on a disk accompanying the paper version
of the letter.
I. Stormwater

The Draft Permit requires, “within 12 months from the effective date of this permit, the
permitee is required to revise and update the current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWP3).” Id. at 21. However, the Fact Sheet expressly states that [t]he requirement to prepare a
SWP3 is not an effluent limitation.” Fact Sheet at 32. Hence, there is no provision in the Draft
Permit requiring either review of the SWP3 by IDEM, or allowing for public comment on it.
The Permit does not even require that the SWP3 be submitted to IDEM, so that interested
members of the public can review it.

For the reasons set forth below, this understanding of the legal nature of a SWP3, and
concomitant failure to provide for review and comment, are directly at odds the CWA
requirements defined in federal judicial determinations governing pollution control plans of this
nature. The Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”) requires that the SWP3 be treated as part of the
Permit in every respect. That said, at the very least, IDEM could have required that the SWP3 be
provided to it, rather than simply held onsite by BP where the public has no ability to review it –
which would be legally inadequate but at least a positive step in the right direction.

The Draft Permit stormwater requirements also suffer from technical deficiencies that are
detailed below.

A. The Clean Water Act Requires that SWP3s be Treated as Part of the Permit

Under the CWA, industrial stormwater discharges are required to meet all applicable
point source discharge permitting requirements. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(3)(A). These requirements
include the CWA provisions mandating use of either best available technology economically
achievable (“BAT”) or best conventional pollutant control technology (“BCT”), according to the
type of pollutant at issue. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A). These BAT and BCT requirements can
be met through application of BMPs developed based on best professional judgment (BPJ ), as
outlined in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (“USEPA”) general permit for
industrial stormwater discharges (60 FR 50804 (September 29, 1995), or through imposition of
3

numeric limits. The permitee is required under Indiana regulations to develop a SWP3 defining
the site-specific implementation of the BMPs. Id.; 327 Ind. Admin. Code 15-6-7.
1


Since SWP3s constitute the means of implementation of CWA BAT and BCT
requirements, and are thus an integral component of NPDES permitting, the SWP3 is subject to
all aspects of both public notice and agency review requirements. This was the holding of
Environmental Defense Center v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 344 F.3d 832
(9
th
Cir. 2003). In that case petitioners challenged provisions in USEPA’s Phase II stormwater
permitting program that allowed permitees to submit notices of intent (“NOIs”) containing the
substance of a SWP3 without requiring either agency review of the NOI/SWP3s or public access
to that document.

With respect to the failure to require agency review, the court held that the permitting
agency is “required to ensure that the individual [storm water] programs adopted are consistent
with the law.” 344 F.3d at 856. Based on petitioners’ concern that the system of unreviewed
SWP3s devised by USEPA “creates an impermissible self-regulatory system,” the court held,
“stormwater management programs that are designed by regulated parties must, in every
instance, be subject to meaningful review by an appropriate regulating entity to ensure that each
such program reduces the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” Id.

With respect to the failure to allow public access to the NOI/SWP3s, the court held,
“EPA’s failure to make NOIs available to the public in the permitting process or subject to public
hearings contravene the express requirements of the Clean Water Act.” 344 F.3d at 858.
Rejecting USEPA’s contention that the availability of these documents through FOIA (which
represents greater public access than is available here, because the Refinery’s SWP3 is not
available in IDEM’s files), the court held that “the Clean Water Act . . . contemplates greater
scope, greater certainty, and greater uniformity of public availability” than the proposed rule
provided. Id. At 857.

The Second Circuit adopted the holding of Environmental Defense Center in a closely
related context. In Waterkeeper Alliance v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
399 F.3d 486 (2
nd
Cir. 2005), the court rejected USEPA’s general permit governing concentrated
animal feeding operations (“CAFOs”), on the ground that it – like the Phase II storm water
permit – required applicants to prepare a best management practices (“BMP”) plan (for nutrient
management), but did not require that the plan be made part of the applicant’s NPDES permit.
Hence, as with the stormwater permit at issue in Environmental Defense Center, the BMP plan
was neither reviewed by the permitting agency nor available to the public in the notice and
comment process. With respect to agency review, the court held,

By not providing for permitting authority review of these application rates, the
CAFO Rule fails to adequately prevent large CAFOs from “misunderstanding or
misrepresenting” the application rates they must adopt in order to comply with
state technical standards. The CAFO rule does not ensure that Large CAFOs will,

1
The Indiana Administrative Code provision abbreviates Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan as “SWP3,” but
Commenters abbreviate this term herein as SWP3, as in the federal general permit.

4

in fact, develop nutrient management plans – and waste application rates – that
comply with all applicable effluent limitations and standards.

399 F.3d at 500. Concerning the lack of public access to the BMP plans, the court held that the
rule “deprives the public of the opportunity for the sort of regulatory participation that the Act
guarantees because the Rule effectively shields the nutrient management plans from public
scrutiny and comment.” Id. at 503. It emphasized that the failure to provide public access to the
BMP plans not only “prevents the public from calling for a hearing about – and then
meaningfully commenting on – NPDES permits before they issue,” but also “impermissibly
compromises the public’s ability to bring citizen suits, a ‘proven enforcement tool’ that
‘Congress intended [to be used. . .] to both spur and supplement government enforcement
actions.’” Id. (citations omitted).

Federal and state law governing NPDES permit issuance thus require that the complete
permit – which, pursuant to Environmental Defense Center and Riverkeeper, includes the SWP3
– be formally reviewed by IDEM and made available to the public upon issuance of notice of
issuance of the permit, so that it can be reviewed in connection with the public hearing and
comment process. 40 C.F.R. § 124.10(d), 326 IAC 2-1.1-6(c).
2
The Draft Permit completely
fails, by its own admission in the Fact Sheet, to comply with this requirement. The Draft Permit
contains no indication that IDEM has reviewed the current SWP3 to determine whether it
complies with Draft Permit and applicable law, and no requirement that the Department make
any such findings concerning future iterations of the SWP3. It is plainly not sufficient to invite
public comment only on the underlying BMPs, as the Department has done here, and leave to the
permitee to its own unscrutinized devices in implementing those BMPs on site. Nor is it any
help, as a legal matter, that the permit requires the SWP3 to be “certified by a qualified
professional” (Draft Permit at 26). While we appreciate IDEM’s informal assurance that
subsequent iterations of the SWP3 will be posted on the Department’s web site, this posting does
not meet the requirements of the CWA as defined in Environmental Defense Center and
Riverkeeper.

B. IDEM Should at Minimum Require Submittal of the SWP3

We are mindful of the concern expressed by IDEM that SWP3s must be flexible, and
should not be inhibited by overly rigid public comment or agency review procedures. However,
this concern is not grounds to simply ignore altogether the legal requirements applicable to
SWP3s. IDEM could, at minimum and as a gesture of good faith, take steps to address the
underlying concerns that prompted the judicial rulings concerning SWP3s described in the

2
Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
410 F.3d 964 (7
th
Cir. 2005), addressed the issue of the availability of NOIs and SWP3s to the public in the general
permitting process, but is inapplicable here. The court in that case held (declining to follow Environmental Defense
Center on this point) that the CWA public notice procedures need not be read to encompass NOIs and the
accompanying SWP3s submitted in the general permitting process within the definition of a “permit.” Here,
however, the SWP3 is not being submitted as part of a general permit process, but is expressly incorporated into
BP’s individual permit as a set of requirements. Thus, there is no question, as there was in Texas Independent
Producers, that the SWP3 is part of the “permit” for which public notice and comment needs to be provided pursuant
to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(j) and 1342(1)(a) . We note also that Texas Independent Producers does not address at all the
issue of agency review of the SWP3.
5

previous section, while still maintaining flexibility for amendment of SWP3s as necessary.
While such action would not bring the Permit into compliance with the CWA, it would at least
be a step in the right direction.

If IDEM took even the modest step of requiring that BP provide it with a current copy of
the SWP3, the public would at least be able to submit a Public Records Act request for the
document and review it. Commenters understand that SWP3s may potentially be updated with
some frequency (although we do not know that to be the case with respect to BP’s SWP3, as
none of us has seen it). Although it would be ideal if each such iteration were submitted to
IDEM and available to the public, even periodic reporting of an updated version of the SWP3
would at least provide the public with a sense of what specific steps are being taken onsite, and
how those steps may have evolved over time.

We note, in this regard, that U.S. Steel readily agreed in 2009, despite IDEM’s resistance,
to make its SWP3 public. In an agreement executed shortly after the final permit was issued,
U.S. Steel agreed not only to provide the citizens with a copy of its SWP3, but agreed to
promptly provide them with updates to the SWP3 as well. Clearly, the company did not consider
this limited requirement to be an undue burden, or a constraint on its flexibility in amending the
SWP3. IDEM should mandate the same here, as the public’s ability to view the SWP3 – a
minimal portion of a much broader set of legal requirements concerning SWP3s – should not
depend on any particular permittee’s goodwill and agreement.

Finally, IDEM’s assertion in the Fact Sheet that the SWP3 maintained at the Refinery can
be made available on request to IDEM is not consistent with past practice in Commenters’
experience. The Fact Sheet states,

Part I.E.2.d(2) of the permit requires that the permittee retain a copy of the current
SWPPP at the facility and it must be immediately available, at the time of an
onsite inspection or upon request, to IDEM. Additionally, interested persons can
request a copy of the SWPPP through IDEM. By requiring members of the public
to request a copy of the SWPPP through IDEM, the Agency is able to provide the
permittees with assurance that any Confidential Business Information contained
within its SWPPP is not released to the public.

Commenters filed two public records requests with IDEM prior to submitting these comments,
both requesting disclosure of Applicant’s SWPPP for the subject facility. Neither of these
requests was granted by IDEM, and the facility’s SWPPP was never disclosed to Commenters.

C. The SWP3 Suffers from Technical Deficiencies

1. Condition I.D.1 Undermines the Required BAT/BCT/BPT Stringency of Non-
Numeric Stormwater Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

The statutory basis for the required effluent limitations for stormwater control are found
in the Act’s requirements for technology-based effluent limitations (“TBELs”) and in IDEM’s
rules for applying those requirements. When determining what level of effluent control
6

limitation should be achieved by the non-numeric stormwater effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements, Applicant is bound by the CWA regulatory provisions and Indiana rule
requirements on what stringency constitutes BAT/BCT/BPT.

Condition I.D.1 is an unsatisfactory description of the statutory level of required
BAT/BCT/BP-level control of stormwater effluent, for two reasons. First, the condition language
focuses the inquiry on what stormwater control measures are “technically available” rather than
on what measures are “technically achievable” in addressing the technology-forcing aspects of
BAT/BCT/BPT effluent limitation control. Second, it introduces the phrase “in light of industry
practice.” Since selection of BAT/BCT/BPT effluent limitation control stringency already
considers alternative control methods in the determination of the required stringency of controls,
restricting consideration of available controls only to the petroleum refining industry as
articulated in a ‘best industry practice’ is a restriction on the scope of application of all available
controls on stormwater that is inconsistent with a properly carried out BAT/BCT./BPT effluent
limitation control stringency determination.

2. BAT/BCT/BPT-Compliant Stormwater Non-Numeric Effluent Limitation
Controls as Required Work Practices are Not Enforceable in the Absence of Work
Practice Record- Keeping Requirements

IDEM’s Draft Permit contains no work practice record keeping requirements in
association with the non-numeric stormwater effluent limits contained in Section I.D. of the
Draft Permit. When BAT/BCT/BPT stormwater effluent limitations are stated as required work
practices, such effluent limitations are not enforceable when no ‘monitoring’ in the form of
record keeping requirements are imposed in carrying out the mandatory work practices stated in
the stormwater control effluent limitations section.

II. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations

A. IDEM Must Require Best Available Technology for Nonconventional and Toxic
Pollutants as Determined by Best Professional J udgment Review

Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 & 1342, require IDEM to establish
numeric effluent limitations based on BAT for non-conventional and toxic pollutants discharged
by the Refinery before issuing any NPDES permit that authorizes such discharges. See 33
U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(i) (point sources “shall” achieve “effluent limitations” that “shall require
application of” BAT to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent “technologically and
economically achievable,” including “elimination of discharges of all pollutants” if it is
achievable); id. § 1342(a)(1) (requiring that NPDES permits may only be issued “upon condition
that” they ensure that, inter alia, the requirements in 33 U.S.C. § 1311 are met).

Federal regulations promulgated by USEPA likewise require that “[t]echnology-based
treatment requirements under Section 301(b) of the [CWA] represent the minimum level of
control that must be imposed” in a NPDES permit. 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(a) (emphasis added). BAT
is a stringent treatment standard that has been held to represent “a commitment of the maximum
7

resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges.”
EPA v. Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980).
3


Because USEPA’s applicable Effluent Limitation Guidelines (“ELGs”) for Petroleum
Refineries
4
do not yet include BAT limits for specific pollutants discharged by Applicant’s
petroleum refinery facility, USEPA regulations require IDEM to use its best professional
judgment (“BPJ ”) to set BAT TBELs for these discharges. 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(2), (d) (“to the
extent that EPA-promulgated effluent limitations are inapplicable,” NPDES permit writers “shall
apply the appropriate factors listed in § 125.3(d)” to set case-by-case technology-based effluent
limitations based on BPJ ) (emphasis added); see also 327 IAC 5-5-2.
5


The Refinery was an existing source as of the date of the 1972 passage of the CWA
amendments creating the BAT requirement for such existing sources, including the required case
by case BAT effluent limitations determined through BPJ for nonconventional and toxic
pollutants. Under these provisions, IDEM was required to bring the Applicant into compliance
with BAT-BPJ requirements through imposition of effluent limitations in permits by a date not
later than March 31, 1989.
6


IDEM itself acknowledges in the Fact Sheet its obligation to establish BAT TBELs based
on BPJ under Clean Water Act § 301, and that this obligation is separate and independent from
its obligation to establish water quality based effluent limitations (“WQBELS”) under Act § 302.
The Department stated as follows:

Two categories of effluent limitations exist for NPDES permits: Technology-
Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) and; Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
(WQBELs). TBELs are developed by applying the National Effluent Limitation
Guidelines (ELGs) established by USEPA for specific industrial categories
TBELs are the primary mechanism of control and enforcement of water pollution
under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Technology based treatment requirements
under section 301(b) of the CWA represent the minimum level of
control/treatment using available technology that must be imposed in a section
402 permit [40 CFR 125.3(a)].


1
Technology-based effluent limitations are a necessary minimum requirement for a permit “regardless of a
discharge’s effect on water quality.” Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 661 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1981); see also PUD
No. 1 Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994) (state water quality standards are
“supplementary” to required individual TBELs) (citing EPA v. Calif. ex. rel. Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200,
205 n.12 (1976)); Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620, 623 (2d Cir. 1976) (CWA “predicate[s]
pollution control on the application of control technology on the plants themselves rather than on the measurement
of water quality.”).
4
See EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 419, Subchapters A-E.
3
The use of the word “shall” in both the federal statute and regulations does not leave IDEM with any discretion as
to whether technology-based effluent limitations should be established. See Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 172
(1997) (the imperative “shall” makes clear that the agency action specified is obligatory, not discretionary); see also
Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 153 (2001) (“The word ‘shall’ is ordinarily the language of command.”)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). 
6
See 33 U.S.C. §1311(b)(2)(A), (C), (D) & (F)

8

In the absence of ELGs, effluent limits can also be based upon Best Professional
J udgment (BPJ ). Accordingly, every individual member of a discharge class or
category is required to operate their water pollution control technologies
according to industry-wide standards and accepted engineering practices. This
means that TBELs based upon a BPJ determination are applied at end-of-pipe and
mixing zones are not allowed [40 CFR 125.3(a)]. Similarly, since the statutory
deadlines best practicable technology (BPT), best available technology
economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional control technology (BCT)
have all passed; compliance schedules for these TEBLs are also not allowed.
WQBELs are designed to be protective of the beneficial uses of the receiving
water and are independent of the available treatment technology.

Fact Sheet at 21-22. This statement was specifically made with respect to mercury, but IDEM
presents no reason – because none exists – why this law does not apply equally to other
pollutants covered by 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(i).

B. IDEM’s Failure to Set BAT-BPJ Limits Leaves Multiple Pollutants with No
Limits at All

IDEM was required to ensure Applicant’s refinery wastewater discharges complied with
BAT-BPJ emission limitations contained in an issued NPDES permit for non-conventional and
toxic pollutants [for which no effluent limitations guidance was published] by 1989. However,
Applicant’s currently effective 2007 NPDES Permit shows IDEM failed to comply with required
BAT-BPJ effluent-limitation-setting requirements for several pollutants known to be discharged
by Applicant’s facility and many other petroleum refineries.

The obligation applies regardless of the fact that IDEM has deferred applicability of the
WQBELs in BP’s 2007 permit based on construction of the diffuser.
7
The Act does not allow
the timetable for applicability of these WQBELs to impact or diminish he obligation to set
TBELs. The statutory authority for establishing WQBELs in NPDES permits provides:

“(c) Delay in application of other limitations.


7
Under the terms of the existing 2007 NPDES Permit, Outfall #001 effluent limitations applied to the facility during
the initial term of the permit, except in the event that the Applicant chose to construct and operate the diffuser
apparatus in Lake Michigan. The Applicant did take that option under the terms of the 2007 permit and then
became subject to Outfall #005 effluent limitations and monitoring requirements under the 2007 permit.
The 2007 Outfall #001 & #005 tables of effluent limitations and monitoring requirements are provided in Exhibit 1.
The 2007 Outfall #001 table contained monitoring requirements applicable to pollutant effluents of the non-ELG
pollutants benzo(a)pyrene, chloride, total copper, total dissolved solids, fluoride, total lead, total mercury, total
selenium, total strontium, sulfate and vanadium. The 2007 Outfall #001 table also contained “final” water
WQBELs for the same pollutants which would be necessary for the Applicant to meet with its older Outfall #001
effluent limits (at the end of the compliance period) in order to keep from violating such Indiana water quality
standards. However, because of the planned construction of the diffuser, the 2007 permit gave Applicant the
opportunity to proceed with the end-of-discharge-pipe diffuser and alternate mixing zone approval under
significantly fewer and less stringent limitations provided in the 2007 Permit Outfall #005 table, with removal of all
of the subject final WQBELs previously provided as final effluent limitations in the Outfall #001 effluent limitation
table.
9

The establishment of effluent limitations under this section shall not operate to delay the
application of any effluent limitation established under section 1311 of this title.”

33 U.S.C. §1312(c). IDEM’s delay in setting WQBELs, and ultimate determination not to do so,
therefore may not “...operate to delay the application of any effluent limitation established under
section 1311.” IDEM’s determinations concerning WQBELs do not alter the fact that the
Department has to date imposed no TBELs for the subject pollutants.
8


By implementing the diffuser, the Applicant was effectively allowed to free itself of all
limits – not only WQBELs, but also any TBELs, since IDEM has expressed no intention (in
2007 or now) to establish them. Specifically, removal of the WQBELs and the effluent
monitoring requirements for benzo(a)pyrene, chloride, total copper, total dissolved solids,
fluoride, total lead, total selenium, total strontium and sulfate meant no effluent limitations at all
– neither WQBELs or TBELs – as well as no monitoring requirements were in place for these
pollutants.

Commenters note, in addition, that the diffuser cannot be considered BAT providing the
basis for a TBEL determination. EPA rules provide that “(e) Technology-based treatment
requirements are applied prior to or at the point of discharge.” 40 C.F.R. 125.3(e).

C. TBEL Requirements Must Be Established Notwithstanding the Refinery ELG

The Refinery Effluent Limitation Guideline issued in 1979 for petroleum refineries
(“Refinery ELG”), while it purported to regulate certain metals through indicator pollutants,
made very clear that permitting agencies retain the authority and the duty to regulate unlisted
pollutants. It stated in the preamble to the draft ELG (Exhibit 2),

[T]he fact that these regulations do not control a particular pollutant does not
preclude the permit issuer £rom limiting such pollutant on a case-by-case basis,
when necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. In addition, to the extent that
state water quality standards or other provisions of state or Federal law reql1ire
limitation of pollutants not covered by the regulations or require more stringent
limitation on covered pollutants, such limitations must be applied by the permit
issuing authority.

44 Fed. Reg 74525, 74536 (December 21, 1979) (emphasis in original). The preamble further
made clear,

It should be noted that the limitations in this regulation has been developed to
cover the general case for this industry. In specific cases, it may be necessary for
the NPDES permitting authority to establish permit limits on toxic pollutants
which are not subject to limitations in this regulation.


8
As discussed infra, Commenters consider the delay and ultimate inapplicability of the WQBEL limits to be
inappropriate.
10

Id. Clearly, such regulation is required here, where the Refinery has specifically been shown to
be discharging the pollutants at issue notwithstanding the controls on the purported indicators.
In any event, the ELG preamble was silent as to the ability of controls on pollutants covered in
the ELG to collaterally control several of the pollutants listed above. Although it asserts that
U.S. EPA “believes that the technology upon which BAT effluent limitations for phenol . . . and
chromium are based will effectively control the organic and metallic toxic pollutants listed in
Appendix D,” Appendix D does not include chloride, fluoride, strontium, or sulfate.

D. IDEM Failed to Set BAT-BPJ Effluent Limitations for Non-Effluent-Limitation-
Guidance-Listed Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants as Required

The Public Notice, Draft Permit and Fact Sheet contain no TBELs based on BAT-BPJ for
non-ELG-listed pollutants of concern. Specifically, Outfall #005 of the Draft Permit contains
no BAT-BPJ effluent limitations for selenium, sulfate, total dissolved solids, chlorides, arsenic,
lead, manganese, strontium, copper and arsenic.
9


Additionally, the Draft Permit contains no BAT-BPJ effluent limitation for nitrates. As
discussed supra, while Applicant implausibly claims to discharge no nitrates, it is evident that
Applicant likely discharges over 300,000 lbs. of nitrates per year.

The Draft Permit also contains no BAT-BPJ effluent limitation for total residual chlorine
on Outfall #005. Applicant claims it as “believed absent” in the August 2012 permit
application. However, Applicant submitted a pre-expansion water flow diagram showing 7.56
MGD of inlet flow which has previously been chlorinated before introduction to the refinery
supply main. Under such circumstances the Applicant should be at least required to monitor
total residual chlorine on a regular basis unless there is a valid process-related reason for
considering that all such reactive chlorine reacts with wastewater hydrocarbons to form other
toxicant species within the wastewater system.
10


Finally, the effluent limitation table of Outfall #005 contains no thermal limitations or
thermal monitoring requirements

III. Mercury

Commenters appreciate all of the effort that BP has made, in collaboration with Argonne
National Laboratory and the Purdue-Calumet Water Institute (“Argonne”). We are pleased to
see that the evaluated technologies succeeded in removing mercury down to the applicable water
quality standard of 1.3 µg/L at both the bench-scale and pilot-scale levels.

At the same time, we are concerned that the renewed NPDES permit issued to BP fully
reflect the results achieved by Argonne, and require that they be implemented as soon as
possible. Specifically, the re-opener provision must clarify the parameters for determining when
the control technology is sufficiently developed so as to require that it be implemented to meet a

9
Mercury is addressed separately infra.
10
IDEM should require Applicant to carry out analytical work on Outfall #005 total addressing Total Organic
Halides (TOX) / Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX)
11

TBEL. Compliance with this requirement is particularly urgent give that the streamlined
mercury variance (“SMV”) granted to BP, pursuant to applicable regulations, allows a mercury
discharge an order of magnitude higher than the WQBEL limit. The permit must make clear that
BP cannot be allowed to indefinitely study the problem if technology is available to reduce its
mercury discharge. Additionally, the language describing the next phase of pilot testing should
incorporate the specific recommendations from the Argonne research.

A. The Argonne Research Identified Mercury Control Technology on the Cusp of
Availability, and Made Specific Recommendations for Further Study

The Argonne researchers looked predominantly at two potential technologies for mercury
removal: ultrafiltration (“UF”) and reactive filtration (“RF”). Both technologies successfully
removed mercury down to 1.3 µg/L. However, UF removed it more consistently than the RF,
and there were only minimal technical issues identified with respect to UF that require further
exploration.

Regarding the UF technology, the researchers determined,

[T]he UF membrane pilot unit consistently provided permeate that was less than
0.5 ppt Hg, which met and exceeded the treatment target of 1.3 ppt of Hg. This
permeate quality was consistently produced at all tested operating conditions and
was independent of the feed water characteristics and feed Hg concentration.
This confirms the bench-scale Module 3 findings that there is no fundamental
physical or chemical barrier in achieving <1.3ppt Hg in the tested refinery
wastewater at the pilot-scale at least under these testing conditions of little
dissolved mercury in the pre-ETL (<0.5—1.05 ppt).

Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into Lake Michigan,
Phase 2, Module 4 Report (“Pilot Test Report”) at iv (J oint Executive Summary),
attached as Exhibit 3. Argonne provided a full-scale cost estimate that varied between
$39 and $174 million for a 40 MGD design capacity process (varying with criteria used
in cost calculations).
11
Id.

The RF technology (called Blue PRO), by contrast, was found to meet the 1.3
µg/L goal 92.7% of the time during the pilot test; and after 46 days of operation
experienced “mercury breakthrough” in the effluent which reduced its quality. The
researchers were able to restore effluent quality after the breakthrough by adding a
chemical, Nalmet 1689, to each filter’s influent. The researchers noted that the brevity of
test conditions limits their ability to draw conclusions regarding this fix. They also noted
that mercury accumulation was seen in the filter sand during Nalmet addition, suggesting
a potential long-term efficacy problem. Pilot Test Report at iv-v. The Pilot Test Report
also noted that adding the Nalmet before the sand filters was an additional potential
option that had not been explored in the pilot study. Id. at v. The cost estimate for the
RF technology (including Nalmet added to the influent) ranged from approximately $21
million to $38 million. Id.

11
The Outfall #005 discharge is 15.7 mgd, see Fact Sheet at 11
12


Based on these results, the Pilot Test Report specified the additional research that
was necessary concerning UF and RF. The only additional research identified as
necessary for UF, aside from a longer-term pilot study to confirm the initial pilot results,
was additional testing “to determine options for the full scale reject stream which collects
and concentrates the mercury removed from the effluent.” Id. at iv. However, with
respect to RF, the researchers specifically recommended, in addition to the reject stream
evaluation, additional testing of Nalmet addition. Argonne National Laboratory and
Purdue-Calumet Water Institute disagreed as to the order in which this testing should
proceed, with Argonne researcher recommending long-term testing of adding Nalmet
prior to the sand filters before any further testing of the RF (Blue PRO) technology, but
Purdue recommending testing the RF process together with Nalmet addition. Id. at vi.
The researchers also noted more generally the representative wastewater samples were
difficult to obtain through grab sampling, possibly due to the variability of wastewater
composition, and suggested using supplemental composite sampling. Id.

On August 16, 2012, pursuant to the PMPP associated with its SMV, BP
submitted to IDEM a report summarizing the pilot study and its recommendations. See
Letter dated August 16, 2012 to Paul Higginbotham, IDEM, from Linda J . Wilson, BP
(Exhibit 4) (“August 16 Letter”). BP’s summary was consistent with the description
provided above. In terms of its next steps, BP agreed to perform the longer-term UF pilot
study recommended by Argonne, including evaluation of options for the reject stream, as
well as addition of the composite samples. BP stated that the UF testing would
commence August 1, 2013 and conclude March 1, 2015. With respect to RF, however,
BP’s plans were framed less clearly. It appears from the August 16 Letter that the
company is generally willing to conduct additional RF tests, but the Letter does not
specify whether it will adopt Argonne’s recommendation to test the Nalmet addition
before the filters in advance of further testing of the Blue PRO technology, or Purdue’s
recommendation to test the two technologies in tandem. BP also notes that it will test the
efficacy of the Brine Treatment Unit in mercury removal.

B. The Draft Permit Fails to Adequately Incorporate the Argonne Research
Findings

The Draft Permit fails to adequately incorporate these detailed findings and
recommendations from the Pilot Test Report. The Draft carries over more or less
unchanged the provisions concerning mercury removal testing that were included in the
revised NPDES permit incorporating the SMV, even though that revised permit (issued
February 2012) predated the publication of the pilot test results (March 2012) and BP’s
subsequent report concerning them (August 2012). As a result, the Draft Permit does not
set forth a coherent plan for ensuring both that further pilot testing follows a well-defined
plan consistent with the Argonne research, and that the results of the research be used
within a reasonable timeframe to establish a TBEL for mercury regardless of whether the
WQBEL of 1.3 µg/L can be met. Commenters are very concerned that the Draft Permit
in its current form would allow BP to study the issue of mercury control indefinitely,
without ever committing to implement available technology.
13


1. Incorporation of Argonne Findings into the PMPP

The Draft Permit adds the following requirement to the PMPP:

1. a. BP will begin operation of such pilot demonstration unit of similar
size as the Purdue/Argonne pilot within eighteen (18) months of
the NPDES permit modification incorporating the SMV (August
17, 2013).
b. Complete the pilot demonstration and submit a final report to
IDEM within thirty-six (36) months of the NPDES permit
modification incorporating the SMV (February 17, 2015). The
pilot demonstration evaluation will include at least the following:
performance under varying weather and process conditions,
evaluation of options for waste streams, and reliability, operability,
and feasibility. The report to IDEM shall summarize the results of
the pilot demonstration, including reliability and feasibility of the
piloted mercury removal technology, and recommendations for the
next phase of review.

(The Draft Permit also adds a requirement, which Commenters support, that BP test mercury
removal at the Brine Treatment Unit.
12
) The above language tracks essentially word for word the
comparable requirement in BP’s pre-existing PMPP, without incorporating any of the specific
recommendations by Argonne concerning future pilot testing. Commenters therefore
recommend the following language for Part IV.D.1. to capture the Argonne recommendations, as
acknowledged by BP in the August 16 Letter (added language underlined):

1. a. BP will begin operation of such pilot demonstration unit of similar size as
the Purdue/Argonne pilot within eighteen (18) months of the NPDES
permit modification incorporating the SMV (August 17, 2013).
b. Complete the pilot demonstration and submit a final report to IDEM
within thirty-six (36) months of the NPDES permit modification
incorporating the SMV (February 17, 2015). The report to IDEM shall
summarize the results of the pilot demonstration, including reliability and
feasibility of the piloted mercury removal technology, and
recommendations for the next phase of review. The pilot demonstration
evaluation shall follow the recommendations of the pilot testing report
issued in March 2012 by Argonne National Laboratory and Purdue-
Calumet Water Institute (Argonne) except as described below, and shall
include at minimum the following:

(i) An evaluation of ultrafiltration technology (using GE ZeeWeed®
Technology, 0.04 µm pore size and made up of PVDF) for

12
As discussed in Section VII, Commenters advocate establishing internal outfall points. Internal outfall monitoring
would be particularly appropriate at the brine treatment unit, as the brine unit treatment process will also reduce
other metal toxicants which should be measured at that location.
14

particulate mercury removal, lasting at least 6 months, and using
the protocols and methods employed by Argonne.
(ii) An evaluation of the Blue PRO®reactive filtration process for
both particulate and dissolved mercury removal, lasting at least 6
months.
(iii) An evaluation of the use of Nalmet®in conjunction with Blue
PRO, including but not limited to addition of Nalmet®before BP’s
sand filters. Such testing shall be conducted either prior to further
evaluation of Blue PRO or in conjunction with such evaluation;
and BP shall explain in detail in its final report to IDEM the basis
for its determination whether to conduct the Nalmet®testing
before or in conjunction with further Blue PRO evaluation.
(iv) An evaluation of options for handling of mercury-containing full
scale reject and backwash streams.
(v) Use of grab samples supplemented by composite sampling for
rapid preliminary assessment of pilot performance.
(vi) Evaluation of performance under varying weather and process
conditions, evaluation of options for waste streams, and reliability,
operability, and feasibility.

Setting forth this level of specificity will ensure that BP proceeds in its research down a
path that is likely to lead to a determination in the reasonably near term concerning permanent
installation of mercury control technology. The language above does not create new or
restrictive requirements, but merely reiterates the Argonne recommendations acknowledged by
BP. To the extent BP may have reason not to follow the Argonne recommendations, it should be
required to explain to IDEM and the public their reasoning and basis for an alternative approach.

That said, Commenters remain open to discussing the recommended wording above with
IDEM and BP to the extent there are any specific issues raised concerning it. In particular, there
are several mercury removal technologies evaluated in the USEPA Draft Report (see infra next
subsection) that were not considered by Argonne, that USEPA considers to be fully available.
To the extent any of those technologies could potentially be deployed at the Refinery to treat its
particular effluent, those technologies should be evaluated as well. (Commenters understanding
is that the Argonne researchers focused on the UF and RF technologies as particularly
appropriate to BP’s waste stream.)

2. Incorporation of Argonne Findings into the Re-opener Provision

The discharge limit in the current permit and Draft Permit is extraordinarily high. While
commenters recognize that it is based up the SMV criteria set forth in applicable regulations, the
fact remains that this limit – 23.1 µg/L – is close to twenty times higher than the applicable
WQBEL. What is more, this limit is an annual average, with no daily maximum limit.

This situation is untenable past the short term as both an environmental and a legal
matter. Regardless of the legality of granting the SMV initially (Commenters’ concerns with the
Indiana SMV regulations are beyond the scope of these comments), the Clean Water Act is clear
15

– and IDEM has acknowledged – that, regardless of applicable WQBEL requirements and any
variance that may be granted from them, the discharger has a separate, independent obligation to
impose a TBEL based on a BPJ determination of BAT. See supra Section II. In this regard,
Commenters note that the 1979 Refinery ELG is silent concerning control of mercury discharges,
leaving no indication that technology-based mercury controls – which are only emerging three
decades later in the Argonne research – were ever considered. See Exhibit 2. Additionally, the
Refinery ELG, which was last amended in 1985, did not consider and could not have considered
today's prevalence of tar sand crude feedstocks with considerably higher levels of toxic metal
constituents than conventionally produced crude. Refineries processing conventional crude were
the overwhelming subject of the original Refinery ELG.

It is therefore imperative that mercury control technology be required as a TBEL as soon
as it is available. It is not relevant to BAT-BPJ analysis whether that technology is capable of
consistently achieving the WQBEL limit, since the WQBEL requirement is wholly separate from
the TBEL requirement. Thus, to the extent any technology is determined capable of reducing
BP’s mercury discharge – whether to the WQBEL level or above it – BP must be required to
implement that technology if it meets the criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d)(3) for a
determination of best available technology.

It is clear from the Argonne research that at least one form of mercury control, UF, is
capable substantially reducing the effluent in BP’s mercury, and is on the cusp of being ready to
deploy at the Refinery. As discussed above, the UF technology consistently achieved a level of
mercury in the refinery’s discharge that exceeded the quality necessary to meet the WQBEL, and
Argonne found “no fundamental physical or chemical barrier” to meeting that standard. Pilot
Test Report at iv. The only significant research required to be done at this point to confirm the
suitability of this technology is a 6 month pilot test, and an evaluation of options for addressing
the reject stream. The RF technology, by contrast, removed mercury less effectively (achieving
the WQBEL level only 92.7% of the time), and its efficacy deteriorated over time so as to
require the addition of NALMET. The NALMET addition requires further study, and the
Argonne National Laboratory researchers have recommended an extended two-phase time frame
for such study (study of NALMET addition before the sand filters; and if that testing is
successful the subsequent testing of Blue PRO together with NALMET). The RF technology
thus appears farther from becoming available than the UF technology.

The RF technology also appears to be potentially less expensive than the UF technology.
There is no legal basis, however, for allowing indefinite delay to allow a new, less costly
technology to emerge rather implementing a technology that is immediately available. Pollution
removal technology prices frequently decline over time, but the Clean Water Act does not define
“best available technology” as what may be “best” in the future, but rather as what is “available”
now to make progress toward the Act’s goals. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(i) (point source
pollutant discharge “shall require application of the best available technology economically
achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants”). While cost may be considered as
one of several factors in the BPJ determination of BAT, see 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d)(3), the test is a
stringent one. BAT has been held to represent “a commitment of the maximum resources
economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all polluting discharges.” EPA v. Nat’l
16

Crushed Stone Ass’n, 449 U.S. 64, 74 (1980). Thus, the relevant question in determining BAT is
not whether the RF technology may ultimately prove less expensive than the UF technology, but
whether the UF technology is available, most effective, and capable of being deployed using the
“maximum resources economically possible.”

In this regard, we note that it is particularly imperative here that new economic analysis
of mercury control technology in the context of a BAT determination be conducted as soon as
possible given that the economic analysis upon which the Indiana SMV program is predicated is
woefully outdated. In adopting its SMV procedures, Indiana purported to comply with the
requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 132 Appendix F it consider the cost criterion for a variance
(“substantial and widespread economic and social impact”) by making a one-time determination
that, given the cost of mercury control technology, that criterion would apply. The State
concluded that costs of compliance with the mercury water quality standard would be
prohibitive, and relies regulated community comments in support of that conclusion. Those
comments rely on a 2002 report by the Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, and a
1997 report by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“OEPA Report”) (attached as Ex. 5).
The OEPA Report, in turn, relied upon analysis of then-current technology including biologically
activated sludge, chemical precipitation, ion exchange, and reverse osmosis in concluding that
the cost of mercury removal would be prohibitive. Clearly, as the Argonne research has
demonstrated, an entirely new set of technologies now exists with very different economics. The
OEPA Report calculation also did not evaluate the economic feasibility of mercury removal in a
particularly meaningful or readily applicable manner, setting forth only a cost per pound of
mercury removed rather than, as did Argonne, a capital cost for a system sized for the Refinery.

Additionally, USEPA is currently conducting its own analysis of mercury removal
technologies to update the OEPA Report, and issued a draft report in April, 2012 (attached as Ex.
6) (“USEPA Draft Report”). That report evaluates in detail the technical and cost-effectiveness
of the technologies that have emerged since 1997 to control mercury (including those evaluated
by Argonne), and provides a detailed cost assessment of each. With respect to UF technology,
the USEPA Draft Report concludes that for a discharge of less than 20 mgd (the discharge from
Outfall 005, for which mercury limits are imposed, is 15.7 mgd, see Fact Sheet at 11), UF costs
are “relatively low.” Id. at v (Executive Summary).

For all of these reasons, Commenters are pleased that a reopener provision was included
in the Draft Permit, requiring that if a mercury technology is determined to be “available and
economically viable,” the Permit must be re-opened to require that such technology be
implemented. Draft Permit at 28. However, this reopener provision provides no specifics as to
how and when BP is to make such a determination of availability and viability, once again
raising the specter of a research process that will continue indefinitely without the need for
action as soon as possible. The reopener should be revised to clarify what is meant by “available
and economically viable,” and how such determination will be guided by the pilot tests that BP is
required to conduct.

Accordingly, Commenters recommend the following language for the reopener
concerning mercury (changes underlined):

17

If a treatment technology for the removal of mercury from wastewater is
identified and is determined by IDEM to meet the criteria in 40 C.F.R.
§ 125.3(d)(3) for a determination of best available technology, and/or be capable
of meeting the water quality based effluent limit set forth in Part I.A.1, then BP
must install and fully operate that treatment technology as soon as possible. In
making such determination, IDEM shall specifically determine whether the Final
Report submitted by BP pursuant to Part IV.D.1.b. reflects that any technology
evaluated was effective in reducing the mercury in BP’s waste stream beyond the
levels of removal currently being achieved by the PMPP, in which case IDEM
shall require that BP implement such technology unless it does not meet the 40
C.F.R. § 125.3(d)(3) criteria for a determination of best available technology.

Within 6 months after IDEM's determination or the final disposition of any appeal
of such determination, whichever is later, BP shall submit a schedule, subject to
IDEM approval, for the installation and operation of the identified treatment
technology that is as expeditious as possible. Any such determination shall be
considered final agency action, which BP may appeal. Upon completion of 12
months of operation, IDEM should modify the permit in accordance with 327
IAC 5-3.5-8 to revise the effective effluent limits for mercury at Outfall 005.

Commenters are aware that IDEM and BP engaged in discussion with USEPA Region 5
during the course of drafting the SMV NPDES modification concerning the reopener
provision. However, those discussions pre-dated that March 2012 Pilot Test Report,
which produced extremely positive results with respect to UF technology, providing
reason to believe that it may be considered available following the next round of pilot
tests. It is therefore important that the reopener provision be revised to reflect that new
reality.

Finally, Commenters note the possibility that has been raised that a TBEL
developed in accordance with the re-opener provision could temporarily co-exist in the
permit with the existing WQBEL developed in accordance with the SMV process, with
the TBEL being the more stringent of the two. As discussed above, the TBEL and
WQBEL requirements exist independently from one another. There is no legal or logical
reason why the existence of a WQBEL that has been relaxed through a variance should
obviate the need for a TBEL. The requirement for a WQBEL is triggered when a TBEL
proves insufficient to meet water quality standards, 33 U.S.C. § 1312, and that
continuing requirement is reflected in the final WQBEL of 1.3 µg/L that remains in the
permit. See Permit Section I.A.1. No reasonable reading of the statute could allow that
the TBEL requirement be rendered a nullity simply because the more stringent WQBEL
has been temporarily raised above the level that BAT could effectively meet. It is clear
that the TBEL would be the controlling standard until and unless the WQBEL of 1.3
µg/L can be met, at which point the SMV will no longer be operative. In any event, it
appears likely based on the Argonne research that the technology being developed
through pilot testing is capable of meeting the WQBEL, so the question may well turn out
to be moot.

18

IV. Cooling Water Intake

Applicant’s two cooling water intake structures (“CWIS”) in Lake Michigan have long
been subject to non-discretionary requirements of the Clean Water Act binding on IDEM to
evaluate whether the intake structures and cooling water practices utilized at the Refinery
comply with the following statutory criteria set forth in Act § 316(b):

“(b) Cooling water intake structures

Any standard established pursuant to section 1311 of this title or section 1316 of this title
and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and
capacity of cooling water intake structure reflect the Best Technology Available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact.”
13


Applicant’s CWIS are existing structures which are not subject to the Phase II rules at 40
C.F.R. §125.90 implementing § 316(b), but they are nevertheless subject to the following
requirement of a BPJ determination:

“(b) Existing facilities that are not subject to requirements under this or another subpart
of this part must meet requirements under section 316(b) of the CWA determined by the
Director on a case-by-case, best professional judgment (BPJ ) basis.”
14


IDEM is thus required to make a determination addressing Applicant’s CWIS, and as
whether the design, operation and monitoring of such equipment as shown in Applicant’s
submittal constitutes Best Technology Available (“BTA”) for “minimizing adverse
environmental impact” under 33 U.S.C. §1326(b). The design, operation, performance and
monitoring of the CWIS are all indisputably considered as elements of the required professional
engineering determination reflecting scientifically defensible BTA-BPJ findings and decisions
addressing whether Applicant’s present CWIS performance accomplishes a BTA level of
“minimizing adverse environmental impact.”

In considering its CWIS BTA decision, IDEM must also consider and address the
fundamental purpose of the Clean Water Act “...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”
15
The determination IDEM must make under 33
U.S.C. §1326(b) as to adverse environmental impact must necessarily address the remedial and
restorative goals of the Act as to the biological integrity of Lake Michigan as the navigable
waters in which Applicant operates their CWIS.

In this section, Commenters address both Applicant’s submittal addressing the CWIS
matter, and IDEM’s findings and determinations on the BTA determination addressing
Applicant’s cooling water intake structures. As demonstrated below, Applicant has completely
failed to demonstrate that its primitive intake system even approaches BTA for minimizing
aquatic life impacts. These structures lack even inlet screens to reduce aquatic life mortality –

13
33 U.S.C. §1326(b)
14
40 C.F.R. §125.90(b)
15
33 U.S.C. §1251
19

which is 100% for organisms entrained within the CWIS. Such intake screens – as well as many
other types of protective measures – are widely available and considered part of BTA. Yet
IDEM’s analysis failed entirely to consider such technology or the possibility that it might be
BTA. Its purported BPJ determination did not even assess the aquatic life harm being caused by
BP’s current CWIS structure, such as an evaluation current fish mortality levels; and included no
analysis as to whether improvements in that structure could mitigate harm.

A. Applicant’s August 2012 Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation is
Insufficient to Support a BTA-BPJ Determination

1. Applicant’s CWIS Documentation Contains No Demonstration that the of
Compliance with §316(b) Requirements

In August 2012, Applicant submitted documentation to IDEM addressing the cooling
CWIS being utilized at the Refinery site. See Exhibit 7 for Applicant’s CWIS documentation
submittal.

While the documentation acknowledged that IDEM was to conduct a Best Technology
BTA determination determined by BPJ , no part of the Applicant-submitted documentation
contains any specific claims and/or demonstrations by the Applicant that their CWIS equipment
actually complies with CWA Section 316(b), or that the subject CWIS equipment as presently
used at the refinery meets a BTA-commensurate level of protectiveness for “...minimizing
adverse environmental impact...” and for restoring the biological integrity of Lake Michigan in
which Applicant operates its CWIS. Commenters are not aware of any documents from the
Applicant that clearly and unambiguously state Applicant’s conclusion whether the present
design and operational practices for its two Lake Michigan CWIS intakes (as shown in the
August 2012 CWIS Documentation) comply with the objectives and provisions of 33 U.S.C.
§1326(b) read together with the Act’s purposes in restoring the biological integrity of Lake
Michigan.

Applicant’s brief CWIS documentation consists solely of physical and operational
descriptions of the cooling water intakes structures, the flumes and tunnels to Lake Michigan, the
pumping station physical features and the results of a diver inspection to determine intake facial
inlet plane orthogonal velocities, along with supporting schematic diagrams showing Applicant’s
current CWIS installations. This documentation contains no quantitative or qualitative
information addressing the present breadth and extent of biological damages and impairment to
fish and aquatic organisms caused as a result of Applicant’s CWIS operations in Lake Michigan.
IDEM Office of Water Quality (OWQ) permitting staff have verified that Applicant has never
submitted any information addressing the present or historical levels of Applicant-CWIS-caused
biological damage to aquatic life from Lake Michigan and that IDEM has not requested such
information from Applicant.
16



16
IDEM OWQ permitting staff confirmed this during an April 11, 2013 meeting/conference call with Commenters.
20

2. Applicant’s CWIS Documentation Fails to Include Information
Addressing the Manner in Which Applicant’s Present CWIS Causes or
Contributes to Aquatic Mortality Impingement and Entrainment Losses

While the Applicant provides a large amount of physical information about the CWIS in
question, none of the information or analysis describes any of the modalities for fish and aquatic
biological damage that is caused or created by the physical and operational elements of
Applicant’s CWIS intake processes and operations. In a proper determination and demonstration
of compliance with 33 U.S.C. §1326(b), IDEM must properly consider the manner and modality
of impingement and entrainment mortality losses caused by the present physical configuration of
Applicant’s CWIS equipment and operations because such biological damages are a part of the
process of ‘minimizing adverse environmental impacts in the form of fish and aquatic fauna
mortalities.

Because an IDEM BTA-BPJ determination must be reviewed as to whether it is a
properly articulated and scientifically defensible exercise in environmental engineering, such a
determination must necessarily consider the degree and manner in which the physical elements
and operational features of CWIS equipment cause or contribute to impingement and
entrainment aquatic mortality. No part of Applicant’s CWIS documentation provides the
information needed for a proper engineering judgment and determination on Applicant’s CWIS
in meeting the requirements of 33 U.S.C. §1326(b) and the required BPJ review.

3. Applicant’s Failure to Operate Continuous Volumetric Flow Monitoring
Devices Sufficient is Not Compatible with a Proper BTA-BPJ
Determination

Applicant’s CWIS documentation indicates that no direct-stream CWIS volumetric flow
monitoring is done at the facility.
17
Its methodology of monitoring the flow in the intakes is to
do so by using two general groups of calculations rather than direct continuous physical
parameter monitoring in intakes and tunnels. The first group of calculations addresses discharge
effluent flow monitoring together with calculated water losses within the refinery and back
calculates the total intake flow rate from both intakes combined. The CWIS documentation does
not disclose or indicate such calculations and how they were carried out.

The second group of calculations addresses flow proportioning ratios that apportion the
total combined intake flow rate from the first group of calculations between the 1911 and 1942
intake tunnels. The results of the second group of calculations lead to Applicant’s depiction of a
generally applicable operational assumption that the flow rate apportions 67 percent to the 1942
flume and 33 percent to the 1911 flume under all conditions. No justification or calculations
support Applicant’s claim that the stated flow proportioning stays constant between the two
tunnels.

Applicant’s intake flume flow monitoring approach is not acceptable because a non-
demonstrated, unapproved and undisclosed total volumetric flow calculation methodology
and tunnel volumetric flow rate proportioning assumption does not demonstrate a ‘best’

17
See Attachment #1, p. 3, last paragraph.
21

technology approach to intake process monitoring to address “minimizing adverse environmental
impacts.” Nothing about Applicant’s calculated tunnel volumetric rate determination and
monitoring methods demonstrates that Applicant’s procedures and calculation methods are the
“best” technology available and a basis for rejecting demands on the Applicant that continuous
volumetric parameter monitoring equipment be installed in both intake tunnels to Lake
Michigan. Nothing in the CWIS documentation can be considered as an Applicant showing that
such individual flume flow monitoring is either technically or economically infeasible.

As part of permit-required monitoring measures necessary for Applicant’s compliance,
IDEM should require the Applicant to install continuous volumetric flow rate monitoring
equipment in each CWIS intake flume and to maintain such a requirement as a permit-specified
effluent limitation for CWIS operational monitoring. In addition, IDEM should require a
showing and demonstration of how flume volumetric monitoring is related to keeping the
maximum CWIS intake facial plane orthogonal flow velocity below any required, recommended
and/or pre-determined velocity thresholds for fish and aquatic biological protection.

4. Applicant’s Supporting Calculations and Methodologies in the CWIS
Documentation are Undisclosed, Unsupported, and/or Inadequate

As noted in the prior sections, Applicant carried out two groups of calculations in support
of its CWIS Documentation, but Applicant did not submit or disclose any such calculations or
methodologies it used in making its determination. The entire theory of IDEM’s determination
of Applicant’s CWIS compliance with BTA for the present facility depends on the process
operational guarantee that acceptable intake facial plane orthogonal velocities will be maintained
through Applicant’s discharge flow-based back-calculation methodology and individual tunnel
flow apportionment of the total flow based on a fixed calculated assumption.

Commenters thus object to IDEM’s finding that Applicant’s CWIS documentation is part
of a complete and approvable application when none of the underlying calculations and
methodologies were submitted for review and BTA determination by the Applicant.
Commenters further object to the speculative nature of Applicant calculation approaches and
Applicant’s failure to show, consider or explain how Applicant’s overall approach to volumetric
intake rate determination constitutes an accurate assessment method.

a. Applicant Failed to Submit CWIS Documentation Drawings and a
Detailed Showing of the Physical Configuration of its Intake
Chlorination System on the 1942 Flume CWIS and Information
Necessary to Determine that Heated Chlorinated Solutions are Not
Discharged to Lake Michigan

Applicant’s CWIS Documentation the 1942 intake configuration indicates as follows:

In the early 1980s, a frazzle ice and biological fouling prevention system was put
in place. Hot water and chlorine solution are pumped out to manifolds running
the circumference of the intake in order to reduce ice and biological growth.
18


18
See Attachment #1, p. 3, second paragraph
22


However, the Applicant did not provide any drawings or other technical information showing the
exact location and placement of the hot water/chlorine solution ‘manifold’ and its placement
geometry with respect to the facial openings in the 1942 flume CWIS intake as shown on either
Figure 3 or 5 of Applicant’s submitted CWIS documentation (Exhibit 7). No information was
provided on the volumetric rate of feed of the heated, chlorinated water delivered to chlorination
manifold for release on the 1942 CWIS facial intake openings. In the absence of a specific
drawing addressing the placement of the subject manifold and detailed information showing such
information as the rate of heated, chlorinated water addition and the relationship between flow
rates of chlorinated water and the relative rates of intake volume, there can be no assurance that
the manifold will not cause a discharge of total residual chlorine to Lake Michigan as receiving
waters.

In addressing the potential for the anti-fouling chlorinated solution discharge, Applicant
must also simultaneously address and conform its claims that the design and operation of its
intakes will not also entrain fish and aquatic life at the facial plane of the intake inlet openings.

In making any showing by Applicant that the design and placement of the chlorinated hot water
solution injection manifold does not discharge to Lake Michigan in a manner that escapes the
CWIS, Applicant should also be required to show and address what effect the chlorinated
solution injection apparatus has on fish that are in or near the edges of the facial plane of the
CWIS intake opening. Applicant must not be allowed to operate an anti-fouling system having
the effect of impairing the ability of fish to escape entrainment flow at or near the CWIS facial
plane intake opening.

IDEM’s Fact Sheet indicates the Applicant plans to maintain a 0.25-0.5 mg/l total
residual chlorine concentration within the refinery water supply system.
19
The upper bound
concentration is 26 times the present Indiana CMC (Maximum) water quality standard of 19
µg/L for total residual chlorine.
20
Because the anti-fouling solutions used by the Applicant will
be acutely toxic to fish and aquatic life it is essential that the Applicant be required to provide
absolute clarity as to whether or not any portion of the flow of anti-fouling solutions at the 1942
CWIS will be discharged to Lake Michigan at the facial intake surfaces. The draft permit
should not issue without providing such information for review and verification that Applicant’s
intake chlorination manifold is not operating as a de facto additional outfall for a total residual
chlorine contaminated discharge stream discharged to Lake Michigan.

Applicant’s documentation also did not mention any intake chlorination on the 1911
flume. IDEM’s Fact Sheet mentions zebra mussel control on p. 42, but does not say that such
activities are carried out on the 1911 intake. The intake chlorination status of the smaller intake
should be clarified on the record during IDEM’s subsequent consideration of Applicant’s permit.


19
Commenters note that the IDEM Fact Sheet mention of these target internal water system and CWIS internal
water concentration targets were not provided or disclosed in the Applicant’s August 2012 BP Whiting Refinery
CWIS Documentation.
20
327 IAC 2-1.5-8(b)(3), Table 8-1
23


b. Applicant’s Single Day Diver Inspection and Measurement of Facial
Plane Orthogonal Flow Velocities Does Not Constitute a Continuous,
Direct & Real Time Volumetric Parameter Monitoring and
Verification Method

Applicant’s CWIS Documentation contains the results of a diver inspection and
measurement of the facial plane orthogonal intake flow velocities during a single day of refinery
operation when the combined total flume flow rate for the 1911 and the 1942 CWIS was
indicated as 85 MGD.
21
As part of its single day demonstration and CWIS documentation, the
Applicant also calculated (and did not measure) the flow proportioning between the two CWIS
intake flumes. Applicant calculated the flow proportioning at 33% for the 1911 tunnel/intake
and 67% for the 1942 tunnel/intake, but no such calculations and methodologies were provided
by Applicant in the documentation.

The CWIS documentation contains the results of the diver intake inlet facial plane
orthogonal intake velocity measurements, and shows these on page 4 and in figure 5.
Applicant’s submitted diver inspection and velocity measurements portray the two CWIS intakes
with a specific level of performance that Applicant intrinsically claims as being acceptable when
measured on November 13, 2009 while operating at a calculated combined total intake rate of 85
MGD. However, nothing about this submitted information and inspection assures that the
intakes will operate at all times with maximum and/or average facial intake velocities less than
those observed on November 13, 2009 at the respective two Lake Michigan intakes.

For example, the average combined flow reported for 2009-2001 is 92 MGD. Non-
firewater pumping unit capacity is 117.8 MGD for No. 1 Water Station and 146.3 MGD for No.
2 Water Station. Nothing about the submitted diver inspection information ensures that
Applicant will be able to maintain the same or similar CWIS facial plane intake velocities under
all facility operating and plant production rate conditions. Applicant is not accepting a limit of
85 MGD per day for total CWIS intake daily volumes.

Specifically, nothing about Applicant’s submittal ensures that the facility will have the
same or similar CWIS intake facial plane velocities while the facility is operating at the
maximum physical pumping process rates for both non-firewater and firewater pumps. Nothing
in Applicant’s submittal establishes a functional relationship between CWIS intake facial plane
normal velocities and hourly volumetric intake process rates in both the 1911 and 1942 intake
tunnels. Without direct tunnel volumetric flow measurement as parameter monitoring for CWIS
operation for intake facial plane orthogonal velocity flow control and without a clear
mathematical relationship between refinery water demand and such facial velocities, nothing
about Applicant’s CWIS documentation provides a basis for ensuring that CWIS operations do
not have unacceptable facial plane orthogonal velocities under all water intake tunnel volumetric

21
No direct measurement of refinery intake flow was taken to determine the 85 MGD flow rate, which was
determined by Applicant with a non-disclosed calculation method based on discharge outfall flow monitoring and
back-calculation which allegedly considered refinery evaporative losses and stormwater inputs. Nothing in
Applicant’s submittal indicates whether such a method of intake flow determination is executable on a real time and
short term averaging time basis.
24

rates and typical rate variability.

c. Applicant’s CWIS Documentation Fails to Identify and Quantify the
Total Intake Facial Plane Area for the 1911 and 1942 CWIS

A key and important parameter for evaluating CWIS physical configurations is the total
intake facial plane area for each of the 1911 and 1942 CWIS. Applicant should be required to
specifically state the total inlet area for each of the two intake units.

d. Review of Applicant’s November 13, 2009 CWIS Intake Facial Plane
Orthogonal Velocities and Assumed Volumetric Flow Rates and Flow
Proportioning Shows Inconsistency and Implausibility on Applicant’s
Calculated Combined Intake Daily Flow Volumes and Flow
Proportioning Percentages Ratios

Applicant calculated an 85 MGD combined total intake volumetric flow rate for the day
of the diver inspection and intake facial plane velocity measurements on November 13, 2009.
Applicant’s unmeasured but calculated
22
flow proportioning result is 33% of combined total flow
rate for the 1911 intake and 67% of combined total flow rate for the 1942 intake. At this flow
rate proportioning, the 1911 inlet volume would be 28 MGD and the 1942 inlet volume would be
57 MGD for the November 13, 2009 day of operations when diver measured intake facial plane
orthogonal velocities were determined on both of Applicant’s CWIS inlets.

To check this calculation, Commenters used Applicant’s measured CWIS facial velocity
data to estimate by calculation the volumetric flow rate at each intake implicit to the facial
velocity detected in the diver inspection on November 13, 2009. See Exhibit 8 for Commenters
determination of the total CWIS facial inlet area for both intakes and for Commenters’
volumetric calculations. Commenters determined the 1911 intake facial plane opening area as
55 square feet. At the 1911 intake inlet facial plane normal velocity of 0.56 ft/sec, Commenters
calculate an estimate of the 1911 intake volumetric rate on November 13, 2009 to be 19.9 MGD.
Commenters additionally determined the total 1942 intake facial plane inlet opening area as 480
square feet. At the November 13, 2009 average 1942 intake inlet facial plane normal velocity of
0.26 ft/sec, Commenters calculate an estimate of the 1942 intake volumetric rate on November
13, 2009 to be 80.7 MGD. These conclusions are summarized in the table below:

1911 Intake 1942 intake
Applicant’s determination of volumetric rates on
11/13/2009 using 85 MGD combined total and Applicant’s
calculated 33-67 proportioning ratio

28 MGD

57 MGD

22
Applicant did not disclose the flow proportioning calculation methodology used to obtain the 33/67 split
approach.
25

Commenters’ calculated estimate of 11/13/2009 intake
volumetric rates based on diver-measured CWIS intake
inlet velocity determination and Commenters’
determination of total inlet facial plane area

19.9 MGD

80.7 MGD

As shown in the table, Commenters’ calculated estimates demonstrate volumetric rates that are
considerably less than Applicant’s volumetric rate determination for the 1911 intake and
considerably greater than Applicant’s volumetric rate determination for the 1942 intake.
There is thus good reason to question Applicant’s calculation methods and the potential of such
methods to propagate erroneous determination of intake inlet volumetric rates.

e. Applicant’s CWIS Documentation Contains No Information, Review or
Narrative Addressing Efforts at Intake Flow Reduction

While the Applicant’s NPDES application mentions two new cooling towers as part of
the facility expansion and modifications, nothing in the CWIS documentation addresses
Applicant’s obligation to consider alternatives to reduce or mitigate intake fish damages by
increasing the use of closed cycle cooling towers at the Whiting Refinery. There is no
demonstration or adequate showing provided of existing cooling tower use and potential future
cooling tower use for a portion or all of the facility’s cooling water needs.

The present level of mitigation through inlet flow reduction through existing cooling
towers should have been included in a demonstration of compliance with § 316(b), along with
information and narratives addressing why further cooling tower use should or should not be
implemented as part of a BTA-BPJ determination carried out under § 316(b).

f. Applicant’s CWIS Documentation Contains Misleading and Erroneous
References to Screens Associated with its CWIS Intakes and Water
Stations and to Nominal Volumetric Flow Depictions

Applicant states in its introduction to the CWIS documentation as follows:

“Therefore, IDEM is requesting that the BP Whiting Business Unit provide a description
of the CWIS that includes the average velocity of the inflow through the intake
screens, as well as engineering drawings of the CWIS. The following sections present
the CWIS configuration, water station description, and average through screen
velocity.”
23
(emphasis added)

Applicant then states:

“Although grating exists on the intake system to exclude large debris, no intake screen
system exists.”
24
(emphasis added)


23
August 2012 BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation, p. 1, 1
st
paragraph.
24
ibid, p. 1, 2
nd
paragraph
26

Next, Applicant states as to the 1911 intake:

“....the central pipe is now an open pipe receiving vertical water flow. This intake
provides a small proportion of the total design intake flow and is located
approximately 1,330 feet offshore.”
25
(emphasis added)

However, the express conclusion of this statement conflicts with Applicant’s own analysis on
page 4 of the relative proportional flows between the 1942 and 1911 intakes. While an average
1911 intake volumetric flow of 30.3 MGD [and 33% of the total combined intake tunnel flow]
can be validly described as “smaller” than the stated 1942 intake volumetric flow, as a matter of
comparison, to Applicant’s statement that a intake flow of 30.3 MGD means that “....this intake
provides asmall proportion of the total design intake flow”
26
is an plainly not accurate. It is
merely an unsuccessful effort to minimize the impact of Applicant’s continued use of a primitive
intake system having no little or no mitigation of fish and aquatic losses.

Additionally, Commenters note that Applicant states that “Average through screen velocity
was measured on November 13, 2009 during a routine intake inspection.” However, Applicant
has previously explained that the facility’s CWIS do not have inlet screens at all. at all.
Applicant should therefore not have referred to the diver’s intake inlet facial plane orthogonal
velocity measurements as determinations of “average through-screen velocity.” Use of such
terms suggests that Applicant is somehow mitigating biologically damaging conduct from intake
operation with either inlet screens which do not exist, or screens within the Water Stations which
cannot protect fish that have become entrained and trapped in Applicant’s primitive 100% fish
mortality CWIS intake systems.

Finally, Commenters note IDEM's reliance on Applicant's submitted monthly average
intake volumetric data in the publication of the Fact Sheet when the agency never obtained or
reviewed Applicant's calculation methodology in detail. IDEM's uncritical and non-evaluative
approach to accepted Applicant's calculation model is not appropriate.

B. IDEM’s Review of Applicant’s CWIS Submittal Does Not Reflect a BAT-BPJ
Determination that is Sufficient Under § 316(b)

IDEM purports to have made a determination based on BPJ that Applicant’s existing
cooling water intake structures represent BTA to minimize adverse environmental impact in
accordance with § 316(b) as shown on p. 47-48 of the IDEM Fact Sheet. However, major
portions of the IDEM’s BTA determination findings and determinations are published and taken
as direct verbatim adoption of the text and analysis of Applicant’s CWIS documentation.
Additionally, IDEM improperly treated the application as complete notwithstanding the severe
deficiencies documented in the previous section.
27



25
Ibid, p. 2,
26
Emphasis added
27
Commenters regard the IDEM determination as both an implicit and explicit finding by the agency that
Applicant’s submitted CWIS documentation was complete and that Applicant’s NPDES permit application for
renewal was also thus deemed as complete.
27

As discussed above, § 316(b) requires IDEM as part of the NPDES permit issuance
process to use BPJ to set binding permit effluent limitations. A case by case analysis carried out
in the present matter of Applicant’s facility must necessarily examine relevant features of
Applicant’s CWIS intakes pertinent to making a professional judgment concerning the BTA
decision.

The BPJ process of determining compliance with § 316(b) cannot act as a de facto
variance process from the requirements of that section. In carrying out a BTA determination,
IDEM must produce a result which would provide a similar level of protectiveness for fish and
aquatic resources that would be provided in a national rulemaking on CWIS intakes. It is not
sufficient for IDEM to defer or to allow the Applicant to defer required elements of minimization
of aquatic biological damage until a time when a national binding rule is published. BPJ review
necessarily involves scientific inquiry and assessment of what specific “adverse environmental
impacts” in the form of fish and aquatic fauna mortalities are presently caused by the present
design and operation of Applicant’s present CWIS intake equipment in Lake Michigan.

A valid BPJ determination is not possible when no information exists and no inquiry is
made to the present level of biological damage being caused by the facility’s present CWIS
intakes, as inquiry on “adverse environmental impacts” must necessarily focus on biological
damage in the form of aquatic mortalities for fish and aquatic fauna in all life stages. Such an
inquiry should provide a quantitative basis for decision-making in the form of a biological
identification of the amount, the rate and the flow-relatedness of fish and aquatic fauna
mortalities from operation of the two intake in Lake Michigan. A valid inquire further involves
physical identification, analysis and narrative review showing each element of Applicant’s
present CWIS intake design and operation and a review of how and whether each of these
physical and operational CWIS elements mitigates “adverse environmental impacts” in the form
of biological damage caused by Applicant’s CWIS intakes. A scientifically defensible BTA-BPJ
review must also not merely review the impact of existing CWIS equipment, but must
necessarily consider and evaluate potential use of alternative intake physical configurations and
techniques having the potential to control, limit or eliminate impingement and entrainment
losses, including intake flow reductions, fish return systems, alternate internal and inlet opening
screen systems, use of adjacent fine mesh nets, and other intake mitigation and control
techniques. As a matter of law and logic, consideration of such alternative technologies for
mitigating adverse environmental impacts is part and parcel of determining whether the
technology the Applicant is using is actually the “best technology available.” That determination
simply cannot be made if the limits its analysis to only those technologies presently in use by
Applicant.

It should not have taken IDEM from the time of Applicant’s first renewal application
submittal in February 2012 until April of 2012 to arrive at the conclusion that the Applicant
should have addressed fish return systems in their application renewal narrative and
demonstration. IDEM should have informed the Applicant back in February 2012 that its
application was incomplete because it did not incorporate a fish return system. If IDEM had
taken such an action in February, 2012, then at the present time the Applicant would have been
getting a final approval on a specific plan to comply at an earlier rather than a later time.
IDEM’s failure to diligently require the implementation of 33 U.S.C. §3126(b) requirements can
28

potentially lead to 3-5 years of additional delay before the Applicant is in final compliance with
what IDEM deems to be appropriate fish protection and aquatic mortality mitigation measures.

The sections below describe in detail how IDEM failed to adhere to these requirements,
and failed to conduct the analysis necessary for a scientifically defensible BTA-BPJ
determination.

1. IDEM Failed to Adequately Assess Current Aquatic Life Impacts

Applicant’s August 2012 Cooling Water Intake Document contained no information at all
addressing impingement and entrainment mortalities of fish and aquatic fauna from the present
design and operation of Applicant’s two Lake Michigan CWIS intakes. IDEM Office of Water
Quality (“OWQ”) has also not collected information quantifying biological damages and aquatic
mortalities from Applicant’s two Lake Michigan CWIS intakes. Accordingly, the OWQ
inappropriately determined that Applicant’s NPDES renewal submittal was complete IDEM staff
have confirmed that Applicant has never been asked to document and quantify its present level
of biological damages in the context of the duty to “minimizing adverse environmental impacts”
during the past history of IDEM regulation of the facility.

Given that no information at all exists in the record about fish and aquatic fauna
mortalities in all life stages caused by the existing design and operation of Applicant’s CWIS
intakes, IDEM’s BTA-BPJ finding and determination that Applicant’s CWIS intakes “minimize
adverse environmental impacts” is plainly insufficient. IDEM’s determination must be set aside
because its finding that Applicant is minimizing “adverse environmental impacts” is not
supported by scientific evidence of present and existing biological damages from Applicant’s
intake equipment.

2. IDEM Failed to Properly Identify, Analyze and Describe its Existing
CWIS Intake Equipment Affects, Mitigates and/or Minimizes Biological
Damage

Nothing in Applicant’s August 2012 CWIS Documentation addresses or demonstrates
how the physical and operational features of Applicant’s CWIS intake equipment either cause,
contribute to, mitigate and/or minimize “adverse environmental impacts” in the form of fish and
aquatic fauna mortality, which as described above is an essential part of BTA-BPJ analysis.For
example, both the Applicant and IDEM give no reason at all why the reported “average through-
screen velocity” as determined by diver inspection ought to be considered as parameter values
demonstrating measures deemed or considered to reduce or minimize fish and aquatic life
damage A scientifically defensible review would need to show how, why, whether and to what
extent the Applicant-submitted single-day-diver-measured “through-screen” velocities as a
demonstration of claimed protectiveness should be considered as a demonstration of
“minimizing adverse environmental impacts” or otherwise as a mitigation measure to limit or
reduce entrainment and/or impingement losses.

29

3. IDEM’s Acceptance of a Demonstration of Measured “Through Screen
Velocities” Based on an 85 MGD Flow Rate Cannot be Considered as a
Demonstration that § 316(b) Requirements are Met

From an operational evaluation standpoint, both Applicant and IDEM portray the intake
velocity performance that occurred on November 13, 2009 in the diver-measured inspection
during a portion of that day as being characteristic of facility operations for decision-making
purposes. However, the diver-measured facial velocities depicted in the IDEM Fact Sheet and
in Applicant’s CWIS August 2012 Documentation can only be considered as characteristic of
intake operations at the claimed 85 MGD flow rate occurring on November 13, 2009 or at a
lesser rate. Since monthly average calculated actual intake flow rates up to 114.8 MGD occurred
as recently as September, 2011, a proper determination of CWIS intake protectiveness must
necessarily consider the performance of the intake as to inlet facial velocity matters occurring at
the maximum refinery water station pumping rates expected during normal present operations
and during future refinery expansion operations. As discussed above, Commenters calculated an
estimate of 1942 intake flow of over 80 MGD from this inlet during the diver-inspection facial
velocity measurements, while Applicant predicted a 67% flow equal to 57 MGD at the 1942
intake during the inspection. Nothing in Applicant’s August 2012 CWIS Documentation or in
IDEM’s Fact Sheet explains or addresses why a monthly average of daily actual intake values (as
calculated and not directly measured) should be considered to be an appropriate quantitative
intake physical operations indicator parameter sufficient to inform decision-making to assure
compliance with intake facial plane orthogonal velocity performance that must be maintained on
a very short term basis to maintain biological damage reduction and mitigation under all
circumstances. At the very least, IDEM should have addressed short term variability in the
refinery’s CWIS intake facial plane orthogonal velocity rates and the effect of such short term
variability on the expected protectiveness of intake performance at both Lake Michigan intakes.

a. IDEM’s Should Not Have Accepted Applicant’s Calculated Actual
Intake Flow Data in the Absence of Applicant’s Disclosure of its
Intake Flow Calculation and Flow Proportioning Algorithms and
Calculation Methodology

IDEM should not have accepted the Applicant’s method of calculating combined total
inlet flows on the basis of discharge flow monitored values and calculated flow proportioning
factors between the two inlet tunnels without first performing an engineering review of
Applicant’s inlet flow calculations and without a public showing in the record of such
calculations. IDEM’s acceptance of Applicant’s calculated intake flow rates based on discharge
outfall flow monitoring and ‘back calculating’ intake rate value means that no public record
exists which can be used to verify Applicant’s calculated intake volumetric rates. Such
verification is necessary to ensure that the BTA decision is made in a defensible scientific
manner according to a standard of Best Professional J udgement (BPJ ) review.

30

b. Applicant’s Outfall 005 and 002 Effluent Flow Characterization
Raises Questions as to Whether IDEM’s BTA-BPJ Review Properly
Considered Maximum Potential Intake Volumetric Rate Variability on
Intake Facial Velocity Performance

Applicant’s NPDES Application contained the following volumetric flow specifications
for Outfalls 002 and 005:

[Flow in MGD] Maximum Daily
Flow
Maximum 30 day
average of Daily
Flow
Long Term
Average
Outfall #002 98.7 86.2 73.7
Outfall #005 27.4 19.9 15.7
TOTAL 126.1 106.1 89.4

An additional application data element shows in a Water Flow Diagram contained in Applicant’s
NPDES renewal submittal and shown as Exhibit 9. This sheet identifies a maximum monthly
average of daily flow to be 111.14 MGD.

This volumetric rate data raises questions again about the potential variability of the
intake flow in light of these combined discharge numbers. IDEM’s implicit assumption that a
depiction of diver measured intake inlet facial plane orthogonal flow velocities at a combined
total tunnel intake flow rate of 85 MGD as occurred during the diver inspection can be
considered characteristic of performance at expected higher daily intake flow rates which will
occur frequently at Applicant’s facility was inappropriate.

c. IDEM’s BTA Demonstration Erroneously Concludes that Calculated
Intake Inlet Volumetric Rate Determinations and Theoretical
Calculations for Flow Proportioning Between Intakes is BTA and that
Direct Continuous Volumetric Flow Rate Monitoring Technology in
Both Intakes is Not

As discussed above, Applicant does not operate flow rate monitoring devices on the two
CWIS intake tunnels to the two Lake Michigan intakes. Such continuous monitoring of intake
tunnel flow rates is a technically feasible and available technology for parameter monitoring to
help ensure and guarantee that intake inlet facial plane orthogonal velocity performance of
intakes will reflect performance in compliance with 33 U.S.C. §3126(b) in minimizing adverse
environmental impacts.

However, in IDEM’s BTA demonstration and review of how the Applicant considers or
monitors performance IDEM relies only on what the Applicant has proposed for intake system
monitoring in general and for intake tunnel volumetric flow rate monitoring specifically. IDEM
did not consider other techniques of monitoring and specifically did not consider requiring the
Applicant to do direct flow rate monitoring in each of Applicant’s two tunnels to Lake Michigan.
31


IDEM’s BTA demonstration thus fails from an intake process monitoring standpoint.
IDEM’s decision considered as “best” a combined total intake volumetric calculation method
based on outfall flow rates and ‘back calculation’ of intake flow rates together with an
unverified/undisclosed calculated theoretical flow rate proportioning ratio method between the
two intakes. IDEM’s BTA intake monitoring decision preferring Applicant’s calculated results
over the use of actual continuous volumetric rate monitoring in Applicant’s two intake tunnels is
therefore in error.

4. Applicant’s and IDEM’s Description of “Through-Screen Velocity”
Obscures the Fact that Both of Applicant’s Lake Michigan Intakes Will
Cause 100% Mortalities as Entrainment Trapping Losses

Applicant and IDEM do not disclose or explain that the stated intake facial plane
“through-screen velocities” as articulated on page 44 have nothing to do with screens and
nothing to do with avoiding impingement losses at the facial plane of the intake inlet openings.
In fact, fish and aquatic life that become entrained in Applicant’s intake flow will be subjected to
chlorination at concentrations well above Indiana water quality standards. Fish and aquatic
organisms that survive inlet tunnel chlorination but remained trapped in the tunnel will not
survive Water Station and refinery water main process-related screening operations, pumping
operations and thermal loads.

IDEM and Applicant should have acknowledged the mortality effects and the 100% fish
entrainment losses in the present and existing system with few if any measures to reduce such
damages or to address exclusion from intake entrainment.

5. IDEM’s Best Technology Available Determination Fails to Address the
Effect of Intake Chlorination on Fish and Aquatic Mortalities in
Applicant’s Intake System

Determination of what intake technologies should be deemed to be BTA for minimizing
adverse environmental impacts must necessarily consider the effects of intake chlorination for
zebra/quagga mussel control on fish and aquatic fauna as an inextricably intertwined factor.
However, IDEM’s analysis and review of the intake matter fails to show and address the effect
of intake chlorination on all features of intake-related aquatic biological protection and the 33
U.S.C. §1326(b) decision. For example, IDEM failed to conduct or require Applicant to provide
an analysis of what effect intake chlorination practices will have on the performance and efficacy
of a potential fish return system at Applicant’s CWIS water intake system. Realistic assessment
of intake chlorination practices on fish return systems and fish survival inside of Applicant’s
intake tunnels may mitigate for installation of entrainment exclusion controls and intake inlet
screens rather than a fish return system at this facility in a revised BTA demonstration addressing
Applicant’s intake equipment.

32

6. IDEM Failed to Require Applicant to Fully Vet Alternative Intake
Technology for Intake Flow Reduction

Neither IDEM’s BTA demonstration nor Applicant’s CWIS documentation provide
complete vetting and appropriate consideration of alternative intake flow reduction technology.
IDEM’s BTA determination contains no consideration of alternative flow reduction through use
of additional closed cycle cooling tower units beyond the two additional units Applicant is
installing as part of the Whiting Refinery expansion. Nothing in IDEM’s determination
indicates the extent and magnitude of Applicant’s existing commitments to existing cooling
tower units, including a complete description of the heat dissipation load carried by the existing
cooling tower units as compared to the total refinery heat load and the proportion discharged
through single pass cooling water systems. Such analysis should have included, at minimum,
evaluation of intake flow reductions, fish return systems, alternate internal and inlet opening
screen systems, use of adjacent fine mesh nets, and other intake mitigation and control
techniques.

V. Effluent Characterization

A. Applicant’s Permit Application Effluent Characterization Shows that Certain
Pollutant Aqueous Concentrations are Increasing

Commenters examined aqueous pollutant concentration effluent data for Outfall #005 in
Applicant’s February 2012 NPDES permit renewal application and similar data for Outfall #001
contained in the 2006 NPDES permit application. That examination shows that Applicant’s
pollutant effluent concentrations increased from the time of the 2006 permit application to the
filing of the February 2012 NPDES permit renewal application in the manner shown in the table
below:

Outfall 005
Pollut
ant
Maximum Daily Effluent
Concentration (mg/l)
Monthly Average Effluent
Concentrations (mg/l)

2006 2012


Factor of
increase -
2012 / 2006
2006 2012


Factor of
increase -
2012 / 2006
Selenium 0.034 0.038 1.1 0.0215 0.035 1.6
Sulfate 370 868 2.3 315 701 2.2
Tot
Dissolved
Solids
980 2143 2.2 905 1721 1.9
Chlorides 424 611 1.4 263 392 1.5
Arsenic 0.0077 0.014 1.8 0.0071
33

Lead 0.021 0.043 2.0 0.0077 0.005
Manganese 0.089 0.12 1.3 0.073
Strontium 0.78 0.90 1.2 0.53 0.61 1.2
Copper 0.0058 0.019 3.3 0.0029 0.0047 1.6
Arsenic 0.0077 0.014 1.8 0.0071
Vanadium 0.63 0.84 1.3 0.37 0.55 1.5

All of the pollutants listed in the table above were subject to monitoring requirements and
final water quality based effluent limitations in the pre-diffuser Outfall #001 2007 NPDES
permit. However, the final water quality based effluent limitations for 2007 permit Outfall #001
never went into effect because the Applicant chose to install a diffuser regulated under Outfall
#005 in the 2007 permit. Once the outlet diffuser was installed in Lake Michigan, Applicant as
permit-holder became permanently subject to Outfall #005 effluent limitations in the 2007 permit
which did not include the previous water quality based effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements applicable to the pollutants regulated through Outfall #001 under the terms of the
2007 NPDES permit.

Only vanadium remains regulated under Outfall #005 in IDEM’s Draft 2013 permit
renewal. However, the 2013 permit vanadium allowed effluent limitations are significantly
higher than what would have been allowed under final vanadium limits in the 2007 permit
Outfall #001 effluent limit table.

Commenters request that IDEM locate historical flow rate information in order to
determine if the Applicant increased its pollutant loadings to Lake Michigan as a result of these
reported increases in aqueous pollutant concentrations in Outfall #005 during the term of the
2007 permit effectiveness. Once IDEM completes the task of determining whether the Applicant
increased loading rates of the pollutants addressed, Commenters request that IDEM publish such
findings for public review as part of the responsiveness summary in this matter. Further,
Commenters request that IDEM clarify whether the Applicant caused such loading rate
increases, when such increases occurred (including times before the diffuser went into operation)
and whether any such loading increases triggered any aspect of regulatory concern.

B. Applicant’s Nitrate Effluent Characterization in the August 2012 NPDES Permit
Application Appears to be Inaccurate

Applicant’s operations associated with processing increased amounts of tar sands
synthetic crude is an activity that increases the flux of nitrogen as inputs to the Refinery
wastewater system. In the ongoing Refinery expansion, Applicant is increasing capacity for sour
water stripping which means additional loads of ammonia directed to the refinery’s lakefront
wastewater treatment plant.

34

In reviewing Applicant’s August 2012 effluent characterization, Applicant indicated that
nitrates were “believed absent” and a concentration value of <0.1 mg/l was listed. In addition to
this data, Commenters reviewed Applicant’s entire history of TRI reports on water effluents
listed for nitrate compounds. Over the entire history that nitrate compounds have been
reportable TRI compounds for water effluent reporting up to the most recent reporting year,
Applicant has never submitted any such TRI water effluent reports for nitrate compounds to U.S.
EPA.

However, Applicant’s 2006 NPDES permit renewal application contains several
indications the Whiting Refinery wastewater treatment plant discharges substantial nitrate
compound effluents from its facility WWTP operations. All of these admissions are contained
in Applicant’s November, 2006 anti-degradation analysis.
28
Exhibit 10 includes relevant pages
from that analysis addressing the presence of nitrate in Applicant’s process wastewater
discharge.

In the “Addendum” portion of Exhibit 10 on page 1 of that document, Applicant’s
consultant states:

“The Lakefront WWTP is not specifically designed to degrade (nitrify) ammonia,
however conditions do existing in the aeration tank that allow the growth of nitrifiers and
the mass of these nitrifiers has been effective in degrading ammonia. The removal
efficiency used for this Anti-Deg Analysis has been developed as follows ....... Ammonia
removal efficiency % =70%”

The original volume of the cited report contains 3 tables in Exhibit 10 showing high daily rates
of nitrate effluent. Table 12 of the document is entitled “BP Whiting Lakefront WWTP CXHO
Nitrogen Evaluation (Modified with 2001-=2002 Long Term Average)” and shows facility
nitrate compounds calculated at 923 lbs per day, which is an annual rate of nitrate compound
effluents of over 336,000 lbs/year.

These statements from 2006 contradict Applicant’s own August 2012 NPDES permit
application characterization of nitrate effluents. Applicant acknowledged in 2006 that
nitrification bacteria colonized their aeration wastewater treatment unit and Applicant used and
assumed the bacterial nitrification activity in their treatment units as a key strategy in their
method for reducing ammonia effluents. Given such admissions from 2006, Applicant cannot
credibly state on their NPDES application that nitrate effluents are believed absent.

At a nominal loading rate of 923 lbs. of nitrates per day and at the present flow rate of
19.9 MGD, aqueous concentrations of nitrate would nominally be expected to be about 5.6 mg/l,
which is higher than the <0.1 mg/l concentration listed by the Applicant in the August 2012
NPDES permit application.

Commenters further note that Applicant’s purported lack of nitrates in its effluent, if true,
would be extremely unusual for the petroleum refinery industry, as the vast majority of large,
existing refineries in the United States report over 10,000 lbs of TRI nitrate compound aqueous

28
Case by Case Antidegradation Analysis, November, 2006; prepared for BP Whiting Refinery by Advent Environ
35

effluents annually. The Applicant should be required to provide further evidence to support an
anomalous lack of nitrate, particularly in light of its 2006 statements.


C. IDEM Should Reject Applicant’s Operational and Monitoring Method
Interpretation of the Outfall #005 Effluent Limitation for Phosphorus

Applicant’s 2007 NPDES Permit and the present IDEM Draft Permit both contain
effluent limitation and monitoring requirements for phosphorus. Applicant’s February, 2012
NPDES application contains an effluent characterization report for Outfall #005 showing a title
legend of “Phosphorus (as P), Total.” However, the note at the bottom of the page states:

“Note: As per NPDES Permit, Ortho Phosphorus analysis is substituted for Total
Phosphorus analysis”

However, Commenters have diligently searched both the existing 2007 permit and IDEM’s Draft
Permit, but can find no provision of either document which authorizes the Applicant to substitute
the analytical method for ortho phosphorus instead of using the analytical method for total
phosphorus.

Clearly, the absolute magnitude of reported phosphorus when using the analytical method
for ortho phosphorus will be less than the absolute magnitude of an analytic result for reported
phosphorus as total phosphorus on the same wastewater sample. IDEM must therefore clarify
that the total phosphorus analytical method is required for compliance evaluation monitoring on
the phosphorus effluent limitation. IDEM must determine if Applicant’s use of the ortho
phosphorus analytical method instead of the total phosphorus analytical method constitutes a
long term violation of permit monitoring requirements since using the ortho-phosphorus method
has the effect of deregulating that portion of total phosphorus effluents that are compounds
which have not been oxidized to phosphate ion.

D. Applicant Failed to Address Mercury Organo-Metallic Compounds

Applicant’s wastewater characterization fails to address and/or identify organo-mercury
compounds in the Refinery effluent. Compounds such as methyl mercury, ethyl mercury, and
phenyl mercury are likely to be contained if Applicant’s effluent because of inherent chemical
and biological processes taking place in Applicant’s facility. These compounds must be
evaluated for aquatic toxicity and environmental fate if they are present in the facility’s industrial
process wastewater from Outfall #005.

IDEM should additionally clarify on the record whether reported total mercury analytical
determinations using EPA Method 1631 Revision E reflect or do not reflect the amount and
presence of methyl mercury, ethyl mercury and phenyl mercury contained in industrial
wastewater samples analyzed under this EPA reporting method.

36

VI. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations

A. Applicant Failed to Submit the Ambient Lake Michigan Receiving Water Quality
Data to Support the Permit Application

IDEM binding regulations at 327 IAC 5-2-3 on permit applications requires Applicant as
a party seeking permit re-issuance to submit “valid, representative receiving water body
monitoring data for every metal monitored or limited in the applicant’s existing permit.”
Applicant failed to submit the required ambient Lake Michigan water quality data necessary for a
complete application under 327 IAC 5-2-3.

B. Neither the Applicant nor IDEM Submitted, Published or Produced a Current
PEQ/PEL Analysis

Commenters have diligently searched materials disclosed by IDEM, including the
NPDES permit application and the IDEM Fact Sheet, and none of these materials contains a
current review of Projected Effluent Quality and Preliminary Effluent Limitations (PEQ/PEL
analysis). Such analysis is necessary under 327 IAC 5-2-11.5 to justify the determination and
setting of WQBELs contained in the permit as issued; or to justify excluding pollutants contained
in Applicant’s Refinery wastewater effluents from consideration for WQBEL development.

Commenters object to any IDEM reliance for purposes of WQBEL determination and
permit issuance decision-making on the previously produced 2006-2007 PEQ/PEL table for use
in the present permitting matter. In the context of the present agency decision-making matter,
the 2006-2007 PEQ/PEL analysis is out of date and cannot be relied upon as a valid analysis to
reflect present effluent concentrations. This is particularly the case given that Applicant’s present
effluent in 2012-2013 is considerably degraded compared to its previous 2006 effluent
characterization for selenium, sulfate, chlorides, arsenic, lead, manganese, strontium, copper,
arsenic and vanadium. See section V, supra, for a table that shows the quantified effluent
quality degradation for these pollutants.

Commenters further object to IDEM’s use of the 2006-2007 PEQ/PEL analysis, and
IDEM’s ongoing failure to produce more current analysis, for the reasons set forth in subsection
C, infra. The 2006-2007 PEQ/PEL table implicitly relies on a dilution ratio at the edge of the
alternate mixing zone provided as an artifact of the operation of the diffuser apparatus.
However, as discussed in subsection C, the dilution strategy decision allowing that revised
mixing zone edge dilution ratio was a decision not properly vetted or authorized under 40 C.F.R.
§125.3 (f).

C. The Diffuser Was Used as a Basis to Meet Water Quality Standards Without the
Necessary Analysis

The Applicant and IDEM failed – in both the 2007 NPDES permit and now in the Draft
Permit – to properly vet the diffuser as a dilution method and the primary strategy to address
water quality standard violations. EPA rules provide:

37

(f) Technology-based treatment requirements cannot be satisfied through the use of
‘‘non-treatment’’ techniques such as flow augmentation and in-stream mechanical
aerators. However, these techniques may be considered as a method of achieving water
quality standards on a case-by-case basis when:

(1) The technology-based treatment requirements applicable to the discharge are
not sufficient to achieve the standards;
(2) The discharger agrees to waive any opportunity to request a variance under
section 301 (c), (g) or (h) of the Act; and
(3) The discharger demonstrates that such a technique is the preferred
environmental and economic method to achieve the standards after consideration
of alternatives such as advanced waste treatment, recycle and reuse, land disposal,
changes in operating methods, and other available methods.”
29

40 C.F.R. 125.3(f). Because the installation of a diffuser was a non-treatment technique for
meeting water quality standards, IDEM was required to use decision-making standards under 40
C.F.R. 125.3 (f) during the issuance of the 2007 permit to allow the dilution strategy to meet
Indiana water quality standards in Lake Michigan receiving waters and to allow the alternate
mixing zone intrinsic to the use of the end-of-pipe diffuser.
However, IDEM never required Applicant – either in 2007 or in the Draft Permit -- to
submit a proper demonstration meeting all parts of the three criteria of the rule and no aspect of
IDEM’s 2007 permit issuance decision can be considered as a declaration and agency
explanation that IDEM complied with all requirements of 40 C.F.R. 125.3(e) and (f) or that this
issue was properly vetted and explained in the public notice or that it was otherwise an element
of IDEM decision-making in the 2007 permit issuance.
As a practical matter neither IDEM nor Applicant could properly address all three factors
so as to allow such a pollution effluent dilution scheme with the diffuser under the plain meaning
of the provisions of 40 C.F.R. §125.3 (f). Neither IDEM nor Applicant made any inquiry into,
or determined what level of effluent limitation control reflected BAT-BPJ for the non-ELG
pollutants, so it would have been impossible to address the first factor with no issued BAT-BPJ
effluent limitation or determination. On 40 C.F.R. §125.3(f)(2) evaluation, there is no evidence
that the Applicant ever certified that it would give up the variance application rights articulated
in that specific provision.
On 40 C.F.R. §125.3(f)(3) evaluation, Applicant and IDEM considered a portion of the
issues articulated in the criteria for decisionmaking, but no complete demonstration addressing
all aspects of the required criteria was carried out in the 2007 permit issuance. In particular, a
proper inquiry for good faith determination under 40 C.F.R. §125.3(f)(3) mitigates that
alternatives such as considering what effect that refinery feedstocks have on effluents and water
quality compliance is a valid and needed exercise.


29
40 C.F.R. §125.3(e) & (f)
38

As a result, no portion of the 2007 permit issuance matter addressing the use of non-
control dilution methods to meet water quality standards can be considered as having been
lawfully authorized by IDEM under 40 C.F.R. §125.2(f). Because the 2007 Permit matter and
submittal were not properly authorized under 40 C.F.R. §125.2(f), IDEM cannot allow or use the
2007 decision as basis for the required 40 C.F.R. §125.2(f) demonstration in the present matter.
Present issuance of an IDEM decision allowing a dilution strategy to meet water quality
standards along with continued allowed use of a diffuser and alternate mixing zone must be
considered in the present matter as a de novo agency decision based on the present permit
application. Allowance of such continued dilution strategy practices that were previously
authorized must be considered as being re-authorized in a permit re-issuance matter. Indeed,
Applicant explicitly recognizes that its primary dilution strategy allowance to meet water quality
standards with the diffuser must be re-authorized and justified in a permit re-issuance matter, as
shown in Item #4 on page 4 of the Fact Sheet (“BP Whiting requests the continuation of the
alternate mixing zone for the Outfall 005 high rate multiport diffuser, including the application
of a 37.1:1 mixing ratio for water quality based effluent limit (WQBEL) development. Per part
I.H.1 of the existing permit, BP submitted the diffuser operation and maintenance plan to IDEM
(current revision =8/22/2011”).

Although the Applicant requested renewal of the dilution strategy, the diffuser and the
mixing zone, nothing in Applicant’s submittal is or can be construed as a demonstration that
complies with 40 C.F.R. §125.3(e) & (f) (and notably the 3 criteria under (f)) for continuing to
allow a non-control dilution method. On review of IDEM’s present matter and authorization
under 40 C.F.R. §125.3(f)(2), Commenters can find no evidence of the required Applicant
certification necessary to approve a request for allowance of a non-control dilution method.
Commenters can find no clearly articulated demonstration under 40 C.F.R. §125.3(f)(3) that
justifies the renewal decision allowing the dilution strategy, diffuser operation and alternate
mixing zone. It is thus evident that IDEM has not adequately considered the decision to allow the
continued dilution strategy, diffuser operation and alternate mixing zone in a manner in
compliance with the decision standards of 40 C.F.R. §125.3 (f).

D. The Permit Lacks Whole Effluent Toxicity Limitations

In issuing the Outfall #005 effluent limitations and monitoring table in the Draft Permit,
IDEM eliminated both the acute and chronic Whole Effluent Toxicity (“WET”) effluent
limitations of 1.0 TUa and 1.0 TUc that were present in the existing permit Outfall #001 effluent
limitations table. In addition, IDEM eliminated all acute WET testing in the Outfall #005 effluent
limitations and monitoring table. Both of these changes are unacceptable for a facility effluent
which contains increased amounts of toxicants and nonconventional pollutants with the advents
of Applicant’s increased utilization of tar sands crude feedstocks containing more metals,
dissolved solids, sulfate and chlorides.

Neither the permit application nor the IDEM Fact Sheet contain a current PEQ/PEL
determination on Whole Effluent Toxicity that was produced in association with the decision to
issue the Draft Permit and to publish the IDEM Fact Sheet. As a result, IDEM’s decision to
terminate all WET effluent limitations and to terminate acute WET monitoring impermissibly
depends on an analysis carried out in 2006-2007 of WET testing results on an effluent at that
39

time whose quality is markedly degraded presently compared to the 2006-2007 time frame when
the WET PEQ/PEL analysis was carried out.
30


E. The Draft Permit Materials Contain No Showing that Applicant Will Not Cause
Acute Toxicity from Excessive Concentrations of WET Acute Toxic Units Inside
of the Mixing Zone

Indiana Water Quality Standards prohibit effluent source discharges that cause acutely
toxic concentrations of pollutants, including WET Acute Toxic Units, inside of discharge mixing
zones pursuant to 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1)(E). The effect of these requirements is that dilution
assumptions concerning the effluent after it leaves any portion of the diffuser apparatus must not
be used in addressing whether the any portion of the diffuser effluent causes immediate acute
toxicity inside the mixing zone.

Nothing in the IDEM Fact Sheet, the underlying file or in permit application is a
demonstration or showing that Applicant’s discharge of acute WET Toxic Units will not cause
unacceptable and prohibited amounts of acute toxicity inside the approved mixing zone and
directly adjacent to diffuser effluent discharge ports for the Outfall #005 discharge in violation of
Indiana Water Quality Standards at 327 IAC 2-1-6(a)(1)(E).

Additionally, the failure of the Draft Permit to include both acute WET water quality
based effluent limitations and acute WET monitoring requirements means that no effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements on the end of pipe discharge protect and ensure
compliance with the Indiana Water Quality Standard prohibition on acutely toxic amounts of
WET discharged at any point inside of Applicant’s approved alternate mixing zone.

VII. Monitoring

A. IDEM Should Establish Internal Outfall Monitoring Points

In order to ensure proper and thorough monitoring, IDEM should reformat Applicant’s
permit in order to establish multiple internal outfalls for the sampling points for purposes of
ongoing, permit-required technology-based effluent limitation compliance measurement and
determination. For example, IDEM should establish internal outfalls, monitoring requirements
for those outfalls and technology-based effluent limitations specific to those internal outfalls
covering sour water processing sewers and the brine treatment unit discharge points. Mercury
and mercury compounds should be addressed at the internal monitoring points.

Internal outfalls and monitoring points are advantageous for wastewater treatment
stewardship, regulatory accountability and individualized treatment process efficacy monitoring
in the control of toxic and hazardous industrial wastewater constituents. The reason for this
advantage of internal outfalls and sampling points is that direct monitoring at the treatment unit

30
Commenters would have provided a detailed review of all recent WET testing for purposes of this comment, but
cannot provide such a narrative because IDEM failed to disclose any WET testing reports or data at all to
Commenters despite two clear public record requests for the subject information.

40

outlet of a treatment unit allows process-individualized toxicant detection and monitoring of the
specific internal monitoring point in question. A second important benefit of internal
monitoring points for Applicant’s facility is that wastewater analytical method detection and
quantification limits pose much less of a problem for internal monitoring points when flows at
such internal outfalls are not diluted by other process, cooling water and stormwater flows as
they are at the point of final effluent discharge.

Additionally, the Outfall #002 annual total organic carbon monitoring frequency is too
infrequent to be able to ensure that applicant can ensure regular compliance with effluent
limitations. The Outfall #002 effluent limitation table contains an effluent limitation on the net
total organic carbon concentration but only requires one analytical sample annually. Such
limited monitoring cannot be used by Applicant to ensure that its effluent complies with the
stated effluent limitation. More regular monitoring should be required and the frequency and
internal monitoring point locations should be established in the cooling water system for the
refinery so that cooling water TOC monitoring can detect the process group location of any
leaking heat exchangers which may allow petroleum hydrocarbons to enter the cooling water
circuit.

B. Various Aspects of the Monitoring Requirements Need to be Strengthened and
Clarified

IDEM should revise and amend the format of its permit effluent limitation tables or
supplement the presentation of such information in a manner so that each monitoring
requirement provided in the permit indicates the specific EPA analytical method or other specific
technical method the Applicant is required to use in carrying out its effluent monitoring activity.
In addition to listing the specific analytical method for each pollutant, IDEM should also list
what Limit of Detection (“LOD”) and Limit of Quantification (“LOQ”) for each monitored
pollutant that Applicant is expected to demonstrate in carrying out the EPA or other technical
analytical method for wastewater characterization.

For all of the monitored pollutants that are subject to 24-hour composite sampling
requirements, IDEM should publish a determination in the Fact Sheet that such 24 hour
composite sampling collection and methods are compatible and consistent with maximum
sample holding time requirements of the specific technical analytical method for the specific
pollutant in question.

Footnote #4 for the Outfall #002 is too vaguely stated to be enforceable in practice. “Net
temperature” is not defined, and this term is not a unit or a valid physical description of the
effluent limitation shown in the table as maximum heat release in BTU’s per hour. References
to ‘appropriate conversion factor’ are similarly vague. Footnote #4 should be replaced with a
clearly stated method of calculating the hourly heat released from calculation of intake and
outfall energy rates using equations and defined variables as stated in the calculation
methodology.

Since the aquatic toxicity of ammonia depends on temperature and pH in addition to the
ammonia concentration, IDEM should publish a Fact Sheet declaration on how compliance with
41

Indiana Water Quality Standards addressing ammonia is maintained both inside of the mixing
zone and at the edge of the mixing zone without requiring continuous measurement of both
temperature and pH to support assurance of maintenance of WQS for ammonia.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have questions or would
like to discuss further, please contact Ann Alexander (312-651-7905, aalexander@nrdc.org),
Lyman Welch ((312) 939-0838 X230, lwelch@greatlakes.org), or Nicole Barker ((219) 879-
3937, nicole@savedunes.org). These comments were prepared with extensive assistance from
the Alliance’s consultant Alexander Sagady. The Alliance can include Mr. Sagady in any further
discussions if need be.


Respectfully submitted,




Nicole Barker
Executive Director
Save the Dunes



Ann Alexander
Senior Attorney, Midwest Program
Natural Resources Defense Council



Lyman Welch
Water Quality Program Director
Alliance for the Great Lakes


Thomas R. Anderson
Vice President, Porter County Chapter
Izaak Walton League
42




Kim Ferraro
Director of Agriculture and Water Policy
Hoosier Environmental Council



Bowden Quinn
Conservation Director
Hoosier Chapter of the Sierra Club

Page I of 53
Permit No. INOOOO108
STATE OF INDIANA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions ofthe Federal Water Pollution Control   c ~ as
amended, (33 US.c. 1251 et seq., the "Act"), and IDEM's authority under ICl3-15,
BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC.
WHITING REFINERY
is authorized to discharge from a petroleum refinery that is located at 2815 Indianapolis,
Blvd., Whiting, Indiana to receiving waters named Lake Michigan and the Lake George
Branch of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in Parts I, II and III hereof
Effective Date: August 1, 2007
Expiration Date: July 31, 2012
In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the date of expiration, the
permittee shall submit such information and forms as are required by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management no later than 180 days prior to the date of
expiration.
Signedonthis __ dayof June 21, 2007
Department of Environrnental Management.
/s/
Bruno Pigott
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Water Quality
for the Indiana
Page 2 of 53
Permit No. INOOOOlO8
TREATMENT FACILITY CLASSIFICATION
The discharger has a Class D industrial wastewater treatment plant, classified in
accordance with 327 lAC 5-22, Classification of Wastewater Treatment Plants.
PART I
A EFFLUENT LIMIT ATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting
until the Alternate Mixing Zone is operational or the expiration date,
whichever occurs first, the permittee is authorized to discharge from
Outfall 001 (At the shoreline of Lake Michigan). The discharge is limited
to treated process wastewater from the refinery and from Ineos and
NiSource - Whiting Clean Energy, recovered ground water, and most of
the storm water from the site. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements below shall be taken at a point representative of
the discharge but prior to entry into Lake Michigan. Such discharge shall
be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS OUTFALL 001 [1][3J
Quantity or Loading Quality or Concentration Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Parameter Average Maximum Units Average Maximum Units Freguency
 
Flow Report Report MGD Daily 24-Hr. Total
BOD, 4,161 8,164 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
ISS 3,646 5,694 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 2 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
COD 30,323 58,427 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Oil and
Grease 1,368 2,600 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly Grab
Ammonia as N [7]
Interim 1,030 2,060 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 5 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Final 88 196 lbs/day 0.49 1.1 mg/l 5 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Benzo(a)pyrene [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report ng/l 1 x Monthly 24 Hr. Comp.
Final 0017 0.041 lbs/day 96 230 ng/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Chloride [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Monthly 24 Hr. Comp.
Final 33,575 67,508 lbs/day 188 378 mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Page 3 of 53
Permit No. INOOOOlO8
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS OUTFALL 001
Quantity or Loading Quality or Concentration Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Parameter Average Maximum Units Average Maximum Units Frequency
 
Total Chromium[ 4] [7]
Interim 23.9 68.53 lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Final 18 37 lbs/day 0.1 0.2 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Hex. Chromium[5] [7]
Interim 2.01 4.48 lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Weekly Grab
Final 1.6 3.2 lbs/day 0.009 0018 mg/l I x Weekly Grab
Total Copper [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 1.8 3.6 lbs/day 0.01 0.02 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Dissolved Solids [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 109,655 220,025 lbs/day 614 1,232 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Fluoride [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 146 286 lbs/day 0.82 1.6 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Lead [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 1.4 2.9 lbs/day 0.0081 0.016 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Mercury [8]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report ng/l 2 x Yearly Grab
Final [6] 0.00023 0.00057 lbs/day 1.3 3.2 ng/l 6 x Yearly Grab
Phenolics
(4AAP) 20.33 7301 lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Phosphorus Report Report lbs/day Report 1.0 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Selenium [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 073 1.5 lbs/day 0.0041 0.0082 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Strontium [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 125 250 lbs/day 0.7 1.4 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Sulfate
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24Hr Comp.
Final 36,611 73,401 lbs/day 205 411 mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Sulfide 23.1 51.4 lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Weekly 24Hr Comp.
Total Vanadium [7]
Interim [10] Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l I x Monthly 24-Hr Comp.
Final 1.8 3.6 lbs/day 0.0098 0.02 mg/l I x Weekly 24 Hr Comp.
pH [2] Report s.u. 3 x Weekly Grab
Page 4 of 53
Permit No. INOOOO108
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS OUTFALL 001
Quantity or Loading Quality or Concentration Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Parameter Average Maximum Average Maximum Units Frequency  
Whole Emuent Toxicity [7][9]
Interim
Acute
Chronic
Final
Acute
Chronic
Report TUa 2 x Yearly
Report TUc 2 x Yearly
1.0 TUa 2 x Yearly
1.0 TUc 2 x Yearly
[I] In the event that changes are to be made in the use of water treatment additives
including dosage rates contributing to Outfall 001, the permittee shall notify the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management as required in Part II. C.I of
this permit. The use of any new or changed water treatment additives or dosage
rates shall not cause the discharge from any permitted outfall to exhibit chronic or
acute toxicity. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity information must be provided
with any notification regarding any new or changed water treatment additives or
dosage rates.
[2] The pH of the emuent shall be no less than 6.0 and no greater than 9.0 standard units (s.u.).
[3] See Part I.B. of the permit for the Narrative Water Quality Standards.
[4] Chromium is to be analyzed by test method which will measure the total
quantity.
[5] Hexavalent Chromium shall be measured and reported as dissolved metal. The
Hexavalent Chromium sample type shall be grab method. The maximum holding
time for a Hexavalent Chromium sample is 24 hours (40 CFR 136.6 Table IE).
Therefore, the grab sample must be analyzed within 24 hours. If test results from
the analysis performed for total chromium reveal thatthe concentration is less
than the limitations for 'hexavalent chromium, then the test for hexavalent
chromium may be eliminated for that day and reported as the same concentration
as total chromium for that day.
[6] Mercury monitoring shall be conducted bi-monthly in the months of February,
April, June, August, October, and December using EPA Test Method 1631,
Revision E. If EPA Test Method 1631, Revision E is further revised during the
term of this permit, the permittee and/or its contract laboratory is required to
Page 5 of 53
Permit No. INOOOOlO8
utilize the most current version of the method as soon as possible after approval
by EP A but no later than the second monitoring event after the revision.
The following EPA test methods and/or Standard Methods and associated LODs
and LOQs are to be used in the analysis of the effluent samples. Alternative
methods may be used if first approved by IDEM.
Parameter EPA Method
Mercury 1631, Revision E 0.2 ng/l 0.5 ng/l
[7] The permittee is being given a three year schedule of compliance to either install
the diffuser to create an alternate mixing zone with effluent limits based on the
alternate mixing zone in Part I.A.2 or to install the treatment system necessary to
achieve compliance with the final effluent limitations for Outfall 001 in Part I.A 1
based on water quality standards calculated without a mixing zone. The schedule
of compliance is found in Part I.E. 1 ofthe permit
[8] The permittee is being given a five year schedule of compliance to achieve
compliance with the final effluent limitations for Mercury at Outfall 001
regardless of whether a diffuser is installed to create an alternate mixing zone.
The schedule of compliance is found in Part I.E. 2 of the permit
[9] The permittee shall conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity tests in accordance with Part
I.G. of this permit
[10] The permittee shall begin reporting the parameters listed above as soon as
possible but not later than three months after the effective date of this permit
Page 6 of 53
Permit No. INOOOOlO8
2. During the period beginning on the date that the diffuser and alternate
mixing zone is operational and lasting until the expiration date. the
permittee is authorized to discharge from Outfall 005 (The discharge from
the diffuser located in Lake Michigan). BP North America shall notify
IDEM when the Alternate Mixing Zone (Outfall 005) is operational. The
discharge is limited to treated process wastewater from the refinery and
from Ineos and NiSource Whiting Clean Energy, recovered ground water
and most of the storm water from the site. Samples taken in compliance
with the monitoring requirements below shall be taken at a point
representative of the discharge but prior to entry into Lake Michigan.
Such discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified below:
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS OUTFALL 005 [1][3]
Quantity or Loading Quality or Concentration Monitoring Requirements
Monthly Daily Monthly Daily Measurement Sample
Parameter Average Maximum Units Average Maximum Units Frequency
 
Flow Report Report MGD Daily 24-Hr. Total
BOD, 4.161 8.164 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
TSS 4.925 7.723 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 2 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
COD 30.323 58,427 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Oil and
Grease 1,368 2,600 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly Grab
Phenolics
(4AAP) 20.33 7301 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Phosphorus Report Report lbs/day Report 1.0 mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Ammonia as N
1,584 3,572 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 5 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Sulfide 23.1 51.4 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Total Chromium [4]
23.9 68.53 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly 24 Hr. Comp.
Hex. Chromium [5]
2.01 4.48 lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Weekly Grab
Total Vanadium [7]
Interim Report Report lbs/day Report Report mg/l 1 x Monthly 24-Hr. Comp.
Final 50 100 lbs/day 0.28 0.56 mg/l 1 x Monthly 24-Hr. Comp.
Total Mercury [7]
Interim Report Report lbs/day Report Report ng/l 2 x Yearly Grab
Final [6] 0.00023 0.00057 lbs/day 1.3 3.2 ng/l 6 x Yearly Grab
Whole Effluent Toxicity [8]
Chronic Report TUc 2 x Yearly
pH [2] Report s.u. 3 x Weekly Grab
Page 7 of 53
Permit No. INOOOO108
[I] In the event that changes are to be made in the use of water treatment additives
including dosage rates contributing to Outfall 005, the permittee shall notify the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management as required in Part II. C.I of
this permit. The use of any new or changed water treatment additives or dosage
rates shall not cause the discharge from any permitted outfall to exhibit chronic or
acute toxicity. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity information must be provided
with any notification regarding any new or changed water treatment additives or
dosage rates.
[2] The pH of the effluent shall be no less than 6.0 and no greater than 9.0 standard units (s.u.).
[3] See Part I.B. of the permit for the Narrative Water Quality Standards.
[4] Chromium is to be analyzed by test method which will measure the total
quantity.
[5] Hexavalent Chromium shall be measured and reported as dissolved metal. The
Hexavalent Chromium sample type shall be grab method. The maximum holding
time for a Hexavalent Chromium sample is 24 hours (40 CFR 136.6 Table IE).
Therefore, the grab sample must be analyzed within 24 hours. If test results from
the analysis performed for total chromium reveal thatthe concentration is less
than the limitations for 'hexavalent chromium, then the test for hexavalent
chromium may be eliminated for that day and reported as the same concentration
as total chromium for that day.
[6] Mercury monitoring shall be conducted bi-monthly in the months of February,
April, June, August, October, and December using EPA Test Method 1631,
Revision E. If EPA Test Method 1631, Revision E is further revised during the
term of this permit, the permittee and/or its contract laboratory is required to
utilize the most current version of the method as soon as possible after approval
by EP A but no later than the second monitoring event after the revision. The
following EPA test methods and/or Standard Methods and associated LODs and
LOQs are to be used in the analysis of the effluent samples. Alternative methods
may be used if first approved by IDEM.
Parameter EPA Method LOD
Mercury 1631, Revision E 0.2 ng/l 0.5 ng/l
[7] The permittee is being given a five year schedule of compliance to achieve
compliance with the final effluent limitations for Vanadium and Mercury at
Outfall 001. The schedule of compliance is found in Part LE.2 of the permit.
[8] The permittee shall conduct Whole Effluent Toxicity tests in accordance with Part
I.G. of this permit.
Attachment #7
._-_-. .
'. ,
'. '

.. ,;; .,
... : ... .
.. .
-: ..
"7.;..-..,
...
... .'

- ,
, :
.  
,", ."
.   >,. ...
:.,'
,
... .
r .•
.:'
.. :
.. ..

.... .
: ,;'
 
·.0·.· ..
, "
":.;,.: .
......
.... 01.··.·
.. '
.
164
-
Friday
Oecember 21, 1979
Part IV'
, -.:-:--
, ..
'0
I
,-( '.
:. .
.'.
. "
... '': .. ,  
'.
": ...
f· ........... .
... : .. -' ... ,
.
. ,
' ...
Environmental
Agency·
••
Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category Effluent Limitations  
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards
..' . ,
.
..

75926
. Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. Z47 I Friday. December :n. 1979 I Proposed Rules
) 9
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
·tNCY
CFR
[fA'- 1312.tl
Petroleum Refining Point Source
CatlllAlory EHJIoIent Umitatlons
Gi.lidellnes, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Sololrc:e Performance
Standards
""HC'r. EnvironmeDtal Protection
Agency [EV.}.
"CT\ON: Proposed resulation.
su .. Iot"It't": EPA proposes·ngulatioDs to
limit effluent djscharses to waters of the
· Uilited Slates and the introduction of
· pollutGls into publicly owned !rutment
works Crom facilities ",hlch are engaged
ie refining petroleum. Thesa facilities
· are defined atore specificaUy as those
claued by the Bureau of the Census in
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
2911. The Plllllose of this proposal i;S to
provide effluent limitations ruidelinetl
for "best available .tec.hnoloiJ." alld
"e,est COD ve:tional I ech.t1ology,'· Ii..Dd to
· ntabHsh new loun:e perlonna.ru:e
standuds and prettea tment standards
· undl!t the Oem Watn Act.
The effect of these regulations on the
. troleum refW.ng indWltry would be to
,gire pratnatment or process
wastewaters introduced into publicly
owned treatment "'orks (po'I'Ws) and
Ireetment ofproceu wastewaters
discharsed to watets of the United
Stat ... After cQnsiduina colUtDents
Neeived in response to this proposal.
EPA will promulgate a liaal rule;
· .' The Supplementary InIormatiol1
- .seCtiOIl of this preamble duc;ribu the
leg/ll aulhority and bacqrou.o.d. the
: technical and economic base,. and other
aspects a{ the propoled regulations.
That sectioD also SUlJlJtUlri::ceS comments
on a draft te1:hnic:a1 document circulated
Oil April 2:1. 197a: and commenLl
on specific areas of Int.rut. The
ebbraviacOllI. acronyms. and other
terms used ill the Supplementary
Wormadon section are defUled in .
· Appendlx A to thil notice.
These proposed regulations are
IUpported by three major documents
available from EPA. Analytical methods
a", discussed in SompJin, ond Ano/YJi$
Proceciu,., /01" Screenin, of Industrial·
  fOI" Priority EPA's
techincial conclusions are detailed in
· the Dtlyelopm.nt Document /01"
Propostlci Effluent LimitationS'
- ·id./intts. New Scurr:lI Perfom1onc.
nciard$ and P.rf.t1'eotment Strurdords
1,,1" Ill. petroleum R.efining Point Source
CD,.,ory. The Agency'. economic
analysis is found in Economic Analysis
of Proposed Revised Effluent Standards
and Limitations {or the Petroleum
Re/ininB [ndustr/.
DAn: Comments on this proposal must
be submitted on or before February 19.
1980.
ADORESS: Send comments to: Mr.
William A. Telliard. Effluent Guidelines
Division (WH-5S2). Environmental
Protec tion Agency. 401 M St.. S. W
Wuhington. D.C. 404S0. Attention: EGO
Docket Clerk. Petroleum (WH-55Z). The
supporting information and all
comments on this propoaal will be
available for iespection and copyins al
the EPA Public Wormetion Reference
Unit. Room 2404 (Rear) PM-Z13. (EPA
Library). 401 M Street. S. W.o
Wuhington. D.C. Z046O. The EPA
information regulation (40 eFR Part 2)
provides that a reasonable fee may be
cltarsed for copying.
FO" F'lJRTHEI'IINFORM"TlON CONTACT:
Technical information and copies or .
techoicalc;iocumel'lts may be obtained
from Mr. William A. Telliard. (202) 755-
773J at the address listed above. The
economic aJlalysis may be obtained
from Mr. Lows DuPuis. Water
El4onomic.s BraDch (WH-586),
Enviro1Ul1ental Protection Agency, 401 M
St. S.W .• Washicglon. D.C. 20460. (202)
155-7733.
SUPlIUM1HTARY'N .. ORMATIOH:· _
OrsJJll.zal1oa of Tblt I'lodu
r. Legal Authority
lL aacJcgrollZld
.. CJelll1 Water
o. Prior EP/\ RegwatiohS
Co Ovemew of Ibe IndusllY
Ill. S=pe of This Rlllemakilli and
Swnmary' of MethodolOfY
(V. S&mpiing and Analytical Program
V. Oat .. C"therirlr !l!oru
•• Technical Questionnaires
b. Sampling and Analysis
Co Result,
1. Ana I ytlca I Resul15
Z. Achinable Pollutant ConcentraLions
raPT)
VL Iadiutry Subcatasori;lation
VU. Availabll' Weat.water Conllol and
Tnalment Techno/clY
L Slalu. of In· place TI'chnolCfY
b. Cofttrol Technologie. (or U ••
In TlIi. Industry
1. RINse and Recycle or Wastewater
%.. Powdered Activated Carbon
3. Cranular Activated Carbon
4. Mecal. Removal
:.5. Biological Trutment
VlII. BAT Effluent Limltllclon.
a. B/\T Options Considered
1. Inclltu.d Reuse and Recycle of
Wastewaters {21"l
Z. 11lQ'll8led Reula a nd Recycle oC
WaltewattfS (52")
3. Selres.tion of Process Stnam.
4. Powdered AClivalid Carbon
1. Cranular Activa'ed Carbon
165
6. Discharge of WllIle""'ler'
b. BAT Selection and Deci.ion Criteria
IX. BCT Ell1uenll.imitaliora
X. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPSI
a. NSPS Options Conaidered
1, Increasad RelUt lind Recycle of
Waacewaten ,
%.. Gn.nulat Activated Carbon
3. No Oischarg. of Wutewaten
b. NSPS S.lection and Oe<:i.ioa Criteria
XI. Prlllualment Standard.
a, Prell'ntment Options Considered
1. Metilis Remo .... 1
%.. Biological 't:reatnlent for Cercain Inwtect
CI.ehsrse1'S
b.. PretnaUDent S.laction and Cecisiol1
Criteria
xn. Relwatad Pollutant.
.,BAt
b. aCT
Co Pnttreaunenl Standarda
XII!. PoilurenlS Not Regulated
.. BAT
b. Prllleatmenf Siandilrds
Pollutanta Limited by 8Pr
XIV. Non-Wallf Quality Alpects of
PoU.,lIon Cont.rol
iI. Air Pollution
b. Solid Wute
Co En.'1Y Requirllllents .
}(y. COlta. EUluanl R.ldu<:lioll Sen.fila. and
E.c:cnomic Impact "
.. Ecot1om.ic Seac,rio One
loBAT/aCT .
z. PSiS
3. NSPS/PSNS
b. Sc.natio Two
1. BAT/SCf
l.PSD
3. NSPS/PSNS
Co Effluent R.duction Benefits
XVl. Be.t Man_8em.nt Practices
XVIL Up •• t and Provisions
XVUL Vllrial1cn and Modifications
XIX Relat.io.ll.lhip to NPOES Pe"",iU
xx. SI&I'QmIll')' of Pl:bUc Participation
XXI. SoUcita\lon of Cornmant.
xxn. Appendices:
.... -Abbr.vi.tioM, Acroa)'lJll .. nd Terllls
U •• d in This Notice
B-Toxlc Pollutants Nilt Oetected in
Treated. Effluent. [Dlnct Ois<:hullej
C-Toxic Pollutants Detected in Oniy One
Renatry Elflullnt tat concentrallons hiaher
than UlOM round in intakt wated alld Which
are Uniquely Related to the ltafinery at
Which it W .. Detected (Cirect Discharge)
O-Toxic Pollutant, Detected in Trelled
Efnu.nla of More Th.n One Refinery or
Oet.cted. in Tnllatad £Jnuenl. of One
ReJlnery 8uI Not Uniquely Ralated to til.
R.(jnery at Which it W .. Cttected (Direct
Oiacharr-}
E-TQltic Pollut.1llts Not Deleeted in ..
Dischar8es to POTWs (indirect Discharsl)
F-Toltic Po1l1,llants Detected In Dischalin
to POTWs (l.adirect Ctschll'1lel
G-toxic Pcil1,ltantl Found To Pass
Throulh PQTINs With Only Primery
Trealll'lent (Indintct Oischargej
L Letal Authority
The regulatjom described in this
notice are proposed under of
sections.3ot. 304. lOe. 307, 308. and 501
.,
I
..
-
I
; ..
Federal R.8!istet I Vol. 44, No. 241 I Friday, Dec,ember 21. 1.979 I Proposed Rules
r =
759Z1, '
01 the CeLD. Water (the Federal
Walla PoUllthm Control Ac:t
. . . Am'l.'Idment. of 1912. 33 USC 12.51 et
.fq.; u amended by tha Clean Water
Act of 197'1, Pub. 1.. !lS-Z'l7) (the "Act").
Thea. rttS"UlaUcin. are alao proposed in
responSl to the Settlement AgreelJlent in
Nolural Re$ourc:e$ Defen!lll Council. Illc.
v: Ttain. 8 ERC 2120 (D.lJ.c. 197BJ.
.: ....
. 1Jl0diAed Marc:.b 9. 1979 and in response
to the dedsion of the United States
Court of Appelll in American
Petmlllum butituttl Y. EPA 540 F. 2d 1023
(10th CU. 1978).
, :::: II BackpoWld
,0;.: ,(a) The Clerm Wat.' Act 'ne Federal
.. , Water Pollutron Control Act
. ' ., Am8.lldm.ZlW al1m est.bUsl!ed a '
COlllpreheaafve program to "rntore ItId ,
' .. ' maintain lhe che.a1icaJ. physical. azld .
biololic:al Uiterpity of lhe NatioD.·s
water.. .. Sec:donlO'1{a}. By Jwy 1. 191T.
exi.ting indWitrial dIlchargers wen
required to achieve "effluent J.imjtatioas
tequirlnslha or lhe best
practicable Cl:)D.trol tech.D.o!OIY current!y
.,'
. ', '" aywable" (BPl1. SectiOD 301(b)(1}(A);
and by July 1. 1983. lhes. disc:harsers
were requizwd to achIevl "emuenl
. limi
th
' b
tations
__ of
.. . • .st IVoauab. '.
ICOfIomic:ally.,achlev.ble ••• which will
::r,' mult in reucmabla rurtherprogrltll
, ': •• ,' toward the national SOal of .limiDating
• the dilcbarp of aU pollutants" (SAT).
.ec:tion3Ol(b){l)(A}. New industrial
£;,- d1rect diac:hatpn WUI required to
c:omply with .ecoon 306 Dew source
.;;:., performance standards (NSPS), oased
on best uanable demonstrl.ted'
'.::-,' teclu1010sy. and new and 'UJStina
  dl.c:harprl to pubUcly awned treatment
." . works (POTW$} were subject .0
' .. ,::' ptetreatmant sta.l.'ldard. under •• ctions
3QT(b)and [c) o£tb.Ac:t. While th.
I'1!quiremena for direct dilc:.bvgen were
f: to b. incorporated into National
'::.' Pollutant Diacharse £llmination System
(NPOES) lesuld under seclion
402 or the Act. pretreatment staZldatds
were Iilade enlorceible directlyaaa.i.alt
dIsdlarsen to PO'1'Wa {ind.inct
dladlarsers}. .
Allhoush section .o2(a]{l} of the 197Z
Act luthorlzed the settin, of
requiretD'Zltl ror dIrect disc:bargers on a
bali&, Conpss intended.
that. for the mOlt part. conl1'Cl
rtquitemeZlts would 1M b •• ed on
.. ;": '. repal1on. promulgated by the
Adminiltrator of EPA. Sectiot1304(bl of
';!' the Act raquired the Administratot to
promulgate regulationl providinS
JUidel1nes ror .fflUeZlt limitation •• atting
forth the degee of efftuent reduction
.... :.
..
. ,".,
attainable throuah the application of
BPT alld BAT. Moreover. sectiolU 304(C}
and 308 of the Act "qui:ed
"
promulga tion of resu1a tiOIl8 for NSPS.
and sections 304(0. 301{bl. and 307(c}
required promulgation of regulations for
pretreatment standard •. III addition to
lhese'regulations for duignat.d itldustry
c:ategories. Section 301(a) of the Act
required the Administrator to
promulgate effluent standards
IPlilitable to all dischargers of toxic
po !.ltlnts. Finally. stctiOI1 501(8) of the
Act authorized the Admini.trator to
prescribe any additional ragulatlons
"nec:elu.:y to cany O\lt hia functions"
, under the Act.
EPA Will unable to promulgate many
of lhe,uegul.tions by the datu
contained in the Ac:t.1n 1978. EPA wa ••
IUed by s.vera! environmental gr'OQPI!t •
and in ,attlement of thillawswt EPA
and the plaintiff. executed ..
"Settlement Agreement" which WI.
approved by the Co1ll't. This Altaement
required EPA to develop. program and
adhere to a schedule for promulsatiDl
for 21 major industries SAT ealllillt
limitation. suidelinee, pretreatment
• tandarcl.s. and new lourc:e per:!onnanc:e
.Imdarda ror 55 "priority'" pollu.tanta
and c:.\ailse" of pollututa. See Naturel
  De!en$II Council. Inc. ". ,
Train. 8 .ERC %l2D (D.D.C. '197eJ.
.: modified March 9. 1919.
Ol:a December U. 1977. lhe Presiclent
silP'ed into law lhe Clean Water Ac:t of
1977. Although this law makes several
important c:.banges in lhe !aderal watet
pollution coatrol proaram. ita mo.t
sigo,ifica.at featlu'e i. its inc:oflloration
into lhe Act of IIvlral of lhe basic
elements or lha s.tt!ement AgAement
progra= for toxic poUution control.
Sec:tion:! 30l(b)(2)(A) and of
the Act now :eq\li:elhe ac:h.ieyement by
July 1. 1984. of .fflu.nt J.imjtatloo.
NquiMl applic;atioD of BAT tor "toxic:"
pollutants. inc:luding the 65 "priority"
pollutants and clu ... oC pollutant.
wbic:.b Cotlgren declared "toxic:" undeJ"
301(1) of the AcL Lilcewise.
EPA's prosrams ror new source
performance standards and
pretreatm.nt standards are n.ow aimed
prindp&lly at toxlc pollutant colll1'Cl •• ,
Montovtr. to strengthen the 10xic:.a
c:onl1'Cl pro81'am. Con8i'ess added
.. c:Uon 304(1) to the Ac:t. authori.zint the
Admini,tt.tor to prescribe "best
manageraant practic.s·· (liMPs) to
pmant lhe release oE toxic and
h.az.&tdoue pollutants &om plltlt site
nIlloff. spillage or leab. sludge or waate
dispoeal. and dninase from raw ".
material .toraga aSloc:iated with. or
lJ'Ic:i1luy to. lh. lI1anufacturing or
treatment procl ...
In klepirlg with itl amphaais on toxic
pollutants. the Clan Waler Act of 1'P7
allO revised the conttol program COt'
166
non-toxic pollutants, !nstead of BAT ror":
"conventional" pollutants identified, "':' -
under.section 304(a)(4) ftnclu.ding .
biolQ!ical demand. suspended
soUds. fecal eoliform and pH). the new'
. section 301(b}(2}(E) requires .,' ,
achievement by July 1, 1984, of"ernuent -'
l.iJni.tatians requJrins the application of .'. .
the be.t c:onventional pollutant c:ontrol ':.'
tec:bnolosy" (BCT). The facto:l ." .
c:onlidered in asleums BCT for an "
Industry include the co.ts of attaining· It :
reduc:tion in erollents and the effluent
reducUon beneflUi derived cOl'!'lparld 10 , : .
tha COlts md effluent reducUon benefits' ,
&om lhe di.c:.bafie of publicly owned :':' ..
tnatmeZlt works {Section 304(b){4)(Bl} •..
Por nOIl-loldc. nonconyentional .. " .
pollutant ... actions 301(b)(2}{A) and .".
(b ](Z)(F) requite achlevement of BA'I" ",
effluent lImitationl Within three years .. ":'.
after thelt estabUshmentor July 1. 1984." ,
whichever is later. but not later than ".'
July 1. 1987. ."
The purpote of these proposed "';" ..
re;ulatioa.s i. to provide effluent, '. '.
UmitatioDl guidelines for BAT and Bel. ' .
audIO establish NSPS. pretreatment .
standatda for ex.istlng .ources,(PSES);· -
and pretreatment llanclards fOr new
$Curci. (PSNS). uncler Sections 301. .
306, 307'. aDd 501 of lhe crean Water •
AcL
(b) Prior EPA Regulations. EPA
promulgated 9PT. BAT. NSPS. and PSN;
Cor the Petroleum Refining point source-
category on May 9. 1974 (39 FR 1essa. ..
Subpllrta A-E]. The BPT,' BAT, and
NSPS regulatione wire c:hlllIansed in the"
coutts by the American PetroialLln '"
Institute and others. Bolh 9PT and NSPS"
were upheld by the c:ourt. but BAT w .. , "
remltlcled for further considlration.. •
Interim final PSES were promulgated Olt
March 23, 1917 (t.z FR 15684) irI respons .. ···
to the Settlement AgntemenL " '.:
The regulations proposed in this :,",'
notice will existing NSPS,
PSNS and PSES. The •• pro$)oled
regulations will aleo estabUsh SAT and'
Bcr. . .,"
(eJ Overv/.w of the [ndulltry. The .
petroleUm re8mns inclustry it defined by- :
au: .. u of the Cantus Standard
IndlUtrial C1 ... ification (SIC) 29'11. The.
raw Illatenal of UUe iadustly IJ
paUOlewn Nt.rial (generally. but not .'
always. c:nId, oU), Petroleum refineriu
proen. raw material into II wide ::,
variety of patroleum products. including .
111801ine. fuel oil Jet full. heating oils
ancl s .... and petroc:.bemicals. Refining
include, • wide of physical .. "
separ.tion and chemical reaction,'
proceS.I .. Th. Development Document
Usts over ane hWldrecl procell.s useci ir
the petrolewn refinilllindustry. Beeau:
or the diversity and aithe '.
process .. used the produ.cts ' .
••
75928
F,ede:al Register I Vol. 44. No. 2'17 I Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Ru!es
: --
produced. petroleum refineries an
Q.",eral1y characterized by the quantity
w m"tenal processed. rather than
.. lit quantity and types of product.
produced.
EPA has identified 285 petroleum
refineries in the United States and its
ponessions. The smallest refinery can
terme nIty barrels of oil per dall (one
barrel equal 42 gallons), while the
largest can refine 865.000 banels per
day. '
The U.S. refilling industry processes a
tolal of about 15 million barrels per day.
However. industry growth has slowed In
recent y.ars due to a numbe: of factors
inc1udina efl'orU 10 conserve petrOlewn
supplies' and competition from foreign
suppliers. Growth halllYerased about
.!ive percellt per year and has resulted
largely from adc!itioDs to existing ,
re&1eries rather than by construction oC
new ones. Largely because of
encourallement from the Department of
Energy's crude oil allocation program. a
limited number of ,aiall. Dew nfineries
han been constructed. The ratio of
growth in U.S. refinirig capacity by
additions to existing refineries to the
growth by constrUction of new refineries
has been approximately 3..5 to 1.
·Th. major tcll.1tCeS of proc:esa
waatllwater ve cooling water, water
used to wash unwanted materials £rom a
ess strum .. water und as part of a
don process. &nd boiler blowdown,.
ClIJTI!nt l1eatment ,yatema usea by
refin.ries Cor Ihb proce", wastewa Ie:
include (a) in-plant cOlltrel, ofammoni.
and wat.r use. and (hI end-of-pipe
treatment consistiq of oil/wat.r
separaton. biological treatment iUld. in
some casea. mixed Cled.ia filtration..
Although significant concentrations of
toxic and other poUul&nta are found in
untreated WIlSIe. data show that
application oC SF! results in s1Jbstantial
reduction of polluta:lt,. Toxic pollutants
were reduced to near or below the
concentratioll.l which can be accurately
m.asured ulina aVIIUable CllII.surement
tec.h.niq ues.
nt. ScOP4 of This Rulemaldni and
SlUZID'Iary of MethociololY
toward in.!uring the achievement by July
1. 1984. of the best available technology
economically sch.ieveable (BAT). which
will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants. In
general. this techn,ology level repre,ents.
at a mi.nilnum. the very best
economically achievable perfonnance in
any industrial catesory or subcat,gory.
Moreover. as a result of the Clean Water
Act of 1911. the emphasis of EPA's
proSram has shifted Crom "clanical"
poUutants to the control of a lensthy list
of toxic substance.!.
In the 1911 legislation. Congress
recognized that it wa, dealillS With
areaa of scienUfic uncertainty' when it
declared the 65 "priority" pollutants and
classes of pollutants "toxic" I.lndet
section 307(a} of the Act. The "priority"
pollutants have been relatively
unknown outside of the scientific
community. and those engaged In
wastewater sampling and control have
bad InUe experience dealing With these
poUutans. Additionally. thes,e" poll II t.jln ts
ofte: appear and have toxic .Hecls at
concentrations which SBverly tax
CI.lrT'en t analytical!ecltniques. Even
though Congress was aware of the state-
.. art diIficuJties and expense of
"tollcs" control and detection. it
directed EPA to act quickly arid
,decisively to detect. measure and
regulate these substances. Thus. with
the pa,aaglt of the 19111egisJation. the,
Nation's water pollution control
prosram was thn.I,t toward the frontiers
at science.
'EPA', implementation of the Act
required a complex development
program described in this section and
succeding sections of this notice,
lnitlaUy. becausa in many cases no
public or private .gency had done so.
EPA and it, laboratories and
consultants had to develop analytical
methods tor toxic po!lutanl dttection
and measurement.. which are discussed
ynde: Sampling and Analytical program.
EPA then gathered tachnica\ and
rm.ncia! data about the industry. which
are slUM\arized \.Inde: Data C.thexing
Elforu. With these data in hand. the These proposed regulations open a
chapter in weter pollution contrQl
requirements fol' the petrQleum tefininS
industry. In 1913-197B round of
rulemakings. emphasi, was placed on
  Agency proc:eeded to develop these
proposed reraulationl.
., First. EPA studied the petroleum
the achievement ol best practicable
technology (BP'I1 by July 1, 1917. In
general. this tech:nolosy I.vel
represented the averagl! 01 the best
exi_tins puformances ot well known
teclmologies fo: control of pollutants of
• "tjonal concem..
.his round of Nlema.king. in
EPA'uaom an dine-t.d
refining industry to detennine whether
differences in raw materials. final
product •• manufacturing processes.
equipment. age and size of plants, waler
usase. wastewater constituents. or other
factors required the development of
sepvate effluent limitations and
standards for dilCennt segments of the
industry. This study included the
identification of raw wute and treated
167
effluent chuacteristics inc:lading: (1) the
sources and volwne of water used. the
processes employed. end lhe sources of
pollutants and wastewaters in the plant.
and (2) the constituents of wast.wa lers.
including loxic pollUliUlts, EPA then
identified the constitutents of
wastewaters which should be
considered for effluent limitations
guidelines and standards of
performance.
Next. EPA identified several distinct
control and treatment technologies.
includins both in-plant lind end-of·
process technologies. which are. in use
or ca'pabl' of used in the
petroleum refining industry. The Agency
compiled and analyzed historical data
and newly generated data on the
emuen! quaUty-resulting Crom the
application of these technologies. The
long tenn performance and operational
limitations of each of the trealment and
control technologies were also
identified. In addition. EPA conSidered
the nonwaler quality environmental
impacts of these technologies. includlni
imp_cts on air quality. solid iVaste '
generation. &nd energy reqllirements.
The Asency then estimated the coati
of ellch contrOl and treatment '
technology Crom'unit cost curves
developed by standard engineering
anaJysis as applied to petroleum refini,ng ,
wastewater cha:acterisllcs. EPA derived
treatment process costs from plant
charactemtic, (production and now)
applied to each treatment process unit
co,t curve (i.e .. powdered activated '
carbon. metal. precipitation. elc.). These
unit process co,t, were added to yield
total coet at each treatment level. The
Agency evaiuated the economic impacts
of these costa.. (Costs and economic'
impacts arlt discussad in detail under
the various technology options. and in
the lection of this nottce entitled Costs.
Effluent Reduction Benefits anti.
Economic Impacts).
Upon consideration of these laclors
EPA identified various control and
I:eatrnent technologies as BeT. BAT.
PSES. PSNS. and NSPS. The proposed
regulations. however. do not require the
installation of Iny particular technology.
Rather. they require achievement of
.mUtnt limitatioll.l representative of Ihe
proper operation of these technologies
or equivalent technologies.
The effluent limitations for BAT. BCT
and NSPS are I!;)!;pte .. ed as mass
limitations (kg/1000 cubic meters raw
malerial) and are calculated by
muJUplyins three fi8ures: (1) achievable
long tenn effluent concentrationa basad
on eacD. coctrol technololY (Z)
achievable wastewater flow and (3)
variability (sclora to aCCOunt for short
tenn variations in effluent
I. , __ -
.-- - .. ....-..
. ..,--
'.
... Feder8I Reglster I Vol. 44. NO.,247 I Friday. .. 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules 75929
. concentrations (dally Illd monthly .wficieDtiy sensitive or IpedIic for
variaijonll. TbJ. basic calculation was application in watlr. CC with multiple
performed for lach T1!suJated detectors was rejected because It would
or poUutant parameter. Elnuent require mullJple runs and be .
limit.tiona for PSES and PSNS are' int'Ompatibl. with program time
expressed as allowable concentrations constraints. MotfO"er. becaule this
in'miWgrlll21t per Utir (mg/I). For method.would u ... everal detecton.
POTWa whlch may wisb to Impose each appUc:aDle to a narrow ranse of
ma .. limitations. the proposed substances. CC with multiple detectors
regulations provide alternate eq:.u"alent possibly would fail to detect certain
m ... llmitations. toxic poUutants. EPA cho.e CC/MS
becau.e it was the only avaUable
IV. Sampllnl a,ud Aaalytic:a! Program teclmique that could Identify a wide
AI Conge ... recognizad La enactU!.B variety of pollutants in many different
the Clian Water of 1971. the Itale- waste streams. lD the pmenee of .
ol-the-Itt ability to monitor and detlct interfenn! compounds. and .within the
toldc pollutant. is Umited. Mo,t of th. tim., COlUltrajnts 01 the prOsram. In
pollutant, were relatively. EPA', Pldgmenl, CC/MS and the other
unlcnOWD IlJ1tiJ oniy a few years 'so. and analytical methods for toxics \Iud In
only on rara occasion. bu EPA this NielDaJc!n. represent the best atat.-
r.plated or has ir:Id\lstry lnonitored or cf.the.art method. for toxic poUulant
even developed methods tD monitor for: analyslif available when-this study Will
theta poUutants. As • result. ilIlalytica1 begun. .
methods for lD4ny taldc pollutants.' As the state-ot.th'-Irt belan to
under Sef;tion 304(h) of the Act. have not mature. EPA balanto rerUle the
yet beeD promuJlated. Moreover •• tate- sampiial andanalytlca! and
. o(-the-arttec:hDique. involve the use or intend. to continue this rellDemeatto
lUshly upensive. sophisticated keep pace with technoiosy
equipment. with COlts   as hJgh as advancementL Resource constraints.
S2OO.000 per unit.of aqwpmenL . however. prevent EPA Ciom rewocking
Whm taeed Willi the.e probkillus. EPA: .. completed lamplins and aDalysn .t.o
scientists. iIlciudina staff of the . keep up with the evolution of. analytical
EnvirorlJQmtal Rnearcl1 Laboratory ir:I . methods. As a resulL the 4.Dalytlcal
Athen .. CeorJia and staff of the technique. llIed in sam. rulemakinss
E:ivironmental Monitoring and Support may dill'u from thol. used in
Laboratory in CindruJaU. Obla P
condllcted .Iit,rature .earch aad other ruiemwn! efforts.lD each calf.
....... I be howevlr. the aaalytica1 methods llIed
initiatlN. a ratory program to rep .... ent the best .tate-ot-llIe-art
diY.lop anelytlcal protot'Ols. The
analytical techniques used lD thi. available Cor II giVeD iadllSI.r)'· atudy.
Niemakins wen developed One of the goals ofEPA's analytical
concurr-lultiy with the development or prosr
am
[s the prolDullatioa of
general sUlplLng and analytical add.itional,secuol1 304{h) analytical
pl'CItocol. and were incorporated into lIlethoca fm toxic poUutants. scheduled.
the protocol. v.ltimabrly adopted for the to be done withiD calendar year 1979.
INdy of aLber industrial categorill_ Se. Before procudmS to analyze
Sampling and Ana/pis Procedures lor petroleum refining wa.tes. EPA
Sc,..,min, of lndu.mal ElfluflnU lor concluded that it had to delille specific
Priority PolJuttmtJr. revised. April 19T7. toxlC pO.llutllltl for analyses. The Ust of
Becau •• seetioD 304(h) methodJ wen es poUutants and cl ... es of poillltants
available tDr moat toxic metals. potendally includes thousands of .
pesticides. CTamd. IIldpheaol. the specific pollutants; aad the expenditure
analytiul. effort (OCWlled. on developing of resaurc.es in govenwent and privata
methods for SaDq)llill ilIld aQalyses of laboratories would 1M overwhelming if
organic toxiC'poUutaDti. The Ihre. basic analyses were .ttempted Cor aU of th ...
enalylicaj approec:.he. conaideM!d by pollutant •• There/oM!. in oniu to make
EPA WVI infra-red .pectroscapy. au the task 1D0re manageable. EPA .. I,ctad
(CC) with multiple 1Z9 speci.fic toxje poUutants for stud)' ill
detecton. and ,as chromatosraphyl tJtis rulemaking and other indusl.r)'
ma .. spectrometry (CC/MS). In rulemakinss. The crileria for';election of
.. lectina Ulonl th.,. alternatives. EPA the .. 129 pollutant. Included frequency
con,id.r.d their senailJvily. laboratory of occunenc. In water. chemical
availability'CQlta. appUcability t1) stability and structure. amount of
dJvenl wutl slrelUllillrom numerous chemical producld. availability of
ir:Iduslriea. aad capability chemical stand.reb fOl'measutement;
implementation wiUtiD the SlaNtOry and and other (actors.
court-ordued lime constraints of EPA's EPA ascertained the prasence and
prosram• The Agency concluded. that magnitude of the 129 specific toxic
Infra-rad 'peetroscopy. waB Qot pollutants in petroleum r-efininl
168
wastewaters in a sampling and ana}ysie .
prolram Involvina %3 fefineries and
POTW .. The plants were selected '.
primarily to b. representative of the
manutac:turina procesl ... the prevaleClt .
mix of production amonl plant .. 'and' the
cutreat technology in the : ..
industry. Compliance with BPT . ,"
requirement ia also one of the sit. .
lel,cUoD criteria. Seventeen of the ...
planls were diract dischargers. and six . .-
were indirect discharaerl. , ' ..
Th. primary objective oC th. field .:
sampUna prosram was to obtaia ..... :
compo,ite sampl,. of wastewater to. ":..:
determine pnSIJ:CI. absence and!
relative concentrations oC taldc ....
poUlltanta. Sampling visit. wlee made to
correspond to OUe. consecutive .day. at,
plant operation. *aw waslewater' ".
,amples were takeD prior to biological' .
treatment. Treated emUeClI samples· ..
wefW· taken ,ubsequent to biolOgical ;. '.
treatmAlnt; lD .ome instaaces lamp Ie.. .•
were taken after ernuen! polishln!(i.e ... '
poUshi.ng pond. sand rutee).EPA also. '
lamplad intake water to determine the :.':,
presence of tollic pollutants prior to ,
c:ontaminalJon by l"Ifutina processes. ".
Ie all iDltaacea. sra b I amp las takeA ..
every two were ccmbii1ed into
twenty·Cour hour compositea. Samples' :.';
for cODv.nllonal and noncollventlonal
pollulaDts were ohtained frOID the :.
hour composite samples. Aliquot. CtOl
the remailllng sample volwnes were:'· ....
combir:led in equal pardons at the.
laboratory to oblain the 7z·holU
composite. tOf toldc pollutant analysis :.
(acid and base-neutral extractable .
orgal:Licl. peslicid ... lnlltals). Crab . .'
.ampl .. were taken in specially
prepared vial. ror volatile (purgeable) .. '
orvanics. total phenols and cyanide. .
Prior to th. plant visits. sample .
were carefully w;allhed anci
prepared by specific methods.
dependins upon Ibe type of aample to be.
taken. Samples were kept on ice prinr fQ
axpreu sh,ipment in insulated
c:onlainers.
The analyses Cor toxic pollutants were.
performed according to groups of .
chemiCal. and ulociated analytical
.chem .... Organie toxic pollutants
Included volatile (purseable). ba.e-
neulral.nd acid (extnctable). .
pollutanls. lotal phenols and pesticid .... -
Inorganic toxic pollutants included '.
heavy metals. cyanide and asbestos .•
The priinary method used in setllening
and verification of the volatiles. base- .
neutral. and acid organics was gas
chromalosraphy with confirmation and: .
quantification of all priority pollutant!
by masl spectrometry (CC/MS). Tola
l
'.
phenols were arialyzed by the +-AAF
method. GC was employed for anaI)'1ir--
of pesticides with limited MS .-
75930
F.edenl Regi,ter I Vol. 44. No. ,47 I Friday. DEtcEtmber ·21. 1979 I Proposed Rules
c!?crumaUon. lb. Aiency Inalyud the
',! beavy metals by aloinic adsorption
;tromltry (AASl. with flame or
graphite furnace atomi%atioa following
Il'propriata dlaestion of the sample.
Cuplicate samples were analyud using
plasma emission spectrometry after
• ppropriate digestion. Samples were
anaIy%ed for cyanides by I colorimetric
method. with ,ulfide removed
by di.tillatioD. A.D.aly,ia for asbestol
Wit accomplished by microlcop), and
fiber presenci reported u c:hrysotila
Sber counr. AlIaIy,es for conventional
pollutants (BOOS. TSS. pH. and Oil and
Crull} and nonconventionai pollutants
(TOe and COO) Went accomplished
using "Method. for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Waates." (EPA W/6-74-
0(3) aad amendmenLS. /
The high co.ts. slow pace IIld limited
laboratory capability for toxic pollutant
analy .. s pOled diC.6cultiu unique to
EPA', eX1)erience. The cost of each
wastewater aaalysis for orglLltic toxic
poll!J.lant. ranges between $!350 and ,
51.700; txcll.ldina sampling' co.a (based
upon quotations recently obtained &-om
• number of UlalyticallaboratoriesJ.
Even with willmited retources, bowever.
tima &Dd.l.boralory capability would
bave posed .dditioQal constraints.
AI thoUih efficiency bas been improving.
:n thi. ltudy was initiated. well·
,led technician usirig the most
sophisticated equipment could perform
oNy one complete organic analysis in an
eight bout work day. Moreover. when
th.il ruJemakins ltud.y was bl8W1 there
were only .bout 15 commercial
laboratorin in the United States with
sufficient capability to perform these
analyses. Today there are about 50
commerdaJ laboratories known to EPA
whlch have thl capabiUty to perform
thlse analyses. and the Dumber is
increasins as the demand Cor such
capability alia inaeases.
In plac.ni.ng data aeneration for th.is
ruJemakUli. EPA considered "quirlng
discharge", to perform monitoring and
analyses for loxic pollutants under
Section 308 of tha !"\ct. The Agency
refrained [rQm uling this authority in
devlloping these regulatiotLI because it
de.ired ta keep dire<;1 control over
.. mplellnalYles dUI to the
developmental naturll of the
methodology lind the' need- ror close
quality control. Additionally, EPA
believed that the slow pace and l.lmited
laboratory capability for toxic pollutant
analyse. would bavl ba:npered a
mandatory ,amplins and analytical
... '."rt. Although EPA beUevlS that the
:ab!e data .uppon these regulations.
-- Agency would bave prllferred a
larger data bas. lor some of the toxic
poUutants and will continue to seek
Idditional data. EPA will periodically
review these regulations. as required by
the Act. and mue any revision.
tupponed by·new data. In developing
these regulations, moreover, EPA bas
taken I aumber ot steps to deal with the
limits of sdence and available data .
V. Data GatheriDg EIfort.
The data gathering eCfort i. des·cribed
in detailln Section IV of tha
Oevelopment Document. The e£fort
consisted of two seaeral phases--
technicaL questionnaire. sent to eaeb of
the refineries and S&I%1p1inS and analysis
Q£ wastewaler streams at selected
refineries.
(a)   The
pllJl)ole ot the technical questionnaires
w.s 10 characterize the industry ILlld
thus identify those lactors whlch.
pursuant to eactiol:1 304 of the Act. must
be cODSic1ared in .ettins e ahlen t
UmitatJoas based on BAT. aer. NSPS.
PSES aad PSN5.. Quettionnaires were
sent to 299 facilities believlld to be
included in the petroleum re£ining point
.0urCII cateaory. Two hundred sixty
completed questiollllaires were
returned: 2S did not return completed
qUlstionaaires and 14 claimed aot to be
op erating refineries.
In additioa to the engineerins data
needed ta establlsh effluent limitarions
in accordance with the Act. the Agency
also asked the refmetiea Cot any
analytical data they may have collected
measuring the presence and quantities
of both traditional and toxic pollutants.
It also asked the r.fineries to identify
any raw malerials used wh..ieb could be
a source of toxic pollutant discharge.
The questiona about raw materiel. wen
intended to form a basis Cor pOSSible
best management practices (BMP)
regulations. BMP regulation. might
specify th.1 alternate Inethods or raw
materials be utilized to reduce or
eliminate disebarges of toxic pollutants
(for example. in the refinins indusa")'.
the use of organophol,hate materials as
biocides in cooling towers could be
to replaclI the onll$ colIUtlonJy
used wh..ich contain chtt'!mjum and zinc}.
AJthoush deta existed on the presence
and qUlntity oC traditional pollutant
parameters. very little data existed on
either the presence or quantity of toxic
pollutants. The Inajor e.xceptions were
the metallic toxic and
phenoi-many ot which had been
monitored all a result of previous water
pollutioa abatement requirements.
fbI Sampling and Anolysi£ EPA
selected .eventeen direct disc barging
refineries to sample for the presence and
concentration of toxic pollutant, in
untruted process wastewaters and to
169
sample for the efficiency of current
treatment method. Us reducing the
quantities of thesa pollutants. The
levenleen rerUleries represent. range of
the factors required for consider. lion by
EPA in .ettinsetfiuent Umit.tions.
incIudinS si28. location and .se of
. equipment and facilities. EPA allo
lelected .ix of the .seventeen rermeries
to determine the eff,ctiveneSl of
granular activated carbon in further
reduc!ng amountll.o! toxic pollutants
after pre.ently used treatment but
before diseballJe to waters oC the United
In .ddition. the emueat from four
of the six plantl with .cti .... ted sludge
processes tested to determine the
effectivenes .. of powdered activated .
carbon. No relineries CUlTently use
eithtlr of tha,. tHatmanll: EPA thertliore
Installed the equipment to trea t a
portioa of theM refinerias' e!fluent. EPA
also took samplu of the intake water
.outce from. all of the direct discharging
relineries. The samples were intended to
what percentage. if any. of
\be toxic poliutaatSm a plant's
untreated emuent was attributable to its
pretence in tha intake water. In addHioa
to the 11 refineries sampled by RSKERl.
Effl"ent Cuideline-t Division and ita
coctracton. a refineries wenl sampled
by teams from. Surveillance and
Analysis Division, in .EPA regional
offices. These leama sampled the
refineries in the caW'se of their chew of
[aciliti., tor compliance with current
wastewater treatment requiremens; the
data coUected was used to ,upplemeot
other sources of informa tion.
EPA also selacted Cor sampling and
analysis six indinct dischallJing
refineries and.the two POTWa into
wbich they dilCharse. One POTW was a
secondary plant (i.e.. with biological
treatment) and one was a pri.mary plant
(I.e .• without biologlcallraatment). The
intent of tbJ. an.lysis WIS to detarnline
the preslnca and concentration of toxic
pollutant. beUli dischll18ed to POTWs
by indire1:t diach8J"8i.nl rermen es and to
metsUle the eUectiveneSl of POTW s in
removins these pollutants prior 10 their
discharge into the waters of the United
States. Additionally. the study involved
sempling and analYlis of the sludges
prOduced by the POTWs.
OurinS the a.bove described sampling
program. replicate samples It nine of the
direct dischallJing nlfineries, three of the
indirect discbargins refineries. and one
of the POTWs were given 10
representatives of the American
Petroleum Institute and/or the company .
TheM sa:nples were analyzed
separately by the indu.a")' the
results of tha analyses at the nine direct
dischaTSins relmene. have been made
.;.
. ' .
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday. December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules

available' '0 EPA by the American discharged by refineries' to similar
F.ttollwnlD.slitute. Analy.es of-the as that achieved by the BPT tec;hno!osy'
duplicate samples from the POTW employed by direct dlscharglS. This
samplin, program bave aot yet been result Us based on refin.nas opera ting at.
reported to EPA. existinJ PSES levels. The analysis also
fe) liesuiz..-{l} NIt:zlytieoJ Resulu. ,how. that primary treatment (both the
'The analytical data obtained all the   phil •• or the'
concentra.tion of toxic pollutanu show secondary POTW and the primary
concentrations of these POTW) does not si,ruflc,alltly remove
pollutel. In !Ultreatld ref Ulery many of the tox.lcs ditcharpd by
wast.waten. They iDclude. among indirect dischal1ing refuieries. Analyses .
otben. volatile aAd extrllc:table or POTW sludses shows that substantial·
orsaniCl. heavy metals. ed cyanide. concentration. oC priority pollutant.
Rllwts of aDalYHllor tradltional ' (heavy metals) accumulate uuludges of
pollu!lUlt paramatars al.o conf\nn the POTW, employUlg either pri.ul;Uy at'
fill,din,. of·the preVioul ,tudy that secondary Ir.alm.nt:. .
sipificaAt coql;ez:llratioD' of traditional (2) Pollutartt
, pollutant parameter'll ate found iD. (Existlil, Tl't1atment).
UDtreatld refi.aery wa.tl..· EPA reevaluated the final
O\UUlllrhl umpUua and ana'Ylu concentration. of rtl\llated poUl.Itants
pha .. of the data sathering effort. EPA now achieved by exi.tina technology.
found that BPT treatment substantially _.1 f th d ,L' ff
reduces toxic "oUutal1t conccmtrauol1s. luI rUwlJ: 0 e ata ,a""enn, e ort ...
" indicate that. with one exception. BPT
, Malt toxic pollutant. an reduced tg technolo"" Is achievi .... concentration.
. near or below tha a)DC1mtrationa • ..,-
con.idered (or usa iD the comparable to tho •• on wbich the
Analytical Protoc:al developed'by the originalBPT,limJtaUons were bued. The
Aieney. Dlsc:h1U18 oftax.lc pollutants data alia indicates. howeyu •. that planl.a'
iDto.U.s.'wate.rs coatinWi' aftIIr BPT are currently achievinl concentration. .,
of 4AAP phenol Car lower than that'
1: .. taI.at, howevet. even thOUih at· IIsumed for BPT. Althounl. BPT
!nuda reduced c:oaCGtraaolU fro12I that , limitations for 4AAJI ph:OJs were ,
of!Ul!r.atefre!f(ueut.Appcuiix 0 is a ': based on a colicealraUon oilOO II-s/L
list of toxic poUulaDts ",1W:b wen round the averale 4AAJ' phenol concentration
iD t:eated..lffluanla,&t more. than olle in the W:lal.cnuenl !rom the seventeen
refinery in COIlc:u.1n tiona &feater than
nomiDal anaJyticaJ det2CtioQ IiDUts a.a.d 'samples refinerin WI. 19 I'g/l. The
in coacantnijr:m,a are1tu than iD thli' reswts ranged from "no phenol .
intake wata: SOW"C&. Alao i.ncIudld.iD detec:ted" to &4l'i/1. Without
Appaad!x 0 are, those pollututs found: considl!ration of any variability factors
in onlll one refinery but which cw.l.d Dot for short term flUctuations, all of the 11
b. attributed to tal:ton wliqui to that reliaeries were meeUna concenlral1on.
refinery (See.ci1.tCI.I.Iliou or of 4AAP pbenoll"l thaa the achievable
POtJ.U1'AHI'S NOT RECULATED eO.Qcentrationa assumed Cor BPT.
below). VL ID.dUlby SubcatesoriJatlOQ
AnalyUcal resWtI were compared to
thOM r.pal1ed by lb. Amerlean In dev.loping these taauiatiQEiS. EPA
Petroleum InstHute (API) from thlt . carefully evlUuated. characteristic, o(
duplicate samples taken at lliDe, of the 1" petroleum re1ineriuto determine it
refineries .saznpled· by EPA. While the' .ubealegorization of the IDdWltry was ,
qualltitativa coaeeatrations measured apPfQpriate. In moat induatries. faetors
by the indUitzy pnerally d1f!entd from' which aIrect the ability of facilities to
thOM reported. by EPA CQQtt'act. achieve tec:hAoIosy·blsed limitations
laboratori •• (lD.dusir1 cOftcantnllioas vary amonl group. of plants. ID. such·
.howa t.ndalley to b. Inshe .. thrm EPA. cases. EPA. wUl establilh diU.rent
concaattatioa .. ). th .. coaclusjgll drawu- emUIIIU limJtaaona or standanil Cor the,
fran!. the indUitry data I. tha sam.'.. vanoul&foupa (i.e ..
EPA'L ID.dUIIry dati ccllflnn that Additionally. the •• tabli,hmanl'iD thl'
.ubalanUal conc;antracona oC toxic 1977 amlndmlal, to. the Act of a· "cnlt
pollutants are discharged in untruted' reasonableneu" analyst. £01' BCT
rllnnery WBStes: that BJ7l' trUlment. limitations PfQvidl. another ba.i. tor
makes subslaeual muetious In priority subcalesorizatieD.. Where olle group of
poHutant concentrations; and that toxic plants has higher costa per pounci Gf
pollutants are still bein, discharged to pollutant removal. different BCT
the waters of th" Ucir..ed Stales altar lilnitatjons may be established. . .
BPT trel taltAt. Essentially •• ubc:atel0rlzatioll· alloW'S
Resw ts or the. analyses of samples the Agency to more preciseJy' nne tune
taken .aum thl two'iOTWs sho ...... that the requirexnlllla'o! technology balad
secondary POt'Ws reduce the- limilalioDs 10 th .. capadtyo' "'divIU'l8
conceatration of: tha tolti.c pollutant. industry; .
170
. The study in support of the previous
regulatioM (BPT. BAT. NSPS.and PSNS}::...
concluded that oaly one factor of.:....th •.
total e£nuent flow pet unit of ' ..
prcducfion-signiflc;sntly affected the: '"
ability oC the various plant. in the
induatry to achieve effiuent·teQuctions.';::
However. rather than establishiIllJ "
limitation. for' various iX'Oup' of plentl ",.'; ,
based 00 their now. EPA develgped five·
mathematical models which tbe :
Agency to predict the total efOulJnt flow,'
gf a pltroleum refinery based on'its size
and process characteristics; The ,
Agency. therefore. diVided the industry"
inlo Bvesubcategorles-toppina.. ,,""':"
. cracking. petrocitllmicaf. lube and: : :-:-,
Intetrated. Each lu!xate8ory included' .•
tha whOle now was predicted"
by one of.the tiv. models. ' "
In deveJoping thlSe twgulaliODs. EPA ::.
reviewed those Cactors. i.ncluding Ber'-'
CO,tl. which miglit warrant "
subcate,orizalion of the industry.,Asain., '
the Asency concluded that total effiuenl ;
now pe: unit of is the, only" _.
Caetor which   ilffects a
refinery's abUityto ,chine efflu.nt .-
limU.tions. After review of the .
previoualy developed mathematical' . :' _- ,
model •• EPA found that wMe these' '. ':
models adequately pledictad e(fluent "'::
nows before application oCBFl'. they do' ..
not adequately pndict current ..
emuent flgw rates. Thus .. other models
were considered. .
In developiq its flow 1Il0del. EPA
evaluated wlUQ oC the petroleum
rermery's production pr'OclSses were'
malt lignificaAt ig predicting its total. " ..
.COuea! Bow. Over one hundred distinct '.
processes were considered. 81 well as a :'
I;on.iderlble nwnber of proclss
aroupinal. Uhimateiy. the 'Aaency's. .' ',!.
analysis identifilld rour groups of
Pf13C1SS vanablas which fonn Ibe bast" ..
of the propo.ed Bow model. These 1Ua-
CJ'\Ide ail capacit)'. aackina capacity.
asphalt l;apac1ry and lube capacity.
Together. thes. Cour &foups   a .
total of 49 dUferent procnses. Although
thelll procelses do nat ueces.arily
represent the [&rIa.t coallibutions to
total now, EPA found that their use in ' , '
the m.a thema tical model senerated the'
mOlt accurate predictions of that now . "
(See Summary of Puhlic:: Participation
IIl;tlon below).
This flow model repretenu the eorl\, of
EPA resulaUons for the petroll!unl
fefining Lnduatry IIlId it is uud in two
important way,. First. by compatinS' a
plant's actual flow to its predict.d flow. '
EPA i.t able to dlltermine wbich plants·"
Iiave hisher or lower flows than the .. .. : :
average for comparable plants in,the '
Lndustry. EPA has unci this in/onnauc.
to determ.i.ne the capacjry of to· ,' ..
75932
'federal I VoL 44. No. 24; I Friday. December 21. 1979 / Proposed Rules
their level of now to below that
'S I:UXTtllt industry     (See
.' Emuent Limitationa section below).
Second. EPA is lainll the alodel to
determine specific effluent limitation.
tor each plant in the industry. A!I with
the previous rltgulation.s. EPA is using
the model lo'adiu.t • facility" e(fluent
Umitations to aCcoW1t for its total
wastewater senerated per unit of
production. (Sea ApSMndix H for lample
calcula tions J.
Thi. mode! does adequately pNdict
the flows of all direct discharging
refineries. Since this single model
"upplants the·flvlt alodels which formed
the ba.is Cor the previous
$ubc;atl!30rization. the Agency concludes
that no subcalegorization of the industry
ia necesaary with respect 10 effluent
Umitalionl and standarch applicable to
direct di.charge.. .
Additionally. it is the Agellcy's
sener.l pollcy all pretreatment'
standard. that such standard! be
expresled II Cl)ncentration rather than
'" mllllllinitations.·(S.e GO CFR Part
12&43 FR :l:7738J. Since EPA hal
c:o.llcluded that achievable
concentrations ot pollutants do not 'lUi'
among cla .. es of within the
pe trol elUll. refinin& illdustry. .
subc.ateaorization for pretreatment
tdatd. is not aecauary.
- -
_ Availabt. Weete Water Control and
Treataumt Taclmology
(aJ Slatua of In-Plat:/! Technology. BPT
regulations have been in eHect sinca
1974 and there i •• ianificant uniformity
in tr .. bnent performance amona direct
dischargen. Treatment Is generally
similar to the model BPT trealmlllnt. This
includes in-plant control of ammonia
and water use &tid end-oI-pipe treatment·
consisting of oil/water separation.
biological treatment.. and a final
pollshinS slep (e-g. filtration). Many
ntflneril.'l have fowtd that the polishinS
step is RO·t necessary to tneat BPT
limitations. or U.at filtration is more
effective before. ra ther than after.
biological treatment Types of biological
tnratment uled in direet dischargins
refUteriea include activated .Iudge.
lIerated lagoons. o1ddation ponds and
trickUnS filters.
ClUTent wastewater treatment
practias by ind!tect dischargers
generally are Um.ited to pbysical oil/
water separalion and. in SOlne casel.
solIZ water strippinS for ammonia and
sulfide contral. Substantiai
ctlncentratiol15 of organic toxic
poUutants. metals. and cyanide were
, fOW1d in the refinery wastes being
,larged to POTWs.
tb) Contrf)/ Technologies Considerwd
/01 Us. in This Industry. EPA identiIed
specific control and treatment
technolosies appropriate to the
pollutants discharged by the peu-oleum
refuting industry. Some are cW'Tenliy iD.
use in the pab-oleum reflll.ing indll.ltry·
and other3 have been successfully
applied in other industries. The centrol
and treatment technoloSies c:onsidend
in the EPA study are the following:
{ll Il.t:u,e IJ.1Id Recycle of Waste '-
Waters. Total effluent flow can be
reduced by both In·plant control and the
use oC truted and untreated wute
waler. u alternative water sources fOI
p1'oceues which ClJrrllntly use outside
watlllr sources. This is a demonstrated
tecMology in Ibe petroleum refmlDs
indu.try (examples include u"ing treated
effluent as make·up to cooling towers,
pump sland cooUng systems. waahdown
waterl. and fir. water sy.tem.J.
Flow reduction is Dot a Sinile. disaeta
option. but represents a ra'nse ot options
from no reduction'to complete reduction
(uro discharge). EPA has evaluated
three levels of now now met by
refineries. These levels represent
ntducliollS of 21 percent. 52 percent and
100 percent (zero discharge) tluoughout
the indu"try. lz1 evaluating this option.
EPA bas assumed that a reductioll.-in
lotal now will result in a correspondlna
I'1!duc:tioD in total mall discharge of
pollutants: A fuller disCUlsion of this
issue can be tOW1d iD. the development
document and below in the summary or
public pattidpation sectica 01 t.b.il
preamble. _
(2) Powdered Activ(Itad Carbon
EnhanclJment of Treatment..
Addition of powdered· activated carbon
to aerated biological systems.
Significantly improves the removal
capabilities of biological treatment. as
reported both in the petroleum cef!nina
and other industries.
(3) Granular Activated Carbon
After BPT  
This treatment technology bas not
been demonstrated in the petroleum
refininl industry. [t hu been used on a
J.imjted bas!. in other industrie. and in
treatment of municipal water supplies.
-(f) M"lal$ Removel. The of
metal. (such II chromium and zincJ by
pH adjustment. preCipitation. and
clarification is a demonstrated
techno!esy in the petroleum relining
indultry as weIr as other induslJies.
(5) Biolr;giceJ Treatment
(I'rttlreatmentj. Waatewaters discharged
to POTWs w.re fOW1d to contain lUSh
concentrations of !elUC pellulanla. Thesa
concentration. are significantly reduced
at diract discharging refineries ..,hich
ulle biologlcal treatment.
The costs of applyins these
technologies were developed through
compilation of cost data supplied by
171
equipment manufacturers and by
applicaUon of standard engineering data
lind cost eaUmaUon teehniquu. The
technical contractor whieh supported
EPA in the development of these
proposed reguiations haa extensive
experience in the preparation of
engineerina COlt estimates.
None of the in-plant control or end-oi-
pipe treatment technolo8ies considered
in the development of these regulations
Is considered to be innovative. All ot the
In-plant controls and procesa
modification .. a. in this
preamble and. more apecilie.ally in the
Development Document. bave either
been used or inveaUsaled for use in this
industry and do not represent major
process chlllges. The end-of-pipe
treatment tec.hnolosies have been
applied in thf, IAdu.try or other·
indus trilS.
Vm. BAT Emlleat Llmilations
The Cactors cOl1sidered in assessing
best available technology economically-
acruevable £BAT)-JDclude the age· 0(' "
equipment I.1Id !acilltie. Involved, the
process employed. PtQc ... changes.
non-water quality environmental
imP8cta (iDcluding energy requiremellts)
and the costs olappllcauon of sulOh
technology (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). In
lIeneral. the BAT technology level
represents. at a minimum. the best
econoallc:ally achievable periormlUtce ot
planls of variOIll 8ses. lizes. processes
or other ahued characleri.tiCs. Where
existing performance is wtilonnJy
inadequate. BAT may be tran.ielTed
from a different wbcatesory or cattsory.
BAT may include process changes or
internal coatroll. even when not
common industry practice.
The statutory assessment of BAT
"conliders·· co.t •• but does nol require II.
balancing of costl against emuent
reduction benefit. (see Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle. supra). In deveiopins the
proposed BAT. however • .EPA has given
substantial weight to the reasonableness
of COltl. Th. Agency has cOlUidered the
volume and nature 01 discharges. the
volume and natuze oC discharges
expected after IppUcation of BAT. th,
general environmental effects of the
pollutants •• nd the COlts and economic
impocls gf the required pollution control
levels.
Despite. this expanded consideration
of costs. the primalj' detenninant of
BAT remairuJ effluent reduction
capability. £U1uallt Iimit.tion" for the
petrateW'D refining industry are
expresaed as maSllimitations. i.e .•
restriction. on the total.quantity ot
pollutants which may be discharged.
Since the total mas. of most pollutantl
in an effluent stream depend! on both
Federal Regisler I vor. 44. No. %47 I Friday.   2l. 1979 I Proposed ,Ruin
/
75933"
tht total
l
emuent ftow and Ut.
concentration of pollutants in that fTow,
the fix option. considered for BAT
include various combination. oC flow
reduction anC£improved performaoce·of
, WIlSI .. treatment technology.
fa} S .... T optioM can$idered. t1:l'
Option On_Require .ffluent
limitations based on an'sverage now
reduction o£ 'Z7 percent achieved thrculllr
great., reu ... , aDd recycle' of WaBtewahlr.
This option would not require additlonal'
end-of-pipe treatment ,inCI limitalJoQl.
would b. based upon the performance
or BPT tecMo[ogr. IiIhenol
(4AAPllimitali'on •• howevar, would be
blUed: OIU long term &dUevabte
coneenfratlon 0119 /.lilt [See discussion
unde: BAT S'eI'eclion and Decision
Criteria below}: Effluent Um.ilatiOns 011.
am.monll •• ullTde. COD' and pH would
be let .t BPTlevlls.
The.lenl ol now Cor tfLi#' tl'OlL is .
now achLeved by. $Opere.llt oC the
facilities iA the l.a.duatry. Tha
Development DocUmeJitcontains a- fuLler.
olthe manariAwhich
figure .. were de.dvad. Sinc.' trea tment of
pH.. ammonia .. rusd sulfide ia based on.
proc:eu dlanau or in-plant contra!s., 110.
futthu reduction. from. BPT I.vela. would!
be achiev.ed,by a reduction I.a. fin.al
ernuent.Qow.EPA does-not'bave
sllincieat data.to conclude' that the
con.c'entration ot COO in treated effluenl
rernainl ccinatut as flow i.s reduced..
CoruequlnUYr COO. pH. ammonia.. aDd
; '. sulfide linUtaliaM at'I. beinr maintained.
, at BFI' levela.lS.. Summary oiPublic.
• Partic:ipat.iOIl}.
.. For thH65 dirKtdiacharsins
nflneries affected by this regulatiorr.-
519.3 milliOu. addillODa1l.a.vatment
would. be required with· an anaual cost
or $1.'1 miWoQ lAc:iudiq Interest and
depre1::lati'on. Thil' amount .. to 3;00005
per aaUon of product No' c.lOlunS would.
be expected.. Rdinma capacity and:
coftSumptioDl would rama..iJl, unaUectect.
(2) OptJOQ Twvo--Requi1'I' effluent'
limitations; based 011 an. average:
pdtllnt tlowr.edudlan achiavad through..
graatll: :eliSa: ancirecycle of wastewater.:.
This. opdoc: would IlOC requite additionu
endoClf-pipe tr'eetmantlinc.' Iim.itations·
would be based' ot! Uu, performenc.- of
BPT ttwolOilY. In·planr
side .tream treatment ma, b. n:quired'
in a smalf I1umber of facilities tQ n:move;
cOlTO!ive IX .calf Conning conalituent ••
Mau· !Unitalion. on 4AAP'phenoI would
be based OIl the 19 I's/l' cutTentiy
achiaved by industry. Effluent .
. Ifmitalions 011 ammenia:, sulfide. COD'
IUd pH would be set at BPT revels.,
Th. leva! of !low for thil option is:
now achieved by 34 perceIlr of the
indueay. an averaSI reduction of S2
pen:ent would be required thr'oughout
the indulltry.
Although precille Costl han not yet
been calculated for thl; option. EPA has
based on Us technological .
evaluation- of the industry. that Ihe COlt.
for Option- Two approximate thole
projected rot Option three below. For
the 165 direct discharging refineries
aflected by this regulation. 5113.0
milllon additional Investment would be
required with an annual.co.t of $46;1
million inclu.dinglnterest' and
depreciation. Toil amounlA 10' 5.0002 per
aallon oC product. No clOIW'es would be
expected. Refilling capacity and
consumption would remain unaffected'.
[a order to confirm its UleSlmlnt of
costs EPA intends to conduct an
engineering field .urveyoC the
auociated with OptiOIJ Two. This
IW'Vey will be completed' and' I report
prepared prior to final promulgation of
thesa regulation,. •. EPA will publisb a
notice in the raderal Repater when the
report is availa ble to lJie public:::..
Comments aD the cost apPr1)ximation tf1t
Option TwO' are requested· (see-
lolieitation of Comments' section below).
(3/ Option Tlr.nr.--Require .I.fluent
, limit. lions based 011 a' combination 'of
. ,OPTION. ONE tlow n:dl1ction and· .
improved! endoO(-pip .. treatment.
Improved end-oC .. pipe treatment was
evaluated Witb the. use of powdered
activated carbon· (pAC). Severa! pilo,
studies havS' demonstrated this:
tedmolo8r.lt has beerrtUed at run sCIlle·
by one piant'ln the'industry. Thi ..
combination or tr·eatmezU'prac!uces mllst
limitalions. equivalentto those' produced'
by flow'reduction alone· under Option
Twa. ,
For the 185 direct dJ'schllrginll·
reImerlelil affectea- by this regula tion.
5113.0 million· addltional
'
inn,llnent
would be requ.i..red wUb al1' ann\JIII coat
of $48.7 million fnchuilns: iJrteres and
depreciation. This amounts to 5.000: pel"
. gallon of product. No closurn would b.
expected. Refining capacity, Ind ,
consumption wauld remain' unaffeded.
(4] Option Four.-Raquire ma ..
limitatiOns based on Option Two plus
segregation and npal'1lte treatment of
cooUng tower blowdown·. Coolin. towar
blowdown would' b. treated Cor melels
(reduction of liexavafent chromium to
trivalent ehromjUD'l. pH adjustment
precipitation and c.larificationJ.
Li.mUations ror other procrss streams
would ba.ed' on' treatment III exislins ..
ePT trutment sytlem ••
Treatment of segr8lated streams may
result i"n \hI removal of. more toxics thaD'
would use of biologics! treatment on a
combined. dilute. wa.t .. ,fream.
Potential contamination o[blolollicai
sluda_s by cooling tower biocidel
172
,(generaJly containins chromium and: ';
. zinc} would be reduced. RemovaZ,or·: ..
orsanic t'oxic pollutants in the- biorOBfea
trutment system may' be increased' ,.
lince the wastewater-WCluld: not be' .' ,
diluted with-coolinS·toWef' wal'er priOl"t\7>
lteatment. ,.".':' :')
EPA has not mad. a detailed cost· -:-. ,;
. analysis fol' this option. While the cost'
of metab trlliltmmt can' b. estimated;. .. ,
'the cost or selltegatinll cooling tower- ''';
blowdown from. other process, strums .:
caMot be estimated with.avatlable- .
data. The engineering survey: desccbed!
above (S ... Option 2Jwill also be use,d'., ,
to coUect data on the tec:luUcal '. , ... ,
. flqu.itements and cost oC cooling. wate ..r:
.8S1'8118 lion. . ::: .. '
(5) Option effluent. .•
Ifmitations baaed on Oplion.ODe noW' ,.
reduction. plusthG addition-of
activated I:arbon (CAe) to conlrQl: ,"
residual toxic orgwc pollutants
dillolvecr in the wastewatat: diacharsad.
Crom OptiDn 1 ,technolo8)'.
, While CAe il Dot a demonstrated.
technnlollY i..I1 the.j;etroleum reficilli
c
' • '.,
indu.try. it lia. beeD uled. in otheJ: '
indJaUies. and in treating municipaL
watel'suppll ••• EPA conducted pilot. . ,
"treatability" tests at six. refinerie.s,
durinSth .. data gallierins effort. Se .... raJ:.
technical articles have been· pl1bllshed.
comparing CAe, with. other technologie!·
in treatins n:finery.wastes. Although.
NSults of the Agency study were ' .
inconclusive. il'caD.be·geaeralll( stated; ':
that toxic:. pollutant remov.al· increases.
with the UI. of CAe. This ramoval ..
bowever. appears to be onJ1 marginally .
better than with PAC (O,.,tton. Two}: ud.· .
the coal of CAe Islll!J.ch
PAC. ,',
EPA &valuated.lhI economic, impact.
ollhis op\lon' durinS lhe previous: round
oI guidelines (Se. PriO&! EPA Regulatiol:lS:
discu.l3ion above)., While EPA did milt
reevalute the econoaUC: impact' of thi$
option. tha earlier economic impact
analYlilllpcedic:ted that .ome
could be expected to ciase' it t.&..is: option.,
were adopted.
(S} Optian Six-Require zerO'
dischargl Cram existing refllledes. This
could be echi.ved by further reu, .. aneil
recycle. evaporation..and/or sub,wiac.·
reiajection of wlstewaters. Fifty.five
existin8 refinerieS'. an' now- at Ziro
dischargr.
. ..
This i •• demOlllllated technnlollY.
but coats weTS not calculated for thi.
option. While additional:coata for·
bu..ilding a new refinery to achieve zero'
dl!charge can be calculated'(See'N'ew"
Sou,c .. Performancir Standards below1. :.
Ihe, costs of retrofi'ttin8 an existing, ,
rlfinery are highly site specific. Costs .....
bowever. wou)d b. sisnificanlly higher
15934
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. Z47 I Friday. December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules
than cOlLI for applytna a.ay o( \he o\her
'iOD"
1)1 BATJelection and decision
criteria-EPA has selected Option Two
u the buis for proposed effiuent
limitation •• This option was selected
because it was best supported by
available data and because it sCIoras
further reduction In total pollutant
dJscJlltpt thr1JIlP the use oeproven
technology. It provides reasonable
further progress towaras the Clean
Walet Acrlsoal of the eUmmation of
the dJaehalle of pollutants. Further,
these limitations are wo
technolOgically and economically
.Ic:hiev"bl. throush the USI! of Option
Three. Thus. all facilities have sev8t8i
ways to achieve this limitation. They
may meet It totally throush now •
nlductioa or through a comhinatioD of
now reduction and improved treatment.
Available data show that existing
treatment is reducing the concentration
of 4AAP phenols to 19 ,.g/l ISH data
sathering efforT. section above}.
Coostquetltlymassllmltations on
phenol. will b' based on th.lt
achievabl. concentration. In order to
validate this deci,ion. EPA is presently
",q,uesting. under SectiOD 308 of the Act.
· that 37 refineries believed to have
Installed BPT model technology send
. 'ta to EPA forfurthft evaluation of
'at COJiltitutes a proper achievable
· ".mcen Ira tioo of 4.A.AP phenols based
011 BPT treatment tecll.nology. That data
will also allow EPA to !Dake a
determinatiOIl of whether the variability
factol'1 used to determine daily and
monthly nuctuations should be chanljed
· at a result of the lower concentrations.
Man limitations On all other pollutants
are based 00 those rmal concentrations
already pin of the BPT limitations.
EPA does ngl have completl! data on
the co.t or achieving these Umitations
· solely through the use of flow reduction
and requests comments Oil this malter.
Further. EPA specificaUy requests
comments and data regarding the
propoud change in the achievable
concentration 'of 4M2 phenol (sl!a
Solicitation of Commenu section
below}.
Option FOUl still remains I ,.rious
andiQate for the basi. of final
rel\llaUons. EPA has data establishing
that gnlter quantities of metals and
toxic orsanics can be removed when
introduced into separate treatmenl
systems at hishet concentrations. EPA
has only limited data on the cOsts
required to segregate nows from cooli:lll
\owen. nul matter is presently under
'''ldy and comment.!! an Mlquested.
)ption Five WII not ,elecled becaUll.
_AC allow, oniy sUghtly better
poUut&at removal than PAC (Option
Thnl!} and because the cost o£ CAC is
considerably higher than the coat of
PAC.
Option Six was not ,elected because.
in the Agency's judljment. Ihe cl;lsts of
retrofitting for uro dischal1!8 on a
uniform national basis would be
significantly higher than the selected
opUon and may result In a substantia!
number of plant closUles. Nevertheless.
this option sUll remains a serious
candidat. for·any subsequent revisions
oC BAT lirnitations. especially for certain
sins and/or types of plants.
lX. aCT Emu.nt LimitatiOn.l
The 1977 amendments added section
301(b)(41(Ello \he Act. establishing
"best convenUonal pollutant control
technology" (BCT) [or discharges of
conventional poUutants from existing
indusU;al point SOUlces. Conventional
pollutant. are those defined in section
304{b)(41-BOD. TSS. fecal coiiIonn an.d
pH-and any addJtional pollutants
dermed by \he Administra tor as ,
"convenlional." .pn ruIy 30. 1918. EPA
dl!sianated oil and grease as a
conventional poUutant (44 FR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation:
rather it replaces SAt for the control of
conventional poUut,allts. BCT rl!quites
that lim.HaltoM for cOllventional
pollutants be aueued in light ot a new
'·cost·rl!uonablenl!ss" test which
involves a comparison of the cost alld
level of reduction of conventional
poUutanll from the dJschallie of pubUcly
owned treatment works [POTW) to the
cost and lever of reduction of such
pollutants from a class or category of
industrial sources. As a patt of its
review of BAT for certain "secondary"
indusuies. the Agency has pl'tltt1ulgated
a methodology Cor this cost test. (See 44
FR 50732. Aug. 29, 19791. The Asency
COalpares industry costs with that of an
"average" POTW with a now oC 2 mgd
and costs (1977 doUats) oC S1.18 per
pound of poUlltant temoval (BOD and
TSS).
EPA applied this methodology to the
costa for removins conventional
pollutant.!! in the petroleurn rerming
indUlltry and concluded that BCT
limitations based on a 52 percent
reduction in total efnuent now by
gRater recycle Ind rellse or
wastewaters (Option Two) or a S2
percenl reduction In pollutants
dischalied by a combination of now
",duction and powdered ·activated
carbon enhancement oC activated
sludges (Option Three) Ble reasonable.
At this level. the total annuaU:r;ed cost
for BCT technology is $48.7 rojlUon and
EPA projects that 48.7 millioD pounds of
BOD and TSS will be removed
throughout the indu.stry by Option Two
17'3
technology. Based on these figures. the
Cost to pollutant reduction ralio Cor
Option Two is $1.00 pet pound of BOD
and TSS removed (compared to a
POTW cost of S1.18 pl!t pound of BOD
and TSS). Thereiore. EPA proposes: BCT .
efnuenl limitations at the proposed BAT
(Option Twollevel. BCT investment.
annualized costs. and economic impact
are included in the BAT analyses.
X. Nftw PerfoZ'DUnclr Slandards
(NSPS)
The basis fot new source performance
standards (NSPS} under section 306 of
thl! Act is the best availa ble
demonstt.ted technology. New plants
have the opportunity to design the best
and most etIiCient petroleum refining
processes and wastewater treatment
technologies: Congress. therefore.
  EPA to considl!r the best
demonstrated process changes. in·plant
controls. and. end·of-pipe treatment
technologies capable of reducing
pollution to the maximum extent
Ieasible.
(aJ NSPS Options Considered. (11
Option On_Require perforinan'ce
standards based on the same technology
prOposed for BAT. including wastewater
now control by recycle and reuae or
wllstewatel'S aiter BPT treatment. As
discussed under DAT Option Two.
application oC this teehnology will
a high degree oC of toxic
pollutants. Similar reductions in
pollutant mass discharge can be
achieved by BAT Option Three. This
lev.l of treatment is similar to CUlTent
NSPS. and no addJtionall!Jtfjendih&res
are required due to thHe revised
standatds.
(Z) Option Two-Require performance
standards bued On gtandu/ar activated
carbon (BAT Option Five). As Qiscussed
under BAT Option Five. CAC allows
somewhat better poUutant removals
than NSPS Option One. but is
considerably more expensive.
(3l Oplion a
performancl! standard of zero discharge.
Unlik. BAT Option Six. thl!re is no cost
of retrofitting to come into compliance
with a Zl!ro dischalle requirement. Zero.
Qischarge of refinery wastes is a
demonstrated technology; fifty-fin
refineries have been identified by EPA
whlch are currently achieving no
discharge of wastewatl!rs to U.S. waters.
The American Petroleum Institute (API)
has published a technical nlport which
makes a detailed evaluation 01 the
technologies capable of achil!ving no
discharge oC refinery Willies. The report
also calc:u1ates tha costs to be e)C;pected
if those technoiosies were desisned into
a new refinery [i ••.• without the need to
reLront txisting equipment). This option
/
I
Federal Register I Vol. No. 247 I Friday, ,21. 19p f Proposed RuIn 75935:',
would require new souree DC the size
end con.fisun tiOrt likely to be built in the'
19eo'. to illc:tlZ' additional1llvestment oC
$9.5 million with an annual' cost oC
million including interest and
depreciatlon. U a level of price
protection is illstituted !bat mai'ntain$
industry capacity et current levels. these
repiations wiU.,.entially bave no
effect since new-refllledes will not be
anleMS the iDdultry ill the (ot'llseeable
Ntul'e. l!« I. vel o( pri'ce protection is
iIlstituled that allowe fol' growth in
refinery capacity Pl'Ollort1onal to gn:l'wtb
iA conaumptioa. ths co .... or compliance
oC s.ocn a .aUon will be reflected in
lriahe, pJOduct prices oC th. sam.
amount.
, i (b) NSPS,SeillCtion and Decision
Criterio-FJ' A has selected· Optio!!.
Three 111M basi. lor proposed new
sowce ptdormance standard •• Zero
discharaa ill a, technology
in th. petroleum refining iDdUJiIrY and.
· baaed.oa availabt.,data. C&Il be
· econOll1icallyachieved. Conaequeat!y.
EPA b.liev ... th .. t As;t requires that
, OptiOl1 niee be the b8sis [or NSPS.
",' bowever; soUcits. other data- which,
would ,ullport at refute. the aasumvt.\oD
that %IIM dLlch&l'8e i.t &%I achi.vablAr
.'. technolo8')l Cal IleW sources QD. a
natioawide bub. Additioll811y. EPA
solicits COlDlUllts on the other optiON
·''Ilgested;. (See. lolic.itation ot comment.
sectiGn belo.w.) •
" XI. PrelZutmeat StaDduda ..
'::;;," Section 307(f1r oC the Act requires EPA
. ': .. : . to promulsata'pretreatmll!1t standards
. '::. Cor both exilltinS lources (PSES} ·and
new .OurCII (PSNS) or pollution which
discha.rae theiz into pubUcly
owned treafment worles (POLWs) ..
These pretreatment standards are
.. " d"ilfllld to prevent the dL,chlllle ot
pollutaD.tI wbich pasat.bnNah..rnterfer.
· with. or are incompatible with
the operalieD of PO'l'W •. lA addition. ll:t.
Clean Water' Ad of 1911 ada. a.new
dimeruioD. to these- $Wldards by
requi:ins pretreatlZlent or pollutants.
such aa lru"Y matals. that limit POTW
sludge management .ltemati've •• '!hI!'
lesi.tlat.\ve bislory the Act indicates'.
that pretreatment alandarda are to be'
technology based and. with respect to'
toxic pollutants. analDious to BAT. The
Agency hal promuIgaled leneN!
prelreatment rqulations whiclt
,stablish a &ame"orlc forthe
implementation of these statutory,
(St. 43 FR %7-138. June 28'.
t978).
A determination. oC which pollutants
may PaN throush or'be-iAcompatibilt
with PCrrW operations. aad thu. be
subject to pretreatment' standard ••
depends oa lhelavefof treatment
employed by the PO'l'W. In
more pollutants will pass Uu-ough or
interfere with. PO'l'W employing
primary b'eatment (usually physicaJ
separation by settlinaJ than'one which
haa ill.ttalled ,econdary treatment
(settling pIlls biological' stabilization).
Section 301(b)(1)(D) of the Act
requ,ires moat POTWs ret-have installed
secondary ll'eatmel1t by July t. 1917.
There are. however. two group. of
POTWI which hav. not yet met thi.
requirement. One group remains subject
to the obUsation aad contains POTWI
which are .chldul.d to· inltall
second'ary Il'eatnlent withm. the next few
years. A second aroup of POTW. will b.
exemllt from the reqw:ement to instaU
seconda:y treatment Under SectioSl
30l(h) of the Act. POTW. which
di,chlt8e into marine water,· maT> .
under certain drc:wDstances. receive a
waiver from this reqW:ement. EPA haa
promulgated rqufatioas dealing with
the isluance of lectioI1'301(h} waivef'l.,
(44 Fa 347M.Junl 15.
(a) Pl'etreatmllnl OptioM
{1J Option One--£atabli.h pretreatment
fol" all refineries which requires metaLs
(chromium) removal (PH adJustment.
,precipitation and clarilication, and .
'existing PSES controls of ammonia and
oil and sr .... ; Metals removal would be.
reqw:ad only fot coollna tower
btowdown. since that ia the major
sourCI of the heavy melal. of conclm-
chromium and zillC. Under this option. '
organic priority poUutmll would pas.
through primary POTW, wbich have. not
yet compUed with Section. 301{b}(t)(Bto£
the Act and thOle P01Ws which are
granted waiven under Section 301(h1.
For the 53 in.direct discharging
refmeri ... afrected by this l'esulation S9.S-
million additional investment would b.r
required with a=l.laf coats of $5.%
million including iDlerest and
depredation. No cloal.l.tes would be
txvected. A nllw indirect dbcharsina
refmery of the size and' confisura tion
Ukely to b. bullt ia the 1980'. wou.ld
incur additionallnvestlllent oC SO.3
million with annual costs oCSO.2 mllllOu.
includina intere.t and depreci.tion.
Refuting capacity and domestic
consumption would bl'l1naifected by
this regula tion.
{2} Option Two-EStablish two
pretreatment standards •. PTetreatment
One. since there are no PO'I'Ws wlticlr
havs' been ;ranted wlliven under
Section 30'l(h). Cosu were developed;
howevu. tor'seVlln indirect dischlU"gina
refineries to in.taU biolosicallreatment.
Tb "e costs are presented iD tl'Ul ,,: . , ,':::
Development " ._ .....
(b) S.J.ction QI pr.tr.QUZl.nt .. .'
technolqgy and decisiorr cl'iteria-F:PA
has selected OpUon Two II the batis.for.::
pretreatment standards. Based on its',. '
"mpling and anaJ)!sis progrlUD. EPA .
haa determined that pollutants' found m:
petroleum refining wastes after   .
PSES tnatment do tlotpas. through ... :
secondary PO'l'Ws and that only metals'
limit the POTW ,iudge management
a.itematlve .. Consequently. Cor matafs. •
only. EPA is Propoain8 additional .
pretreetment standerds (or, fndirICt, .:
dischalien whose waates go to POTWs ...
employing secondary' treatment ' , .
The Agency additionally proposes :
that thi.llmitation apply to those ..
indirect who •• wastes go to ..
a primary PO'l'W which is scheduled to. , ..'
install seCDndary treatment ':' . .".
EPA hal determined that petrohll.llJ1 ."
retU\ing pas.t thro,ugh primarY. '.,.
POTWs. the Agenc:ybeHeves.that it ' .
wOl.ld be improper to require. iAdusUiaI •
.oure .. discharginlJ iAto such PO'l'Ws to <
install b'eatmenr systems which will b. .
unneceseary when the PO'l'Ws come '.
into compilance with the requirement or
.econdary treatment
EPA is. howtver. proposina specific
pretreatment standllrds based on
application of8AT technology tor thOM
indirec:t dischllllers whose wastes go to '
P01VI. with 301{h) waivers. Sw:e ,
PO'l'Ws with 30'l(b} waivers will temain' '
at primary treatmenl only speciflc .
limitations on inCUrect dischargers will I .:
ensure that thair wutes do IU)t pass :
. through mto waterl of the United Stales,
SUCD .tandards..howevel'. will apply, ' : ..
only where a valid 3O\(b} waiver has
been granted. Those .ources dischal1in& .
into a PO'l'W wbich h .. a pending , '.
application tor a 30l(h) waiver will be
subject to th'l8ftera1.lyleustringeal, 1; ,
pretreatment baaed on
secondary tJeatment in the PO'l'W
such time as the waiver is linall)'
approved. Tba Alency reque.t •.
comment, on [be approach. it has
adopted for determining w.hicli,
pollutants mu.t be regulated lhtough
pretreatment standuds.. (See
SolicitaUoa. of comment .. section beIow.l.
ror tho •• refineries discharging into
POTWs which have been sraated
waiver. under Section 301.lli.l would be
based on concentratiolU' achievabll
ait.r ap{lUcatioD of BPr technology.
Pretreatment. (or other indirect
dl.charsins rerLlll'ries would contain thll
liDtitat.\onl identified in' Option One. .
..• mo·R.plated PoilulaJlt.
. A I thla time the economiC' eHects Cor
thi. option. are the same as ror Option
174
The bui. upon which the controlled'
pollutants were selected is sel out iii.
Section VI 01 the Ol.vtiopmenl
Document.
(a) EPA has selected' two toxic
pollutants for conll'ol of toxic discharges
75936
F.ederal Register / Vol. 44. No. 241 I Friday. December 21. 1919 I Proposed Rules
in lb, petroleum reflninl industry.
'cific .mulln! llinitatlons Ira beina
blish.d fat total poenol (4AAP) and
....roin.ium (bolb lotal chromium and
hexavalent chromium). Thue pollutants
are subject \0 limitations expressed in
ldlolP'ams per 1000 cubic meters of raw
materiaL
Pollutants whicb have the same
requinmellt under BPT and BAT Uiclude
. COD. ammonia and sWIide.
(b) BeT. The pollutant! selected for
control by SO technology ate thou
pollutanlslimited by BPT which han
bee.n classified as coQventional
pollutant ..... BOCS. TSS. and oil and
snase. Thes. pollutOLnts ate subject to
limitations expressed in kilograms per
1000 cubic met.rs of raw material.
Ad.ditlonelly. a SO limitatiOQ for pH is
set at BPI' levels.
. (e) Pretreatment Slandards. In
establishinli existing PSES. EPA found
that ammonia and oil and grease
iDledere with the operation of POTWa
level. which may be discharged by
indirect disc:halier:s in the petrolltum
refining industry. Allhouso the eidstini
PSES also contaiII a technology based
limitation for chromium. this limitation
Will Incilldea ooly as guidanct to tho ••
POTWJ which found it necessary or
desirable to limit chromium. The Agllnc;y
- that the chromi\un Umitation
1 be adopted as a mandatory
, . .,treatment standard since EPA has
fouod lbat chromium accumulates in
POTW sludges a.nd willl.in1it the sludge
management alternatives oC the POTW.
The same poUuta.nts (chromium.. oil and
8I'lsse. and ammol'\.ia) ate also .elected.
for control ill PSNS. The pretreatment
standards are exprened as maximum
daily concentrations (milligr<ws per
liIer).WormatioDal masalimitations are
also provided fot·those POTWs which
find it necessary or desirable to limit
total mass dischargll of pollutants.
(d) NSPS. Since the new .ource
performance standard i. zero discharges
all poUulaDLI are regulated.
xm. PbUulaDlS Not Rl!I'liat.d
The Settlement AlP'lIment
proviSions authoriZing the exclusion
from rll\llatlon. in cenain instanCe!. of
toxic pollutantl Ind indusrry
,ubcate80ries. These provisions have
been r.·written in a Revised Settlement
Agreement which was approved by the
Cistrict Court for the Cistrict of
Columbia on Ma.fl;h 9. 1979.
It should be noted lhat the limitations
in this regulation has been developed to
cover the leneral Cue for this iadustry
• .. beategory. In specific eases. it may be
,,,ary for lbe NPCES permittln8
.Jlority to establish permit limits 011
toxic: pollutants wblch are not subject to
limitation' i.n this regulation. (See
relationsltip to NPDES permits section).
(a) SA. T Limi/atiQns. Paragraph
8(a){iii} of lbe Revised Settlement
Agreement allows the Adminisu:ator to
exclude Crom regulation toxic pollutants
not dettK;table by Section 304(hl
analytical methods Or other
art melbods. Data collected by 'fJ'A. the
American Petroleum Institute. and -.
individual companies were used in
making decisions not to regulate specific
toxic pollulantt. Eighty-five toxic
pollutants were not fOllDd at any of the
seventeen refineries sampled. These
pollutlUl.ts ate excluded. therefore. from
regulation and are Uated in Appendix B
10 this notice.
Paragraph 8(a}(iii) ot the Revised
Settlement Agreement elso allows the
Admini.urator to exclude lrolZl
regulatioll toxlc pollutants detected Ui
the .£fluent from a small number of
sources and uniquely related to tho ••
sources. Appendix C lists· the 7 toxic
pollutants which satisfy th.i.criterion.
Allhough certain other pollutanta:were
found in lhe tnated effluent at onJy oae
refinery. their presence In the IlDtreateQ
effluent of a number of facilities Indicate
that they an not uniquely related to lhat
source.
Paragraph B(a)(lli} of the Revised
Settlement AlP'eement al.o allows lbe
AcUninistrator to exclude from
reiWation toxic materials which were
detected hut for which no treatment
technology Is known to the
Administrator lhat will reduce
discharges of th. pollutant. Cyanide is
discharged in significant amounts by the
petroleum refining lnduslry (see Section
V1 of the Developmeol Docum.nt) but
EP.4" is not aware of any end-of·pipe
technology which will reduce c;yanide
discharges beyond those pre.endy
discharged by the petroleum refining
industry. Based on the available data.
EPA is nol able to determine which
proclS .. ' sea.rate cyanide found in the
untreated waste. EPA. however. plan. to
continue study of this problem to
determine whether cyanide discharaes
can be reduced by in-plant centrol.
Paragraph 8(a}(lill oC the Revised
Senlement Agreement also allow. lha
Administrator to   from
reaulalion toxic pollutants which will be
effectively controlled by the tel;hnol08Y
upon which en bued other ,!flulnt
limitation.s. The Agency b.lieves that
the technoiolY upon which BAT effluent
limitaaons for phenol (4AAP) and
chromium are based will effectively
controllhe oraanic and metallic toxic
pollutants lilted in Appendix D. The
toxic pollutants listed in Appendix D
arlt. therefore. excluded from r.lwation.
175
(bl Standards. On the
basis of sampling at six refineries which
practice indirect dIschafge and two
POTWs, the Agency conclude. that the
organic priority pollutants listed in
Appendix F discharaed by refineries in
compliance with existing PSES do not
pass through or interfere with a
secondary POTW. The Agency proposes
in this notice to require pretreatment
standards which limit the sam.
pollutants at the same concentrations sa
interim fInal PSES. The pollutants
limited IlDder PSES include oil and
grease and ammonia. Additionally. EPA
est4bll.hes a standard for total
chromium based on intenm Hnal PS'ES·
guidanci. As with BAT. EPA will
continue to.ludy method. for reducU1a
the discharae of cyanides.
Tbis .tandard. however. only applies
to those rermenl! which dlscharae into
a POTW which is required by the Act to
achieveeflluent limitations baaed on
secondary Ireabnent. Appendix G is a
list of those priority which
wen fOllDd to pas. through POTWs
which only apply primary treatment.
Therefore. lbe Agency concludes that.
existina rejUlations cannot be used to .
exclude the,e pollutants 'trom regula.tion
when a PO'nV has been granted an
exemption under .ectiotl 301(b) of the
Act Crom the requirement to achieve
effluen.t limitations based on secondary
treatment. As discussed above
(Regulated poUutlll1t. sectioa) the
Aaeney proposes to Umit the toxic
pollutaDt total phenol (MAP) . • o\s in the
case or BAT. the Agency believes that
the technology upon which pretreatment
lItandards for phenol (4AM) and
chromium an based will effec:ive!y
. control the other oraanlcs and metals
listed in Appendix F.
XIV. NOD-Water QualIty A..pect! of
PollutiQI1 COQtrol
The elimination or reduction of one
form of pollution may awavate other
environmental problems. Therefore.
sections 304(b) and 308 of the Act
require EPA 10 consider th, non-wlter
quality eavironmentel impacts
energy requirements} of
certain regulations. In compliance with
these provisions. EPA has considered
the efrect of theae regulations on air
pollution. solid wast. aeneration. and
energy consumption. Thls proponl was
circulated to and reviewed by EPA
personnel responsible for nOn-waler
quality environmental prosrams. While
it is difficult to balance pollution
problems aaainsl each other and
energy utilization. EPA is proposing
regulatlons which it believes best serve
often campetins national soal •.
;
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday. C!tcember n. 1979 / Proposed Rules
I '.,
75937
l"lie 10Uawin, are th. non·water The proposed regulations. fo'r , ,., . than the unit costs of compliance, it ia ,
quality envlroamental impacts petroJewn rlfining IndWiaY do 'riot meet not ,considereq a potential cio,sura.. , .
(includin,energy requirem'entsl the proposed criteria ror a rormal For new .ources, EPA conSiders. tnr.
... ocialed with, tha prcposecl- Analysis. Nonetheless. thi. impact of the regulations. on the colta. 01'
regulations: proposed ruiemaking, satisfies. the ronnal production at new capacity. The'
of BAT. Regulatory Malysis r.equitements. bas predicted that
BCT. NSPS. and pretrelltment standams EPA'S'I!'cono=c:.lmpact.asae"ment is dunng the perla<! form 198510 2000
will not create any addItionallif set rorth ID Ec"n"mic AJta/ysi8 af oJ the pelr,?lewn ,.
polluCion problem:s. " Proposed Revised Effluent Standards   will be 1n gasohn,e.
Solid Waste-A study by EPA's and Limitations far Petroleum, dlstillat. fuels. and
, ot Air Quality and Standard. .' feedstocks. [n keeping WIth thIS '
show .. that considerable. amountS' of Refinm, Indll3tlY, November EPA prediction. the economic analySiS for'
, solid wlstes arl already beiDg ThiS report detalla the new sources WIiS based en a
by the petroleum refining and Innua! barrel a day refinery with I
ind.ustry. Some of this lOUd waste is Industry .s a whole and lor UldlvlduaJ configuration appropriata Cor
generated by current wastewater plants covered ?y lhe emphasizing prodw:tron ot these
trtatment equipmnu. but the majority is' refin.iDg reS:Watlons. data ,products. "
. lenerated by other scareD such as underlytng the lnalysll were obtllned Of the 285 domestic refinerie.!: 218 are -
proCIS' SOUlaS. Itorage tlnk bottom.. from of expected to incur additional COliil, to"
ete. Proposed BAT and PSES wilr , Wlth the ApphC4tlon ot.BAT comply with these regulations. The , .. _
manu these wastes by as much as for, the Petrolaum Refining investmenr rBq,uired would oe $1.322"
t.5.ooo metric tons per yea: beyond BPT' Flolnt Source Category on a Plant.by. millfon with 'an annual cost of $53.9' ' ,
tenIs. MOlt ot thi. &mount will be Plant SasLs", Marc:
h
• 1979 :md million including inte:Bst and'
addItional sludg« m,m:the 01 aYallable depraciatiolL No refinery closures would',
powdered ac:tivat,d carban. if used' economic information. and data from the be expected due to these resuJalions
(BATOP'I1ON 1liREE} al an altemati.ve survey of the.,induslry. The and the equivalent-o{&la jobs to operate,'
to iorne or tha now reduction BAT. report aflesae. the impact oC ' li pollution control equipment Would.be '.-
OmON TWO. These sludges will compUance coata in terms of plant added to cun-ent industry employment' ,
contaiD orsanic toxic closW'es. production. chanaes. price of 160.000. Other economic efrects would
pollutants alld'some additional, metals. ,change •• employment changes. local depeedon the cOlll'se 01 publ'ic policy'"
em thlf other Innd. EPA estimates that ' community impacts. and b&.\anC'll,or regarding refineries and,are discussea',,:,
imprementa1foa at propoled ',' ,trade effect... below. ': .:' ",
pnrtreatmllint standards will reswt in Refined petroleum products holdfSuclk Scenario One-The f!tst econami'c,
P01'W sludgeS' havin,lesser quantiti,es economiC' iJnportanclf Ln O\.lt society that scenario assumes tariflson imported: '
and con.cenmlt1on. of toxic price nuctuations tend to han serious So ods are set in a manner. that gives tl
POTW sladses will become more consequence: a. a result. the U.s. industry a relatively la ..... [eve! of
amell8bla to a of disposal governm.nt IItringently controls the protB(;tion from .
altematives. pOSSibly iacilld1ng .indlUtry. Some afthe major economic IS ,
bmefici.l usa . control. on.lha1adusU'y UI crud. aU .. no new sCJurces enter ' ..... -.
Energy estimates price controls. product prica controls. the Uldustry. Price leves are unaerected! "
that the of BAT and price- protection from. imported by these reguJations, and: the '
.mumt wlll result lefined product.t. The economic: analysil a poiluhon control cost o£,S.OOOZ _,
In a net m.mesa 1tI etlero:, IIsumes that crud. oil and product priCI gallon IS absorbe.d ?y the Tha ,
o',approxlmately 2B.4 , control,. will b •• ssantially eliminated. would aot affect, .'
malton kilowatt·bout'S per year; , by the tim. 1hft.'reguJations require relinml damutlc
Proposed pretrntment ar,! compHanc •• but considln'two scenarios conswnptlon. or the of trade, ,
to' add another l.9 million of price protection. The first scenario t. BAT/BCl'-EPA estimates that 185
to aslwnes a. level of pric. protection, for refineries wou!d, "
for CltlIUnS;Uldirect domestic reberies that maintains the additional CO,S!S to n:'aet thue "
• ' ' C\Itl'ent capacity. The. lecoed scenario requirements, ,
XV. Ca.t.t. ElnueJit Rec!uctloa iSlwnes a Ie.vel of prica protection such would be $113.0 m,nlon With
uti Ecaaomlc Impact ' thet capacity increasell ... rallel to tha costs of S48.1 !"Ulion Including Interest
. , 1 d" .. and depredatIon .. ThlSe costs would be
Execu live 1:.2041 requires: EJ7 A Inerea,. In ome.uc: eonsump t.ion. a beorb,er by the terUlarias ra th" than. '.,
and athe, alenclII, to' pedo"!! The of the pas.ed ea as pricl'incrI'ases. None, or '
Resu1atory AnalySls of cl'rtaUl including refinery closings. the refineries would be expected. to .'
regulation .. Q FR 1215&1 (March 23. are dJsCUNed separately- for each oC clol8 due to thasa resulalionl and
1978). EPA', proposed regulations Cor •• A,mor. complet.. refinery capacity, wowd remain
implementing Executive Order '12044 dlscus!1'On of pOII.lble future seenanoa unchanged.
require a itepalory AnalY1il for major' and tha of these two is Z. PSES-Approximately 53 indired
significant regulation. involving annual presentad.UI the Economic Malyst.. discharging relineries would incur
compliance costs DC Sleet million or Refinery closures ar .. evaluated on an additional Costs to meel these
meeting other specified criteria. 43 FR individual refinery buis; ReW1eries willi. requirement •• Additionalln\'estment ,
29881 Uuly 1.1. Where thIIS. eost" of more thaD S.OO1 per ,allon ara would be 59.S m.illion with AMual cosls '
criteria an met. the proposed analyzed ID detail including a of 15.2 million including interest and.
l'eguJation. require, EPA to prepare a comparison of tb. estimated cash now depreciation. These costs would b&
rormal Analysis. indud..lng per unit ot production with unit eosts ,of absorbed by the refineries ra Iher. thar.
,aD 8'COniu:rUc impact analysis and an ccmplyins with the regulations. If the palled on as, price increases. None oC' .'
evaluation of r.guJatory altematives. rerUlat)' gen,erates a cash flow greater these rermlnes wouJd have compliance"
176
75938
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Ftiday. December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules
COlts of $.00'1 or more per Illlon or
• • ·ICt. None of the wo..ud be
;te<i to clos. due to the regulatioll
ano.! rennery capacity would remaiD.
unchanged. SiDce prices wo..ud be
unaffected. domestic consumption and
the balance o( trade would also remain
unchanged by these regulations.
3. NSPS/PSNS-Slncl! refinery
capacity is held .t current COt this
scenario. no major new capacity is
These new source
requiremenll then no
eIfects.
5f:enario Two-The second economic
scenario allow. Cor a level 01 lndustry
price protection such that refining
capacity'SJ'OwI at the same rate as
domestic consumption. In other words.
domestic tenneries retain the 8ame
share o( the domestic market as they do
DOW. In this scenario the price level is
set high e%lough to attract Ilew refinenes.
llew source pollution control
Iqwpmenl. into the i.edu.try. Thes.
prtlposed regu.!atio.Q5 increase the cost
at production at .bew refineries by $.0001
10$.00'1 a gallon of product. and raise
the industry·wide price level by the
lame amount.
1. SAT/IlCT-EPA estimates 185
dlnct discharsma refineries inc:ur
additioniU COlts to meet these
·ireinenta. Additional investment
d be $113.0 milliol1 with an annual
  of $48.7 million including interest
and depreciation. !'lolle of this eost is
ab.orbid by the refineries. however.
,ma the price level is set high eDough
to attraet n8W renneries. E:dsting
refiD.eries would b8 in a much more
favol'1lble financial situation compand
to Scenario One because of the elevated
price levels :lecessary to aln-acl new
refineries 10 tha industry. No closures
would be expected. and capacity.
domestic consumption. and the balance
of trade would be unchansed by these
SAT fBCT regula tion'.
PSEs-Approxlmately SJ indirect
discharsinl refmeries would incur
additional COsts to meet these
requirements. Additiollal investment
would b. SIII.5 million with a.anual costa
of $&.2 million includ.ins intetest and
depreCiation. As with dinel dlschal1en.
of this co.t is ab.orbed by the
refineries. No closures wo..ud be
expected. and capacity. domestic
consumplion. and the balance or trade
would remain uncbanged by these PSES.
3. New Sou.rces-m economic
Scenario Two. rerutery. capacity Stowe
lit tha same rata as domestic
consumption. encouraaed by price
due to higher tariffs. New
:ity brought on stream il either I
...... diacha.rge !acility (since NSPS
110 w.charge) or a !aciUty s .. bje<:t
to PSNS. The additional costs and
resulting price increases are based on a
190.000 blUTel a day refmery configured
to empbasue ptoducts for which
additional ca,acity is most needed. If
this new refinery would dischafie to II
municipal system. all
additional $0.3 million Lnvesttnenl would
b., required with annual costs of $02
million including interest and
depredation. This would amount to
$.0001 per sallon. Price increa.es wo..ud
be no more thall 5.0001 e gallon due to
PSNS. If this refinery is at en acceptable
site from which it could not dlscharse to
B municipal trelltment system. the
rermery wo..ud have to achieve
dischal1e to be in compliance with
NSPS. Additional investment ofS9.5
million with annUli coats oC SJ.5 million
inciud.ins interest and depredation
would be required as compared to the .
costs of meeting curren.t NSPS. Thi.
..... o..ud amount to S.OOl.pel gallon.
causing pric e increases of up to $0.00'1 a
sallon. Depending on sites available £o.r
new retinenes. prices   in.crease
from $:0001 to 5.001 per gallon: .
Ef!1ullnt Reduction Bellefits
EPA estimates that achievement of
BAT effluent lli:Utetions will remove
approximately 123.300 pounds per year
of chromium. 88.180 pounds per year o£
phenols (totai-4AAP). and substantial
quantities of other toxic pollutants. EPA
esUmates that achievement of BCT
effluent lli:Utations will remove
approximately 48.1 million pounds per
yea: of conventional pollutants.
XVI. Best Manatement practices
Section J04(e} of the Clean Water Act
aulhori:r.es the Administrator to
prescribe "best management practices"
("BMPs··J. described under AuthOrity
and Background. EPA intends to
BMPs which pre: (1) applicable
to aU industrial sites: (Z) applicable to
an designated industrial category; and
(3) capable of guiding permit authorities
in establishing BMP·uequired. by unique
c:iJ'cumstances at a given plant.
EPA is considering promulgating
BMJls specific to the petroleum refinin8
industry at some time i.e the future. One
area of concern is the potentia! for leaks
and spills of toxic pollutants stored in
on·sita fadlitiu and not subject to
controls Wlder section 311(jJ(1)(c) of the
Act. Mother procell which might be
controiled by BMPs is cooling tower
blowdoWTl. It is possible tbat refineries
could be requited to monitor for
chromium and zinc in both cooling
tower blowdown and in effluent
discharge. In the event or persistently
higb discharges oC these compounds. the
perm.itling lIuthority may require that
177
c:ertain refineries cease using corrosion
inhibitors which contain zinc and
chromium and \lse alternate
organophosphate corrosion inhibitors or
other alternatet. Additionally, EPA lI1ay
promulgate aMPs requiring dikes. curbs.
or other measures to contain leaks and
spills of tolUc pollutants Dot controlled
under section 31l(j)(1}(C} of the Act.
xvn. Upaet and Bypall Provisions
An issue oCrecurrent concern has
beeD whether industry guidelines should
include provisions authori:r.ing
noncQmpliance with emuen! limitations
during period. of "upset" or "bypau:'
An upset. sometimes caUed an
"excunion," is Ilnintentionai
noncompliance £01' reasons
beyond the reasonable control of the
permittee. It bas been argued that an
upset provision in EPA's effluent
limitations gI.1!delines is necessary
becaus. such upsets will inevitably
occur due to llmitations in even properly
operated control equipment. Be<:ause
technology.bllled limitations are to :
rl!quire only what technology can
achieve. it is claimed that liability for
such situations Is improper. When
. contronted with iSBue. court. ha ve
divided on the question ofwh.ather an
explicit upset or exc:ur,ioa exemption is
necessary or whether UpSM or excursion
exemption is necessary or whether
upset or excursion incidents may be
handIed through EPA'" exercise of
enforcement discretion. Compare
Morathon Oil Co. v. EPA. 564 F .. zd 1253
{9tb Cir. 1977) witb WeY4!rhaeuser v.
Castle. supra. and Corn
Association. et 01: v. Costill. No. 7&-lQ69
(ath Or .• April 2. 1979). See aiso
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA.
5",0 F. 2d 1023 (10th Cir.1979): CPC
International. Inc. v. Train, 540 F.
1320 (8th Cit. 11176); FMC Corp. v. Train.
539 F. 973 (4th Clr. 1978).
While an upset is an unintentionnJ
episode d\ltins which effluent limit. are
e;(ceeded. a bypass is an act of
intentional noncompliance during which
wute treatment facilities are .
circumvented in emel1ency situations.
Bypass provisions have. in the pa,t.
been included in NPDES permits.
EPA h .. determined that both .. pset
and bypass prOvisions sho..ud be
included in NPDES'pennits and has
recently promulgated NPOES reg..ualions
which inClude upset end bypass permit
provisions 44 FR 3265. Uune 1,19191. The
IIpset provision establishes an upset as
an affirmative delense to prllSecution for
violation of technology-based effluent
Umitation. The bYl'asa provision
authorius bypassing to prevent loss of
life. penonal injury or severe property
damage. Consequently. although
I
Feder,,! Register, Vol. 44. No. 247 / Friday. Deqember Zl, 1979.1 Proposed Rules
75939
permiHeu in the petroleum tefinins
induatry will b. enUtled to IIpset and.
bypass provisions in NPDES permit ..
these proposed re;Wadon. do not-
addreu these igues. .
xvm. Varia.aC41S aDd ModiflcatiODS
Both BAT and BCfiffiuent
limitations are subject to EPA',
"fundamentally diHuent factors"
variance. See E.l du Pont de N"moun'
and Co. v, Train, 430 U.S. lIZ (t9"'};
W"Yflrha8usflr Co. v. C06tJ8. supra. This
variance recognizes ractors concem.i.ns a.
particular dischatget which are
fundamentally diUeteat from the factors
considered ia Ihfl ruJemaklns. Although .
this variance clause was .. t forth in
EPA', 1973-191l1lndustry regulation.
and will not b. included la tha .
p.troleum retlninl or other Industry
regula lions, See the final NFOES
rtl'llations at 44 FR 328501. 32950 aunll 7,
1919), (or the lext and explanation or the
"FundamentaUy diffennt factots'·
variance. FinalNPDES reauJillioas will
b. promulgated .hartly.
Pretreatment standard. (or
10W"CeI eA ",ubject to the .
. "fundamentaUy different ractor,"
varianc;e and credits (or .-
removed by PO"I"W"s. SI!I4O CFR 403J •.
43 fR 2:1'nS OWle 25. 19181.
Pretreatment standard. (or aew source.
are .,ubject only to tbe aedits pn:lvisiol1
in 40 CFR 403.7. Naw sou.rc.e
performanca standard, are Dot subject.
to modification through EPA's
"fundamentally dlaereat factora"
':'" varianca ot any sl.ltutory 01' regulatory
. modifications. S •• duPont v. Train.
. IUptu. . , .
XIX. RilatioGamP to NPDES Permits
Th. BAT. BCT, and NSPS Umitatfon.
in lhese reiWauons will b. applied to
individual pelrOJeum refining' plants
lJvough NPDES permits issued by EPA
or approved state ateucie" under
section 401 of the Act. Upon the
promulgation of fmaJ regulation .. the
numerical emuent limit. don. mllat be
applied in all federa! NPDES permit.
th.AaCter i •• uld to petroleum ntfining
direct dl.chal"ler;. PermU, ISllI,d by
Sla'ea with NPOES authority may
contain more ItrialeDt limitationa thin
tho •• proposed here.)n addition. on
promulsation. the prltHaemlnt
limitalion, are directly applicable to
iodlnct dischargera. .
Th. previous Acdon diJCUlied the
availability of -iariace. and
modifications (rom narional limitaticns.
but there Ire other lulin'relatinll
oC these regulations and
NPDES pennita. One matter which hal
been ',ubject to different judicial view,
is the scope of NPDES permit
proceedinl! In the a b.ence or .muent
limitation. guideline. and standard ••
Under c:urreDtly Ippl,cable EPA
regulations. stlltes and EPA Region.
issuinS NPOES permit. prior to
promulgation of these re(iUlaUonl must
include a "re-opener dau.e:' providing
rOf p.rmlts to be modified to Incorporate
"toxics" resuJationa when they are
promwsated. See 43 FR 22159 (May Z3.
1978). To avoid cwnbanoll1e
modification procedures. EPA bat
· adopted a policy of isauiDg short-tarm
permits. with a new taward alllinS
Ions-term permits ocJy alter
promu1lation of that. and other BAT
· regulations. The Agency baa publiabed
nUts designed tG encourage .tates to dG
the same, Sec 43 FR S806U (Dec. 11.
1978). Howe1!8'. in the event tJiat EPA
finds iUtecessary to iNU,'loifi term
pennit. prior to promulsation ot BAT
resulations. EPA and .tate. wiJl fGllow
e$Sentially the IlUlIe pn:lcedares utili.i.ed
, La many Clles oC IniLlal permit iaauanca.
The appropriate techDoiolY l,veIs. aad
IImitatioaa will be as.eued by the
permit iaauer on a case-by-cue basis.
on c:on.ideration o( Ihlt statutory factora.
Se. U.S, Sl.sl COlT'- Y. Train. 558 F. Zd
822, 844. 854 {7th Cir. 197i}. In I.bes.
,ituations. EPA documllllta and draft
documents (inciudinS thUII propoaed
raguiatiolUl and supporti.rlg documents)
are relavant'evidenc •• but not binding,
in NPDES permit See 44 FR
32a54 Uun& 7. 1919).
Another noteworthl topic is the effect.
of these tqu1atial11 on the ;lower of
NPDES pennit illuin, authorities. The
promulgation of these doe.
not restrict the power or Illy
ilSlling authority to ect in .,..y manner
not mcon,istent with law or. thr. •• or
any other EPA re!JUI ..   i\lidellnes or
policy. For. example. the fat'! that these
resulations do noC control il particular
pollutant doel not preclude the penni!
iuuet trom limitinS such pollutant on a
ca .. ba.is, when nec.nary to
carry out the purpose, ot the Act. In '
'limitations must be applied by the
permit·!ssuins authority,
With respect to moniloring , ..
requiremenll, the Agency intend, tao : "; ..
tstablish a regulation requiring .... :
perm.itten to conduct additional _.:, .. -
monitol'ins when they violate ,.' ,1i
limitaUons..The proviSions of such. '.
mOnitorins requirement. will be  
(or each permittee and may include. '.:.
analYsiS for 80me or all or th .. tox.ic . :.
pollutanll or the use of blomonitorin8' ,
techniques. The additional monilorinj i$','
designed to dlltermine the causa of the . '.:.
viola lion. MClsaary comctive:
meas"",, and the identity and quantity ..
of toxic Each. ;:
viol,tion wUI be evaluated on I
Cllse bui. by the permitting monitorinr, .
contained La the permit 16 necessary. A. .•. ;
more lenathy di,c:uslion of this ....
requirement appean'at 44 m 34407.
Gune 14. 1979). . ' ...
One addUional top'ic: that warrants· .. :'.
dil'cullioQ is the   of ., ... ,
NFDES ":.
aspects of which have been 'coasidered .,.'}
in dev.loping thesa regulations. The. ' .. ;','
Asency wi.bes to em.ph.lize that. .
aJth0llih the'Clean Water Act is a staCt::
liabWty .lata.ta. th. iniUaf:loa of ' .
en!orcemllnt proceedil18.!1 by EPA is . ,;
discntionary. EPA bas exVciaed aad
intmds to exercilie that discretion in I
manner which recognizn lad promotes.
,ood faith efforts and ., .
conserves enfon:ement resources for
those who fail to make sood faith efforts· .. ·
to comply with the ACL ...
. -,
xx. SUllUDIU'J of PubUc PatticipaoQIJ
On April 21. 1978, EPA c1l"C\1lated a.
draft technical developm.nt document .. .
to inter'lted parties. includins the
American Petroleum InItituta (APt). tha
Natural RuoW"C8S Defense Council
, (NRDq. and affac.tad stata and local
allthorttie •• That dac:wnent did not
include reco&nmendationl for speCific ...
emu.n1limitationa and pretreetment .;. "'.
standard .. In,tead it presented the ':. .
t.chnical b,.ia for these proposed .
A public meetins was beld
on June t, 1918 for presenlation and
di.cu .... ion of a1rnment. by interested . .•
parti.s. A brief summary of major
comments I. presented below, The
Aseney received a number of comments
relalins to specific technical informatiOI!
in the Dev,lopment Document. These
blve not bee" summarized here but
· addition. to the extent that state wlter
quality standards or other provlstons of
state or Fed.rallaw reql1ire limitaUon of
poUulanl. not covered by the ..
regu.!iltionl (or require mote strinseht
limitanoDl on coveted poilutant.!).
. .• have b.en considered in tevisinS the
Development Document.
* ( •
. ; ..
178
75940
Fltdaral Re<gister I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday, December 2.1; 1979 / Proposed Rules
It) Cotnment-A number of
idputs expressed concem about
llm.ited amount of data avaUable to
the Agency for establishins BAT
limitations and pretreatment standards.
elpedally for toxic poUlStant".
Responlle-FJ'A recognizes that the
data bue Cor toxic pollutants is limited.
Data limilatiolls result from a history of
infrequent monitoriaS or rezulatiot1. and
the high costs. sophistication. time
delays. ArId limited laboratory
availabWty for toxic poUutant analyses.
The Asency hu sought and IIUllzed aU
available data. except to the extent that·
it haa Dot required mandatory sampling
and analyses under Section 3(l! o! the
Act. EPA soUdtJ additional voluntary
data submiasiolUi.
(21 CQmment-Reductiona i.e now
hava tlot beeQ documented to result ill
reductions in pollutant dischal1e.
partir;ularly ror Chemical Oxysen
Demand.
Rellf'l'nlle-As slated ill tha section
Available Waata Watar Co.ntrQl and
Treatment TltChno!ogy. the Agency bas.
cocciuded thet effluent concentraten
from a sivea aize trealnleat Iystem wiU
not chanae al e!fl\lent now is decrea.ed.
EPA bas recogni%ed that Chemical .
Oxygen Demand 'may be an e.xc.epdon
and is not rezulat:iq cqo IUltil
''ident informat:ion ia available to
lblilh the relatioQship between
.%fluent COD concentration aod now
raductiol'.'l. A teclulical·pap.1' II
referencad in the D.velopment
Doc:wnent d.scribina measurements
made at ona refinery wllich .ignilicaJ:lUy
deae .. ed effilSlnt fiov, (increas.d
reull/recycle of wutewaters). That
refinery reported that emuenl
concentrations of all pollutlUlll
remained COnstllil t after the flow
redllctlons except COD. Total COD
  W81 reduced but not in direct
proportion to the flow reduction.
{3} Commenl-Wastewaler reduction
and nuse may require extensive
additional treatmmt before it can b.
uaed for tome applicatiolli. 11:1 ile ...
where there i, a lcan:ity of suitable raw
water. Ixtansive treatm.nt of
waatewater for reua! !%l8y be
economically juatified. Howeyer. tha,..
i, a POUlt considerably short oCtota1
recycle where it becomes lUIeconomieal
to treat wlIStewater for reUle.
R4t1p0(ls_EPA recognizes that the
eata bli.hment of BAT ud NSPS
considers factors such III COlt and that
uro di.chlllJe while technically feasible
(some refineries beve alnady achieved
it) may require very bigh COlts,
rt1cularly retrofit cosll for existing
urie.). EPA has careEully considered
oC option. in selecting
BAT acd NSPS tacb.noloSies. Thus.. EPA
is proposing a .tepwi5e approach.
toward higher recycle rates for !Xistinj
refineries and zero discharge of
pollutants only for new sources (see
discuuion under Option Two oC Best
AvaUable Technology Economically
Achievable and Option Three of New
Source Performance Standards).
(4) Comment-NumeroWl' comments
were received statins that the flow'
model presented in the Draft
Development Document was invalid fot
a number of statistical and technical
reasons. The commenll also stated that
some of the data used in the model were
!lot correct.
Re#ponse-F:PA has mailed to each
. refinery which responded to the original
questionnaires I printout of important
information which EPA used 10
chuacteri:ze their refinery and hat
asked them to verify or correct tha
. information. Considerable additional
now modeling effort ha. also been
expended with the result that a mucb
impl'OY4d flow model represents the
bali. for these propo •• d reiulation •.
EPA will conUnue.its now modeling
efforta. and any imprOvement will be
reRected in the final regulations.
(5) Comment-All major sources 01
wastew.tel are not represented as
vltiables in the flow Model
RespoltJe-The intent of the Cow
model is not to identify and quantify
each louree. or even major source. of
wastewater in the refinery. The
vltiablel contained ill the model U1! not
necesaarily the mlljor contributors ot
wastewater (cooling tower blowdown.
for example. although aenerally one of
the largest contributors 10 wastewater
flow is not a vltiabla). The intent is to
determine. ilpoasible. the total refinery
emuent fiow by number of
procass Dr other Variables. By
consideriDs the vviables il1 thl!! model
(49 processes in 4 groups). the model
does predict the effluent flow within
statistical IC1:epl&billty.
(8) Commenl-Effiuenllimilations an
obtaillei'.i by multiplyini achievable
values o£ three parameters-{l}
wutewaler now, (2) poUutant
\ concentratiot1. and (3) II veri.bUity
factor to account for short term
nuctuations in poUutant concentration.
Wastewater Cow rates also vary aod ArI
additional variability factor should be
used to account for nuchloatiolLl iA.
wutewater now.
Respon.f.-Pollutant COllceatraUolLl
, in final wI,.tewate\, flow Will vary
somewhat even with sood op_ration of
the treatment system. Additional
variability will occur in poorly operated
treatment 5ystllrna. The variability
factors uaed to utablisb thne proposed
regulations are intended to account only
179
for variations in pollutant
concentrations. The Agency believes
that where variatioDI can be controUed
with ilvailable technology. these sources
of variation should be controlled. A
large put oC the variation in emuent
flow (about 75" of the variation) ia
attributable to variatiON in amount of
crude oil proces.ed. This variation will
be considered by the estabUshment of
limitaliona based on the !%lau pollutant
disch8l1ed per unit oC aude oil
proceued!k8 of poUutant/l.OOO cubic
meters of a\lda throughput).
TecbDology Is available to control ,the
remaining variation in effluent flow.
That tlchnology Is equaUzation-
providlng .. large storage volume (or the
e(fiuea! and contrQlling Ib, rate of
dlJchal'8e. Equalization wea considered
a. II part of BPT technology. and costs
and economic impacts for equalization
were calculated when BPT was '
promulgated. Bas.d on the use of
equaliution. no vviabillty factors were
used tor flow variations in establishing
JBPT limitation •• and thitAsency' .
beliaves that nona are necessary in
thIS. if available BPT
techcology is used.
XXI. Solicitation of Comm.GU
EPA invit" and encourages pubijc
participation in !his rulemaking. The
Agency asks that any deficiencies in the
record of this propotal be pointed to
with specificity and that sUSBested
revision, or comctions be supportad by
data.
EPA is partir;ularly inteNsted in
receiVing additional commenll and data
on the follOwing Isau":
(l) The Agency I. r.vilwinl the
sampJ.ing and analytiwMelbocLs used
to determine the presence and
magnihlode o! loxlC polll.ltanls. and
$ollcila commentl on the data produced
by thasa mathoda, and tha methods
them$lIves.
(2) The Asency is considering the
possibility oC establishing num.rical
emuent Um.itationa ror toJdc pollutants
other than phenollnd chromium. The
Allency is considering mass limitations
for the follOwing sdditionalloxic
pollutants: .thylbenzeoa. 50 ,.g/l:
naphlalene. SO )'&8/1;:U dimethylpnenol.
SO ,.,.11/1: beruene. SO ""g/4 toillene. SO
."g/1. The concentrations being
considered are thirty day average
concentrations. Masa limitations would
be calr;ulaled by mulUplyina the
concentrations by the achievabla now
for the selected option. Daily maximum
limitations would be calC'Ulated by
multiplying the thirty day limitation by I
variability f.ctor tg account for daily
fluctuations in pollul&nt conantralion.
The technical ba.ses for these limitations
Federal Relister I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday, December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules 7S94{
are presented in the development
document. EPA requests comments 011
these UmilatioQ.l and their basas.
(3) In recop.ition of the limits of
available data and the Ixpense of
monitoring for the toxic: pollutanll listed
in solicitation of comment (2) above,
EPA ia also considering the possibility
of reaulatins those toxic pollutant. with
limitations OD "Indicator" pollutants
rather than or .. an alternative to
limitations 00 the specific toxic
poUuluta di.waNd above. The
sampliDs a.ad analy.!s data (HI Oata
Cathllring Efforts section above) sbow
that wbee concsntratioDS of certain
pollutaDtI are reduced.
conCfntratioQ.l of toxic pollutants are
also reduced. While relatioQ.lhipa
between "indicator" pollutants and
todc poUutants may Dot b. quantiBable
on • one-to-one ba.ls. centrol of the
"indicator'· would assure
control of toxica with similar physical .
and chemical properties 18sponaive to
similar treatml'l't mechani.mI (I.,.: %.4
dimethyl,phenol i. trelted by
biod'srai:iatioD aDd could be CDDtIOlled
::.: with B006 a. an "1I1dicator" of
biodqradatlOD pmonaance). 'l"lQ
method of toxics reauIatioD could
obviate the difficulties. higli costa, and·
'. . delays of ql.onitorin8 and analysis that '.
could result from limitations solely 00
. the toxic pollutantl. Speci.6.caUy, EPA i.
conside1'in8 limitatioll' aD oil and.
" grHsa. total suspended .oiJdI.
bioch..mca1 DlCYsen demand. and total
.. or;wc carbon a. ulDdicator" poUl.ltaDta.
.... Limitationa would be baaed 011 .
';.0.. "indicator" pollutant CDncmtratioDS and
. . flow I al:hieva ble With techDologial
ideDtified as BAT Ul.d.BAOT (See Best
Available Technology Economir;ally
Achieyable and New Source
Performance Standards sectioDa above).
It is the Agency's position that whel1
used as "indicator" polliltants; BAT
limHation. may be .,ta bUshed for
- conventional pollutants withOllt rlsard
to the BCT co.1 tesL Moreover, whel1
Don-toxic, nOD<on".doau pollutantJ
(such III tolal oqame cubOD, are oed. .
II "tndicator'" pollutantl, it is the
AgeDcy's POSitiOD that .uch Umitationa
ara not lubject to Section 3Ol(c) or •
Section 301(&) modiftcatiou. EPA
tequest. comments aD the use of specmc
limitations on Ill. discharae or
"IDdicator" pollu.tants aa aD altemat1ve
to limllltiODS on th. toxic pollutants
described above iD this sectiOD.
(4) A .rudy by an IDduatry trade
aasoaatioD (the America Petroleum
In.tlrute) (APll coac1udaa that for new
refUlerlee total recyc:1e (no dischuge) Is
not o.aJJ IKImically faailibla. but lDay be
economically more favorable thaD.
treatment Cor discharge to u.s. walers;
fifty-live existing termeties already
practice zera discharge. EPA 'pecifically
IOUcits C0llm18111a and data which·woUld
support or nfutt the achievability of 110
discbal1' on a nationwidi basis for Ilew
refineries. Comment. on the other
options idel1tified for sotm:.
standards an also soUcited..
(5) As .tatld iD the secUoll Data
Cathering Effort., EPA fOWld that the
seventeen refineries sampled durinS Ill.
data gatberiDS .aort were achievin8 a
lipl11canlly lower emuent
concentration of total phenol (4AAP)
than that u.umed I.a establiahlng BPT
1LmitaUonl. Other technical studies have
reached the same conc;lusion. Therefora.
th, Aglncy i.s praposing to \I.SI 19
IS the Ilchievable long tena
CODcentratioll ror total phenol (4AAP).
EPA requests comment. and data which
would either verily or refute the
assumption that a lower CODcentration
of total phenol (4AAP) it· achievable 111
petroleum refineri ...
(S) EPA anume. that parws hav ..
iDstalled secondary treatment ill
dedciina wb.ther poUutants paSI
throush or an incompatible with
P01'Ws. EPA makes this assumption·
regardless of whether a refinery is
actually discharging iDto a POTW with
secondary treatment. The· oaly
exceptioD to this assumption would be il
a re.finer.y discharges into a PC1TW
which i. DOt required by the Clean
Water Act to achieve emuent
UmititioDi oased on secondlll7
lreatment. These are reflDerleli
diachaqizzg iDto a PO'TW which haa
received a waiver Wlder section 301(h}
of the ACL (See discussion under .
Pt:etreatm811t Standarda above). EPA
soUdts comments OD this approach to
.electlq polllltaats for COIltrol by
pretraatment ItlUldards.
(1) POllibla Wlderestimatlon of control
tech.oolosy COlts wu an issue raised
dutiDS lbe pubUc comment meetins and
in written commeatl. In order to perform
a meUliDiful comparison of EPA eGst
data and industry co.t data. EPA
requlltl detailed informadoD all salient
d8lip and operatins cheracten.tics;
actual iDataUed coat (not estimates of
rlp1ecemlnt coats) tor each unit
treatment oplreUon or piece or
equipment. the date cd instaUatioe and
the amount of installation labor
provided by plant plrsolUlel; and the
actual co.t for operatioll and'
maintenance, braken down Into unitl of
useSI and co.t for energy (kilowatt
houri or eqwvalenl}, chemicals. ud
labor (work-yean or equivalent).
. (8) Th. Agency is conaidenna beat
manasement pracUcal (BMP.) for
spedlic appllcat10n iD thia iDdu.try , •••
180
Best MaDasement Practices). EPA
requests comment. on tbe darity.
specificity. and practicability of tbese
BMPs. a. well a8 informaCion and
suggeatioRS concemmg additional BMPs
which may be appropriate.
(9J EPA hal obtained from the : . :.
Industry I .ubstantial data basa for the
control and treatment technologies
which serve aa tbe bati. for the .•
propo.ed resuJations. Plant. which hav.;
not ,ubmitted data. or which have
compiled data more recent than lbat
already lubmiued. are requestad to
forward these data to EPA. nese data
.hould be indlvidual data points. Dot
averqe. or other summuy data,
illi:ludina now, producUoD. aDd all
pollutant parameters for which analy.e.
wire run. Please 8ubmlt any . .
qualifications to the data. such as .
desc:iptJonl of facility design, operating :
procedures. and upset problems during .
specified periods.
(10)' EPA requeatt that POTWs which
receive wastawalenl from pelr9JaWtl .' .'
re.fiDins planta .ubmit ':,
. document lbe occu.rrence'of Interference .
with COll'CUOD system and treatment .. :
plant operations. permit violations, '.';,
sludp disposal diffiClllties. or other ..
Lacidentl atlributabla to the pollutants ,;
contained iD POTW influent. . ..
. Oated: November 21. 19111.
Dousl .. No Co,tI ..
Admini$trolDr.
. ;',.:,".'
".
AJ)pmdIa A '-Abbnviadoa .. Ac:roA)'mI Uld
Ou. ... TIImi Uaed La. thiI Nota , .
Ad-Th CIte Wattt Ad. .;.
Apnq-'rbe U.s. EDYiroDlllmlal Prolection ..
Ageucy.
BAT-The b'lt availabt. technology
economically achievable. lU1der SecUOD .
304(b )(2)(8) of the Act.
BCT-Th. bl.t COIlYlaliona! pollutant
Q)dUOi tacbD.olaiY.UDdar SecUoll304(b)[4' ..
of the AGt.
l!MP-8eat manas.ment pracW:es UDder ..
SectiOD 304(.) of !hI Act.
BPT-Th. best practicable control "eMalap'
aamntly ava.i.Llbl .. lIJIdu SecliOA  
oltha Ad.
C1laD Watll' Ace-Th. rad.ral Waler
Pollution Coatrol Ac:t Amendm,atl ol1972
(33 U.S.c. 1231 "aq.). I. lmended by rhl
Clean Water Act ol1977 (Pllb.1.. 85-211).
DInct dlIdIlI8u-A facility wbic:b
ditch.,.., or may dI,chua. polllllaata Into
waters of the UDilad Stales.
lIuiir,ct dlsc:buaer--A fBCility which
di.scha"tI or may dlscharae polblt&nlll inta.
a plibUcly owned lreatmant workl.
NPDES permil-A National Polllltant
DI.c:buat 2llminauon System permit
I.,ued UD.Ci,r sec:tioa 40% of tha Act.
NSPS-Naw IOIllCl plrformlDca ltanda.tda,
Wldar sectiQIl 305 of rh' Ad.
POTW-Public1J owud cnatmaat .. ..
'.
.' .
....
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 241 I friday. December Zl. 1979 I Proposed Rules
stmdanla Car IldstIq
'lI'Cft r1l indited dfsdwpc. lIDd.,
;ti0ll 3071'01 01 thl Act.
r .... s-Preln!.lmlllt .tazIduda (or "...,
. IOlD'CII of dWc:t dilcblll"o QDCiu NCtiIlQ
301(bl and (c) of thl Aa.
RCtA-Ruourc. and
Act (PL 94-SIlO) oll!1111.
AmeDdID-ull to Solid Wall DupoAl Act.
Appea.dia a-Tos:ic PoIlutall Not'o.lKtId
IIa n.1.Id FJ!lua&l (DIIC DlIdIarp)
OrJanicr
laoia
aayloailril.
dllorobotlWlll.
1.J.l·l7jc:hJol'OelbaD.

1.1.2-lIidlloroethaol
ch.lOnlethanl
Z-clUorot!hyfriArl ttbar
dlloro(om.l
methyl dIIorid, - .
mlthy{ bnlaude ' ...
brolDolom
trIchIorvOuoromltha.ae
dlch.lorod.i.l1uotomethanl
chlorodibromollWthi1D8
Wsyi dlloride
1c;8D8l1hr.lwl,

U..mch!OrobIllZlDII
hlltldllorobeauD •.
..
etbv
bil(2-chlol'Ol!thyll I!hIP
\IOnlupbthalaAa
.a1ch.lol'Opbtuol
, ...J.!OrophiIlOJ

l.1-d1dlloroblDZlU
U-dlc.hlorobtmml
3.l' -cticbJorobellZ:idlzlll
Z.+d1Ilitrotolll.nl
Z.a.dUUtzvtolu.DI
l.2-ctipileDylh ydrui.De
4-Chlaropbcyi p.!leoyl.thlll'

bi,(Z-chlorvi.opropyl) ether
bl.(2-chlonletboxy) mlthan.
huechiorobutadienl
hexachiorocydoplAlldilnl
itophonml
nitrobeuml
2-oitropbeool
U·llilropbl!llol
4.8-dWlnKI-aesol
N.n.itrotodlmethyiamiIM
N·a.itroeoOiphaaylamiDa

pentlchllm)phenoi
butyl benzyl phthalltl . ,
dJ.n-octyl phlllelitl
U-bln.zolluotUI !hUll
belWl(kJ filllftDlhllDl
'caaapilthyleni
diblazo(l..b JIIDWaCIDI
ideno(l,J.kd]p)"I'enl
Z_3.1 ... crCllDJ
Pnliciditl
,Idma
1riD
tUlnl
.... ·OIn'
U'-oOZ
.. ,,·-DDO
.... ndo.u1fan. Alpha
b-mdoiuJ!an. Beta
endolUlfaD lIllfate
eBd:riJ1 •
I1Sdri.a aJdelIyc141
heptachlor
heptacl!Jar epoxlda - -
I-BHCAlplui
b-BHC-Beta
r-8HC-Gamma
I-BHe-Deltl
PCB-U4Z
PCB-'W4
Oth_
..
....
Appeadlx C--Toxic PoUUlUli FolIDd in Only
au Rebery Unuenl (It Coactatral:l.clla
fDp_ 'I2wI !bON FlNII.d IIa ta. llatak.
We" -' W1I!dI AnI UDtqu.ly Related to .
Ib, RlliDery I' WlIic:la i& W .. OltllClld (D1nd
.
Z.OlJanicI
Carbon tetrachloride
1.1-dic:Dlorollhylene
, U-dlch!oroprop&Dlt
2.2-dlchlaropropyllll. '
Z.t-dichlorvpllllJoJ
dI-o-bucyl phthaIltl
dl.awlbyl pl!.th&llia
%h.licirJa
Nou .
:J.Mtlu:zU
Noal
4. Oth.,..
Noal
Appeadlx. D-toxic Pollul&llll D.t.ected in
T_1ed EDlueDtl of Mar. !bu OH RIB4."
01' DefIctId in the T:e.leci !:fIlulat, of au
RdIurI7 But Not UDlqul,. RllIlecllo th
R.ftDIry 1& WblcIIlt Wa DeWI:ted (Direct
DlIcbaqe)

BellZeftl

1.1..1.Z-tetnchiorolthul
pal1l1.:hloromlta Q"IIOI

 
tthylbmzllli
OUOl'UtMae
methyllal chloridl
dlchlOI1lbromomat.hcn1
Il.phtbalall
4-aitrophlnol
N.nib'o.odl-a-propyl.mlnl
bi.(Z .. lbyih8xyll phthalate
<ti,thyl phth.liltl .
OIIlZO{a)UtM!CIlII

c:hryeenl
antbnceDl
benzu(.sbi)parylftll
!lUOt1lDI
pbnanthlm:le
PyNrIl '
tetnc.bloroelhylaae
toluenl
aichlQtOlthylenl
..
181
% Metal.
antimony (total)
&nenic (totll)
berylliwn (totaO
cadmium (total)
copplr (total)
cyaaid8 {totall
lead (total)
mm:ury !total}
nickll (total)
.. lanilllD (tolaJ)
.Uver
thallium (total)
z:lDc (tatal)
E-Tl»dc PoUIlt.Dtt Not Oltlcted
IA ta parwl (lIlditecz
t O"aruc.
.c:nlJem
'Q'Jlollilrill
catboo 1llllcillortde-
1.1-dlch.loroethua
U.2-lIichJOlOtlhln
1.1.z.z.1tll"c.bloroedwl.
ch!oroe!hana
Z-dllorOethy!vinyl ether
l,1-dlchloroe!hylen,

; l.2-dlchloropropsna
U-dlchloropropyieu
melll,l cblor1de
methyl bromide
bromoform
IUchJorabrcmamelhcml
erlchloroQuolQlll.l t.hcn,
dJchlarodifluaromedwl,
ch.lorudibramomalhaAe
cnchic:nIlEhyllDl
vtnylchlorla
beDZidiul
U,+-afchlorobft12A1D8
baxachlorobeuesM
btuchloroeth_
bil(chioromlthyll ether
bi${z-dllorolillhyl) ether
Z-chioro1\aphlbalene
Z.U ..erichJa£Oph'lIol
puacbJoromet. _at
z.cbJoropilenol
2.2-d1ch1oraphlnoJ
parachlorometa end
2-dllorvphenol
1.2-dich.lorobenaenl
1.3-dlc:hloroben.teul
u .. dfchlorobeuane
3.3" -dicbJorobmzid.in.e
Z.4-dicbloropMQo!
a.8-dlnitzvloillenl
nuoranlhena
kh/Qrophenyf phenyl l!her
4-bromopblP1yl phenyl ,thlll'
bll(z-chlorolaopropyl) ethlr
bll(z-chloroethoxy} mlEhln,
hexachlorobutadianl
hex.acb.lorocydoplntadien.e
altrobenzene
Z-nilrophlaol


 
N·a.ib'olOdiphenylamiDI

bll(Z .. thylhexyl)
cUm.thyl phthalate
beDZO( .}pyreI11
"
/
Federal Register I VoL 44. No. 247./ Friday. 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules 15943
U .. benzofluorethenl
bellSO(lc )l1uoraatheu
lcenepllthylenl
bl1llOfabi)payl.na
dibenzo(a.h1anthraClnl
fd.llo(l.2.3-c.d)pytent

z. Pntir:idtt6
dlelcIriD
dllcrdan.
u··DDD
a-tndOlWlan .. Alpha
MndasWlln .. Seta
aMc.WJ'a.a S\IlCata
• AdM
eudriA Ild.hyd.
heptachlor
4-BHc..Gau:aa
3,' M.ttll6 .
IntimOftY (total) ..
beryWum (totllJ ...
(total) ..
g.SHC-Oelta
PCB-1242
PC!-1Z54
PCB-1Z21
PCB-1232
PCB-1Z48
PC!-1280
PC!-lOlt

,UYlr (totll)
tb.ntllm (total)
4. oUr/us (A6batos, «AP Phenol)
Not aaalYzed
Appelldix F-Tuic PaUuta.Qts Delected IA ..
D1Idw11t to POTW (lDdnct .Disc:barse'
.J. O"ana

c:h.Iorobenual
l.l-d.icblorwdzantl
1.1.1-1ricblaraethana
cblorofonrl
- edzylbe=elll
mlthylenlt chlroid,
t.tNchJoro.thyleli •.
lolullle
IceJlaphtheJ.
U·dllUthyJphmol· . . ,.- , .
": • Z,4·dlnitartoluenl
U-dipbeDylhydzazin.
- lIophoronl
-. IIlphthallne .. ..
N-cUtrolOdlphenylam.iDa
pentachlorophlllZQi
pheno!
buryl benzyl phthalate
di_buryf pllthalac. .' •
d!-n«ty! phthaJata
diethyl phthala tl
bltftlD(l}anWacllIl
chrysenl
IDWaceDe
Ouonlnl
phelWlthntDe
p)'!'eft.
%. Pnur:idtt6
aldtin
4.4'·DDT
U'·DD!
. .l M.ItJl,
arunic (Iotal)
. chtomillm (total}
COppel' (Iotal)
laad (tOlII)
. ,
hePllachlor epaxide
a-SHC-Alpha
b-SHCoBtta
mercury (tolal)
Dickel (Iotal)
III,nium {tolal}
ziAc: (total}
4. OJJr." fIV,P Ph«nol)
Not ,,:: .. :'.\.
0-Toxic PoUulantJ FOUDd to PUI
TII.co"&D POTW with Only PrimItJ
Treatemut (lDdireGt Dlac:Illl1o)
1.0"aniu
benzIn. ..- '-
1.:Z-dichloroethI1l8
1.1.1-trlchloro ethue
dliorofonn
• thylbenzene·
IIIttbylenl chJorid.
tettac:hJoroethyl • .Q.
toluCA •
2.4-dimethylpblDol
uphth&leae
pillnoi
butyl be.Q%'fi phthaial'
dJ·.Q .. bllryl-phthalate
dJoft-oc!yi phthalate.
dleth),i phthalate' .'
Z. hltir:ida ...
u'·DCT
U'·DDE
.l Mllial.
a.SHC·Alpha
b-BHC·Bet&
arncic (tolal') . men:ury (total)
cbromiwn (total) nickel (total}
copper {total} selenium (total)
I .. d (tolli) IUsC {total,
4. OllrtJn (Albuw. CAAP Phetll)ll
Notanalyud
.
.. The rollOwinS derivation SlNsents tha
development of me .. limitation. for phenoL
based upon Option Z. from the now model
discuaaed in Section V.
{I} Mall-Flow x coac:ea.tralio.Q lC Ylri"owty
(equatioD. 1)
BAT Mua •. 48" Ma .. (baa.d OD Iyerap
1918irufustry flow)
(I) Ftow Model (S.e Sect!oD IV of the
Developmenl Ooc:umentl_O.OO4C +
O.048JC + o.46{A+L) [equaIi0J12)
Wh.rr. .
F!ow .. million salIonl per day/lOCO barrel. of
petroleum llquid and lIatllftl llq1olta.
C.'liIIJIDltiOIl of tile oihzul tecS .
"iturilla. liquid. to 1Il1itmospblric
dlsWlatiou. YlC1:lum dlstlllatlou. c:nad.
deulUn, (In unite 011.0c0 bbla/da)')
rc .summalion or tha petroleum llquid.. fed to
Ibl catalytic aaclWll prace" .. (1.0 wi
o( 1.000 bbis/day)
. A _lUIIImation of the petrol.um Uqufd, led to
til. uphllt proce,," (1IIwt. of 1.000 .
bbls/dIY) .. .
L-l1Inun,lIon of the pelloieum liquid, fed to
the lube procet ••• (In WItte oll.OOC1 bbla/
day) .
(3) CoftClDuaUOl1 md varilbility futol' .
Phenol-ll1 Jl.s/l fconcenlfltion)
1.7 (variability rlctor ler 30 day Ivena'eI)
(4) Su:nplll CalcuialfoD
Masa_itow x conclntrathln x valiability
factor x .48-{.Q04C+.048 K +.0411 .
(A +L}).Ie .00D trIIIl x 1.7 x fJ.34 x.48 .
Wa •• (lb. 01
PART 41t-P!TROL.EUMREFINING ,.
POINT SOURCE CAnaORY
Gea.raJ Pro¥ieiou
Sec.
419.10' Applh:aoillty.
419.12 Ceaeral  
BPr Limilad.oDl
Subpart A-TOpping S41bcategory
;.-,#"
·r·'to:
'0.:
419.20 AppHcebiUly: desc:ripUoD of tbi ; , ...
IOppinS subcategory .
419.21 EmueDt limitations reprtsenting the
degre. 01 emulat reductiOll attainable by
th. app1icaUoD DC the beat praclicable
control tlch.aoloU CW'f14t1y available .'
(BPTl.
SUbpart a-er.cldng Sl.Illcatltgory
. ;. ...
418.30 Applicability; desc:riptioft of lila .... ,
c:rac:ldni .ubcategory.
419.31 EIfluent IicUtations rtpreseolin8 th,
cfqrtl of .mueDt reductlol1 attamabla by
. th, application 01 the best pracUcable
control technology ClIlrently available":
(BPl'),
Subpllt c-P.troc:nemlcaf SubcatlSlOt'Y , .
.18\40 AppLIcability: description oC tb. . .::
. ,. '
419.41 El'Dllent !Imitations representinl thlt
depu olemulDt redllCItOD attainable by
til. app!icaltoft of the best prect1cabll ....
ccmtroi techDologv cutTecdy lni.lable
(BPI')..
SubPlrt D-Lube Subcategory
419.50 AppllcabWty; desaiption of thelubl.
lubcate.ory.
.41&51 .E!lllllDt l..ImitalioD.t repres.clins the
d-.rel or .mutnt reductfan attlinable by
the appt!caUoD of th. best pnactica bla .. '
control tedI.a.ola&y cunml.ly avaiUlble ;
[BPT). •
Subpart l-fnttlimad Subg,tegOt'Y
41UO r,ppllcabWty; dllcipticm of tb, .:.
ID.tegrllld aubeat.,ory.
4:111.81 ElDullit IJmUlti01l1 repnt"lnt!:ls the
cSesree at .mUlnl reduction IUa.inabl. by
the .ppllcaUoll of th. best practicable'
coctraJ r.acbrlology CW'ftlIdy a vaile bl,:
'[BPI"].
BAT. BCTtlaUtatiol2luci SoWA IlIci· ' ..
J"r.rtu ..... 5C&11.daMa r
S61b,att '-PetrOleum RennIn; Point
Source CitetOrv
tt8.1O ApplicabiUly: description of lh.
petzroleuill nfinina.ubcatesory. .::
411.11 EfflWll!.t suidellnes .
NpreMlltlq thl dear.e of effluent
reduction altaimabla by the application ot
the bu. available tlClmolog)' •
achievabl. (BAT).
411n EflIlWlt Ifmjtaticrw suidelines
re'P1w8lulq the desrel of eUluen!
I'IducI1on litalftibl. by lilt Ipp!icarion or
th. bat conventional pollutanl control
tac!moJoay [BeT). .
PbeMI) -O.aoosC+OJlJ8QK +O,OO6Z(A+
IJ
. ..un N_ IOQrQ performance sllJldard •
[NSPS},
Part 419 is revised to read .1 sat forth
below:
182
GJ.1f Pnrtreatment IIIJId.ard.s Cor nlw and .;
ex£ItbII tcIQICM.
. Fedetal Register / Vol. 44. No. 241 / Fridny. December 2'1. 1979 / Proposed Rules
41tn Pnllnatlll8Dt ltudarda for r.dlltl ••
fmo c.an.1zI. publicly cnwDed
tn.tIIleat wotb 1Iri1ll oaly primalf
tna=e.ot.
Ap,.udix-5&mpla calculatloA or pbCllG1
.mllent lliItirauol18 Cor alypic.al rellDary.
Avtboria,; $cc;Uwa :301. JOt{b), (t:). (e), end
(Il. 3OI!(b) and {c).101{bJ and {cl.aDd 50'1 of
the a,a Wlt8l' Act (the Fedm! W.ler
Pollutlou Coulrol Act Amudments of 191Z.
•• amud.d by tI:l. Cea Water Act ollm).
(th. M Act"): 3l United States. 1311. 1314(11 J.
(cJ, (el, aDd Cal. 131IS(bl end (cl.l317{bJ end
(cJ, ad 1311: SIS Stat. 810. P\Jb. L. i1AI». n
Stat.lW.Pl&b.L. 85-221.
. GIanI Proviliou
. . f 4'1.10 AppllcaazUlty.
Thia part .• pplres to any pel:rtlleum
. refinery which discharges or may
discharge pollutants to waters flf lbll
United States or which iDtroducu or
may lDtrodw:. pollwants izltoa publlcly
ownaG treatment wodes.. .
t,41t.11 Genlnl dlflnltlons.
lzI. addiUoll to th. de.Gni tiOD.t aet.ronb.
in 40 CFR Part 401, lbe toUowins
cieJWtfoa.s apply to this part
(I) Tha WUL ''baJlaat'' means the flow
01 waten.·frOm.a. &hiP. wu ia truted

(b) n. mm "r.edltocll." mean. lb.
cr\Ide oU and natu:ral glS Uquids red to
lbe toppq wU tao
(e) Thl term "onc:e.through coolillg
- water'" means those watera dUcharged
that are Cot the purpose 01 but
mnoval and do !lOt come into di:ect
contact wilh any raw malarial.
lDtermediat .. ar fiaished product.
(dl Th. term "crude thruugbpur or
"C' meaaa. the '1IlDI%1atioQ of lbeo crud.
oi!'&lId natural. lIS liquids-fed to the
crud. pracus.s i:. unit ofl.OOO bbl/day
{WheJ:lllling lb, Englisti unit tabl .. } 01
1.000 cubicmeters/da, (wbeIlUliq:the
metric unit tab! .. }.
(.) Th. tenD "erode proceslBs'" melU1:l
atmosphenc distillation. vacuum
diatillatiOG. A&l.d c:::ude desaIt:U:zs
ptQcesae ..
. (f) The term "cracking thtoughpur' a:
"X" meanl lb. summation. of the -
petroleum llquids fed to the cra.c;king
processes in unit oft.COO bbl/day (wheD
Uling the Eagllsh unit tablel} or 1.000
cubic 'QIetenfday (wbm uaina the
metric unit tables).
(81 'I'b. term "cracking prace,.,,:"
meana hydrocncking. visbreaJc.lni,
lbermal aac:ki.lli. fluJd cetalytic
c:raclc.inlllDd mOvUJl bid catalyti¢
c:rac:Jdq processes.
(b) Th, term. &lid luhe
throughPut" OJ' "A,l:' melU1$ the.
aummatiol1 o( the pell'oleum Uqllidt. l.d
to the uphllU and lube in IUlit
af 1.0D0 bbl/day (wbla Ulq tha EzI&liah
wtit tables) or 1.000 cubic meters/day
(when using the mltnt: unit tables).
(I) The tenn "asphalt aDd lube
procesael" means aspbalt product1oG.
asphalt oiddlzing. asphalt UIlulsifyi.n.g.
hydrolining. hydrofinishing.lube
bycirofining. whit, oil manufacturing.
propane dewaxing. propana
deuphaItmg. propaae aaction1ng.
propane deresinin8, Duo SollOiveul
treating. BolveDt extraction. duotreating.
,olvent dewaxing, solvent deaspha1tins.
lube vaC1.lum tower. oil fractionation.
batch etill (naphla Itrip). bright stack
Ireating. c:entrifulJl and chilllaa MEK
dewaxing. butane dewaxing. MEl<'-
Toluel1e dew axing, deoillng (wax).
naphthellic lube production.
wax pressLnI. wax plant
(wilb neutralleparation). furfwal
extracting. clay contacting.percoIa&n.
waX sweating. acid treat. phenol
exl:actioa,lube and fuel additive ..
auJfacate plant. MIBK. wax ,labbing,
nat prev,entivea. petrolarum oxidation.
greu8 procesaeL These
procesus are described ill aux.
in Sections rv and V of the development
doc:u=ent.
G1 The term "process wastewater"
all the wastewater !rom lblt
relinuy with exception to sto::m water.
ballast water. sanitary wastewater, and
nonalDtact once throuah cooliDs wafer.
Ck} 'I'be foUowmg abbraviatians shall
meaD: (1) "bbl" means barrel (anlt baml
equal. 4% and (2J "R"
lbe ratio of COQlillg tower blawdown
flow to total emulnt flow.
aPT UmttatlaM
Sullpart A-Tappin;
f 4 tI...2a AppilcabllHy, CeacnpUon of the
tcp'p/nv .wcatI'Jory.
'I'b. provisioDl oC thiJ Iubput u.
applicable to dlsc:haraes aom aDy
facility which Pl"ClciUCIS petroleum
praducU by the use of topping and
catalyt1c reforming wh"ther or not the
£adilly Includes &lIY other proc.eSI lD
addition to lopping aDd cataIyw:
rafomllng. The provisions of thi. subpart
a.rw not applicable to Cac:ilitiea wnic;.b.
il:u:lude thermal processes {coldng.
vi.bruking. etc.} or catalytic craws.
'411.21 Erttulflt   guldea"...
"pr ... ntlnCl the dag,.. of .ffluent
redualon attainable Illy tne IppRcation. 01
1ft. _t practlcaol, COftuot tectlftoloi'
c:urrent2y ... III.Dle.
Ca) nUt CoUowinlllmitations establish
the quutity or quality of poUutanUi or
poUutant propenies. contrOU.d hy this
paragraph. which may be discharged by
a point loUZ'ce lubjec:t to the provilious
of thil fllbpart aiter appUcatioa of the
183
belt practicable control
c:um.nllyavailable:
22.7 12.4
IS.' 10.'
117 ICU
U 3.7
.IU· .G78
2.&1 UI
., .. .oe.t
..,.,
»

coo;::· ===
..D
U loa
.4T..2 . 21..:1'
U
OI_r_
 
"*-
--
__ IlL.-
.OEM) MP
.iI .14
------
rOfll __
.CS3 .024
.122 .gn.
.....-..
--
0.10 .ilO"
'"
.. G.1I.0
'lit q _ ft "'*" "" ... _
____ "'''''-_'.000
""" (I.OQO _I. l1li AI9O"II _ftJar "' .. __
roc ... ... NY '" CI:)O. IirMaIICnI Jar Toe;.,... __ .. __ _
Toe; " 8ODI.
.... "" 01 lit "'*, ... , .... ....,...
__ dMe .... ..-- l1li ""'-'t _ ''''
TOC.,.. ..   .......
• .... __ .. aoos
(b) The1imits set forth In paragraph
(al ofthls section are to be multiplied by
the foUowlnB fOlctors to calculate the
maximum for aDy one day and
maximum average of daily valu". (or
thirty conllC1.ltive days.
(1) Size factor.
&II.
t.OQO *_-.-",. _ __
  '.02
aolO_' I.ot
!5G.ClOIII7.... ""
t.2t
10iIJ1o f24.1I. !.:II
18. I.... 1.50
·,SO ... I ....
(:ill Proc;esa factat.
"*-eCOl""""
.. ,-------------
.• !-=======
.. u ••
 
5.5" ..
&JI ......
I.S"' .• 7.0" _______ _
7.510 7 .•. -========
1.0"' .... 0_
  •. •.•• _
u lItut'"1:=====:::
11).0.,1).4'
'0.510 10."=======
n.olll n."
,....
--
o.u
0.&1
0.10 •
0..
1.111 .
1.17
t..27
, .•
I.5S
I.M
1.7t
I.N
2.'2

Ut
a.n
..
Federal Register I Vol •. 44. No. 247 I Friday. %1. 1979 I Proposed Rules 75945

n ... n,":::===:::::
12.0 III fl-'
IUIDI2."

tUIDI3.ft
, .......
(3) See th. cOlnprehensive .xample
Subpart D t 419.S1(b)(3).
eel The (ollowing anocations
constitute tha quantity and quallly of
poUutllDtl or pollutant propmi.s
controlled by this parasraph and
attributable to bell.at. which may be
cllachatpd after the application of best
practicable COlltroJ technology cunenuy
availabl •• by I point SOUt'CII subject to
r.b. provisioaJ o( this subpart. In
additloll to the dlscharp allowed by
pansraph (b) or this J'c:tioa,;
(1) BaJltat. The aUocatioa allowed ror
ballast water flow. IS kg/cu ID (lb/M ,
aall, ,hall be based on tho.e ballast
waters treated at th. reADery.
" ..... .
E/IIIoeII(
...... ,..
100$.1.-__
__ _
CAOO __ _
or.-tQNIN_
Q.OII . Goon
.CJ:I .021
.61 I ,24
.Gil .001
• 11"----
. . ..
• . .
.•
• <
.
800"
Go40 U'I
.lI .17
lG !'
.121 .on
WiI'III ... ,.,.. u I!O 1.0
01_9'41 __
II"
Cd} The quaatlty and quality of
pollutants or pollutlDt propenie.
canlmlled by this paragraph,.
attributable to once-through =oling
water. are excluded from thltdiac:hars9
aUoweci by patagraph (b} of this sectica.
Once-through coolina wat ... lDay be
discharaad with a total orsa=c carboa
cCnC8DInlUOQ Il.Ot to S rq/l.
Subpart 8-eracklng
f 41t.:O APlrilc:ablllty; d-.cnptlo.- af the
cncldng eubc:atetary.
The prOvisions ot this subpart are
appl!cabL. to ..u dilcharps from any
facility which produces petrolewn
producLs by lb, us. of toppina: and
cracking. whether or Dot the facility
include. any proces. in addition to
toppins and cradd:ng. 'The provisiOns of
thia subpart are not applicable however.
to racilities which includ. the proCH ... '
specified in SubpatLs Co D. or E of this
part.
l,t'.31 Emuent Ilmftatlon. guleI.U .....
teprtuntllSg til. d.g .... 01 'N/uent' '.
reo'lICUon lnalRlbl. D)' til •• plrilc.tlon of
til. best prtCtlc.bl. control tICllnOiOfY
Cl\,tmn!fy sY1llllbl. (SPT'). .
Cal The foUowinglim.itation. establish
the quantity or quality or pollutant& or
pollutant properUes. coatroUed by this
paragraph. which may be dJscha1'led by
a point source lubject to the PfQVfsiona
of thi" subpart sfter appliCation of the·
best practicable control tecbDo!oBY
CLlnfDC)' available:,



.......
...... -
___ H.....,-
__ --o ... -... -_- .

"'0.-__ _
21.1 I,..
II.. 12.'
110 .101
&.4 4.1
.Z'I .10
',.tU, ...
.tl .au
.-" ..
,QU .ota
ww. .. ,.. .. OIlf.O

.,....._ ........ ''OOOlllllttl

ISCO'
•••
I.!
TS5 U U
CXlD 74
"4
01_.-_ so 1.&
......
...... -
.074 .as
-"_IL- &.I 11
$ooIIIOe .l1li .m
1'OIIICfIIOIIIioIII-.
.......
.IS· .011
----
,.". .COM
II"
wu'*' ... ,.... 1.0 10 •. 0
(b) The limits set forth in puagrapb
(a) of tWa .saction are to ba multiplied by
the followina Iaeton to calculate the
maximum Car anyone day and
maximum average of daily nIu •• for
thirty consecutive days.
(I) Size Cactor. .
1.000 .......... "., __

aG .....
SO.O. ' ...
.....
1011.0 .. 121.1
,aUIDI4.
,." .....
(%) PrOCI" lactor.
$lilt
....
0,11
0."
1.01
1.13
In
I'»
t •• '
. {3} See the comprehensive example
Subpart D f 419.51(b)(3}
(cl The prori.ions oC! 41S.2I{e}(1)
apply ta diacharges of process
wattl' poUutants attributable to ballast
water by • point .ource subject to the
provUiion. of thi • .subpart.
Cd) The qlWltity quality of
poUutants or pollutant properdel
controlled by thie paragraph.
attributable to once-through eooUnIl
water. are 8l11:clIJded from the disciJarge .
allowed by paragraph (b) of this
Occe-through ceoUng water lDay be .
dlscharsed a total organic carbon ..
cOllcenlnltion Dot to eJecaed 5 fDg/l.
Subpart C-Petrochemlcal

'0'
f 41'.40 d •• crlpUon o'th. ".'
pltroctIelftlCaleubcategory. ,., , :. ,;
The proviaions of this subpart are" .: '
appUcable to all dbcba.rjes from any
r.cilily which produces petroleum ..
products by the use of ,
and p.etroehamical operations. whether
or Dot the (acUily includes any proc ...
illlddJUon to topping. crackina IlDd
peti-achemlcal operations. The
of this lubpart .hal! not be .
applicable however. to fac:ilitiel which
include tlie processes speciQed in .
Subpans 0 or E of this part.
f .11.41 Emuent tlmitatlons guideline •.
repratnUng the degr .. of effluent :
r.cNction Ittalt\lbl. by tile applIcation of .
the hat prKtScable control technOlogy .
Q.ImftUy ."all8l:lle (8PT),
Cal The EoJIowingiimitations establish
the quantily 01' quality of pollutant or
pollutants properties, controlled by this
parasraph. which may b. di.c.harsed by
• point subject to the provisionl
of this subpart alter application of the
pral;ticllble c:onlroJ technolosy '
cuneDUy  
...... ..... llUIoIrl/lO& .. 1,000 m·,'

'=' 'm __ _
0.. TSS. __ _

3 ... fe..
.
....... 11. •• :::====== UIO:U._
UIO .... I:-========. '-'ID •.• '_
$.5_""-========
.. 0111 .... _
... 111 .... '-:=======
7.0117,4 ....
UID ''"========
&0101..4.
..,1111.0';;::======
'.OIIU."
.... "...
184
GoU' cco __ _
0.7 •.. 01_ or--
Ilil """'*
',00 ...... _
  -.._"--
, ....... _--
M 1 TOIII CIf'IIINtI_ .
IoU ............
U7 ........ -. t. 11" ____ ,
, .
2:14
, ....
21Q 101
H.t U
.:s .flO
Zl.4 10.'
.011
.a
,oq .. Q20
'*'"" .... 1Mge e.1I III • .0 '
Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday. December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules
. m..t
_ ......
(b) The limits set fonh in paragraph.
(a) of this are to be mwtipUed by
the (ollowing factors to c:aJculate the .

awclmum. a verase o! daUy- values (or
thirty consecutive days.:
(ll Size. £acter:.
I.QlOCII • .., .... c---....... .
INIII ..
%5.G' 10 .... _ Q.lS
0.&:1
75.0..... I1It
lDa.a .. 124.1 0 .•
lao .. '4.' '.OS
15D.nr 1.1.:1.
Process factor:

Q.l'3
..... 5..... 0.111

&0.1.4 0 ••
UIOU. 1.01
7.0.7." 1.17
7.5 III 7." 1.2.
a.olOUI ,.:111
1.5 .. &" !.SI
a.G ...... US
;., .. -1.71
(3) See the campl'8hens1vII example
Subpart 0 I 419.51(h)(3}.
(e) The provisiola of § 419.2l(e}(lJ
a'llply to discharges of process waste
water pcUutanliS attributable to ballast
water by a point source subject to the
provi&ione of thia subpart.
(d) The q-cantity lind quality or
pollutants c:r pollutant prop.rti,s
contmITed by this paragraph.
Ilttributabl. to once-thrcush cooling
wlter. are exduded I:om the disclosure
allowed by paragraph. (b.) DC this section.
Once-thrcush cooling water may be
discharged with a total organic carbon ._
concentration not be ItXceed 5 alg/l.
&.Ibpart D-Lube Subcategory
f 41UG AppllClbll.ltr, dMUlptloft 01 the
luDe
"'he provisiollJ of this subpart ant
.lieable to aU di.chat8es from Ill)'
lacillty wbich produces petroleWD
products by th .. OSI' oC toppinS. cracking
and tuba oil manuiar:tuting processes.
whether or not the facility includes any
procesl in additian to topping. cracking
and lube oil manuCacturi.n8 processes.
The provisions of this subpart are not
applicable nawever. to facilities which
include the processu speCified in.
Subparts C and E of this part.
f .18.51 Etfh,..,t IlmItatlol'll gll/delln ..
repl'W'SerrtJng the degr" af effluel'lt· •
reduction attainable lIy the appllcatlen at
the be,t practlc:aal. col)trot technology
eu,nntly available (BPT),.
(a, The followmslimitations estabUsh
the quantity or quality of pollutants or
pellutant propertJlII, controlled by this
paragraph, which mllJ' be discharsed by
a point source subject to the provisions
of this .ubpart after application of the
best practicable controt technology
CWTentJy available:
em..
-_ ...
___ ....
t'1'4
0iI .... gr-._
"*-
----
_UN_ SulIio11 __ _

-

_1Or3O
--..... ...
-.... --...
__ .. ·
--I
!lQ.8 15.1
12.7
:180 '17
,U U
.31 ., ..
::14 1C151
.J:! U
.n. ....
__ 061 .QlO
VIIe\jn V'Ie ..... 4.0 10 U
BOOf
'9.'
1.1
T$S 'U 1.0
000 127 II
Oil .,., .,.._
5.7 1.Q
"'-
......,...- .!;Ii)
--
.. N.....- 1.3 11
.11' .w
T ___
.m .11D
-.......

.024 411
pH W!IhirI '-.... e.o • aO'
(bJ The limits set forth in paragraph
(a) of thi. section are to be multiplied by
the followinS factors to calculate the
maximum Cot anyone day and
maximum averase oC daily values for
thirty conucutivi days.
(1) Size factor:
1._ *OIf ....... ,..._.,.
Uta _ •• 50.01474.,.
75.010 et"'J:=======
,OC.O 10 124.'
,UO 10 1411..========
150.0 .. 17 ....
I1!.OD '9$.' 2QD.O!ll9' __ · ______ _
(2) Proces •. factor.
"-,*""",1lbII

"'1117.4'
7.S 10 7_

u,-c,.
• .o.A. ••
t.S 1O •.
10.0 10 ,0. ...
'0.5 10 10," .
11.010 n.4'========
11.5,.. II."
12.0 .. IU.
IU 11111..-=======
1l.Q!II gru __
..
-
G.71
uc
0.'1
0. ..
0.17
. 1.05
1.1"
1.1,
.....
,.,.,
,., ..
c. ..
1.00
I.CI
,., ..
u.
'.H
1.53
1.'7
I.U
1M
&.15
. UI
2,"
(3) Example of the application of thE!
abov. faclarS. '. .
___ _
,_         ....
OO ....  
MpIIIII_ .l4OI'III.-....-._
. ------
ecl The provisions of § 419.21{e)(1}
apply to discharges oC process waste
water poUutlUlts attributable to point
source subject to provisions or
ballast Walet' by this subpart.
I
13
12
(d) The quantity and quality of
pollutants at pollutant properties
controlled by this paragraph,
attributable to once-through cooling
water. are exclUded from the discbarge
allowed by paragraph (bl of this section.
cooling water may be
discharged with. total organic carbon
concelltration not to exceed mg{l.
R,lin-r 1Z$,00D bbI pili' SlTflm c." T'NougIItllJl


__ :===================
'2$
eo
121
T* ____________________ _
185
l'
...
1
I.. K f.
... .' .... _-.... _ ..
Federal Register' Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday. 21, 1979 / Proposed Rules 75947
"-
c.-Iy
WIi!1IIIi1g
(1.CIDa II1II I*' ........ 10
,...
QCIIIf9.I"Idoft


.•., ....

41 .321
--="*4
20 ' ••
.tllll
1'_
. 4" X

-
2.m
.... s.3 .0.2.
4.0 .0:12
...
••
T_
.n, x 13 . 1,41
.... '-0 .em x II
-
.a
..
IIDI'O
s.. fIIIIII far .... "-" '--0.... .
lie __ ••   f_ far 12$.aaa II1II I*' __ clay SIlo! rlClllr ..
T ............ __ ... -1iOI1 "" _ .""'-lUI.., lIofIlI'4 jIIOCftaf_ .... ",.,_
•• 1!/QIJ4 M I/IIIIiIIUIIIIIr .., t .,.J ...... llll.lllllllli:I_' ..... I*' 1.000 _1II1-=c11.
Subpart E-Integrated Subcategory
f 41'.10 Appllc:ablllty; ef •• criptlon of U'li

The provision. of thlJ subpart an
appllc:able to all discharses resultinl
from uiy facility which procl1..Ic ••
petroleum prodw;ta by the lUe or .
toppm,. cracldns. lube oU manulacturini : 1C800JQ5.,'__ _
PJ'0C8JSes, udpetrochemicai __ _
IU !U
' .. ,
·operations. whllther or not Lbe (acUity .... --::-:.=
Izleludltl any process in addition to .....
1a 10
"0 U
topping, craclcina.lube oil manufactwins ...:::::::"N..--
f'lroc:aaaea and petrochemical operations.
r
f 411.11 ErnUtnt UIIIU.tIona
.,. .OM
U U
.'2' .eM
.a .t7.
0-.-_
N....-ntitlt U'li dqr •• 0' .mwtm jill ..... __ _
.ea .au·
Wi ....... ""lIe 1.0 ID .. 0
,: ...aUCllon tttalMbll by the appllcetlon of .
U'I. Mst CQnlnll tecllnoiogr
cwrtenly avallabl. (SPT). .
(a) The rouowtua limitations utabU.h
the quantity or quality or pollutants or
poJlutant propertie" controlled by thi.
paragraph. which may be discharsed by
• point SOUlC8 subject to the provisions
of Ihi. subpart alter application of the
best practicable c:ciatrol ttchnolollY
curreatI,. available: .
 
l1S
CDC)

........ -.
............ N.-
=-"-'Iiw-"-_-
.-..-

'"----
.' .
M.'
:11.3
:181
17.'
.. ,
#.1·
1tI
"1
.1.
,"
.'Sf
....
•• ••
... "" .... UID .. O
(b) The set forth In paragraph
(a) of thl. s.ction are to be lI!.wtlplied by
the followmS Iaetonl to calculate the
max.iiDum for anyone day and the
'mWmUUl tVlrase oC daily valu" for
th1.rty C:OlUecv.tive days.
(1) SLze factor: .
s..
MillO II1II., ....... 1ft ... *" ....
'-- - '24.1 4.'12
125.0 ID ... , 4.71
tSllO III 17'-1 us
175.0 10 t.... ellt
200.0 ID a .. , el_
12$..... 1.1101
(2) Proc.s. ractor.
--
..
L8U_e·, . 1l7S
G.a
1,'1D7. ut
&0 lit 1.4 1.00
.. 510.... MO
.. 0..... ,,a
•. 5111.... uo
10.0 10 10." 1.011
10.5 10 10M U4 .
11.0""." ... 1
u.s 10 n.. 1'"
12.0 III 12... t ••
IU III lUll &11
IUttI.... :aa
(3) See th. comprehensive exam pl •.
Subpart 0 ,.419.51(b)(3). '
186
. (el'l'he proviliODl o£ § 419.Z1(c}{n :
apply to dischal181 of process waste
water pollutants altributable to ballast.
water by a point louree subject to the
pro'l{sionl or thl. wbpart. • '
(d) 'nl. quantity and quality of " .....  
pollutants of pollutant properties
cODlrolled by this paragraph.
attributable to once-through c:oolini
water, are ."eluded from the dischuge
allowed by paragraph (hJ ol thls sectioD.:
Onc ... thtough CQol!nS water may be . ,. "
dischalied with a total olianic -
concactratiGD Dot to exceed 5 ms/l.
BAT. Ber UmitatiODS Ind New Source .
and Pl'ecraa&mIDt Sl.andards ,:,"
., ;;
Subpart F-Petroleum Reflnln; Point·
Source SloLbcategory
141'.70 AP"lfcablllty; descriptlon of the: .
petrole&lm r8'flning ",tlcalegory.
This eubpart applies to disc:halies to '-
waten of the Unitld Stales. and'
introductionl of poUutant_, .
owned trealment worle.Hom &l\y
petroleum refinery.
1411.71 Emu.nt limllatloM gllfdelln ••.
Np ..... ntlng trl. c:lt;nM of effluent . ,-, .....
,,"uctton .ttaln.bl. by ttl. aP9ltcatiOft of· .;
the belt ."alJ.tbl. teennology economically ,
lCbte"uJe (BA1j. • ." "
Except a. provided in 40 CFR 1.25.30-
1.25,32. any existini point source subject
to thI. subpart mu,t achieve the .• ,:
rolloWinI effluent limitations , ' "
repraaeotins the degree ol emuent '.
l'tduction attamable by the application'-
of the best available technology ... ,
economically achievable (SAT):
(a) The quantity of ponutants
discharsed from process waltewater
shall aat exceed. the sum of the
allocations below (3C means 3 .
mulUpued by C): •
(1)
I'IIeNl O.oo:lIC 1l0015C .
r_-..._
ela:l:llC 1l01101C
1teW_
........ -
elOO26C o.OO,:IC
"""" .... CIIOIII!CIII*' ""'"
"'*"'-
o.oauc O.ODOSIC
r ___
G.01IC G.OOOIC.

---
CLOOtac G.oo
. Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 ! Friday. De1:ember Zl. 1979 I Proposed Rules
{2}
""'*-.,.--


--
,..,..
r* ___ .
----
-----
.
G.CJ3IISO&.
o.:Jm.oL

o.O!7DK
a.u.JoIC
o.ot71AL


........ ,..,.,)
......... o.al2lAl,.
  G.08t7AL
-
ell.l. QDtllAL. CUIO$oIAL.
£h) The limitations for COO. ammonia
(as N). sulfide and TOC are th., same aa
those apecified in § § 4'19.%1. 419.31.
419.41.419.5%. and·fI9.el.
l c) The Umi fa liens for balJast water
and OIlce through cooling water an thlf
same as those specified in §! 411Ul.
419.:31.419.41.419.51. and 419.61.
N'ol-.-5ee AppeDdix to Uti. regula lioG rer
sampJ.a Qf .. SAX affhwIl
limitlt!'*"
§ 4fl.n EH!\Ient IlmflatfaNi Q\IlcI. Onn
trI. degrM of .ffluent
recWatan attaInIJIla by til. appJlcalion at
best COftftfttlGNI palM.ant t:Ontrai
tKtlftOlogy (BeT).
. ' Ex.cept as provided in 40' CFRl2S.30-
125.32. any existing point lIauree subjecL
!O' thi. subpart must ac:hJevt the· '.
fo II 0 Willa eifIu'llt limitations
rep.rese.a.tiD& the dsgtee. o! effluent
rwduc:tian attainable by the applic.aticm.
• 'he b/tst canvenUana! poUutant
I.t'OJ technology (BCT):
(al The quantity cl poUutantS'
di.chara.d from proCesl wastewater
.hall not exceed the sum of th.
allocations specified below (:3C means 1
mulliplied by C):
(l)
1IOCII __ _
nIS ___ _
Oil-or-
eoos __ _
lSS __ _

(2)
8OC!l
1$3

9005
T$S
011_. __
(31
800 ... , __ _
TSS __
0II111d1ll' __
Z,IMC
'.$09C
o.eeec
2!.:lCl(
17.l$X
7.I9K
..... 51( "58'"
&01'1(
ueK I.UI(.
lbl the pH shall be within tha r80.&& or
&109 •
(e) The limitations for banaill water
and once through cooling water are the
same as those specified in § § 419.21.
419.31.419.41.419..51. and. 419.61.
! '1"13 Hew SOUJ"Ce' perfannanca
(NSPS).
Any new sourc.a subiect to this
subpart must achieve' the fallowing new
soW't:e performance standards (NSPS):
{a} Tbere shall be no discharge of
187
poUutaztl3 £rom process wastewaters to
the waters altha United Slates.
{b) The limitations for ballast water
and ollce through cooling walerare the
same as those speciIied In §§ 419.21.
419.31. 419.41. and 419.61.
§ 419.74 Pretreatment sUindard.l1ar new
and .xlatlng .IOUlcu.
Ar..y point soW't:e subject to this
subpart which introduce., pollutants into
a publicly owned trealment works
whlc:h has IlDt been 8J'anted a waiver
from ilebieving effluent limitations
based on secondary treatment under
section 30l(h) of the Act must achieve
the following pretreatment standards (In
addition to c.omp!yina with 40 CFR.Pan
403 in the case of new IOUl'CH and
except as provided ill 40 CFR Pm m.13
in the case of exiating sources):
(a) The followin8 standards apply to
the-total refinery Bowc;oa.tribul..ioa to
the P01W.
CiI ....
MIotIC-
'00
tCO
}-
(b) The foUowi.cg standard is applied'
to the c.oolini tower blowdown pottion
or the refine.ry !Q the PO'IW ollIlay:
be applied to th& total tefinary now by
multiplYins the standard by the ratio a£
the cooling tower blowndowu now to
the ta!al.re&etlllow. to thePO'rW.
SuDtlartF'
 
-'-IIIJ"-'
f
(el InlormaticinaImau liInitation. are

01-11"""'_
---
T NI c:I!IQmiIMII_

U7C+10II.$2X+114.:)OAt.
t.5l'C +1011.521( ... 11 .. ;30,111.
A:dI.OI57C+ 1.I43QAU
01_.,.__  
__ :usc: ... 31.:I5K+.oo.02A1.
To. aoo-... _ JII)! .• OO2AL.I
I
Federal Register I Vol. 44. No. 247 I Friday. December 21. 1979 I Proposed Rules
'411.75 'Ntrftb".nt lItIuldardl for
dlKttergJ"o ,",0 c.uln publicly
0"'"" ,,"trnet'lt wotIIa WlttI omy primary
".trneM.
(3)
---_ .. __ .-
__
.........
----
Any point source subject to this
subpart which introduces pollutants into
a publicly owned treatment works
which h •• been sranted a waiver from
achievtns .muant lImitaUons based on
Kcondazy tn.tment under sectlon
30'1(h) of the Act must achieve the
!olloW'IDg pretreatment standardl (in
c.dditioD to complyiDs with 40 CFR Part
403 ID the ca8. of new sources and
except al provided iD 40 CFR t03.13 ror
£xi.tins Sources):
-----
T __ _
0.0' .....
L'"""

LOliTA/.
....,.."
Pi _eu. __ a :ao'(JiI'w-..
A-. • ..,
__ 30 •.
- ...
...,.._ ...  
0.111
-
--
Appead.ix-Sampl. CalcuJ.cioa
The followin8 example presents the
derivation of a BAT phenol effluent
limitaUon fot' a typical refinery
A....,lCYZ
Mc ..... _ ....... ____ ._
(b) Information lDal8limitations ant
•• followa:
••. 11'__ -...., _____ _

(1)
....... , __ -
T __ _
..-.-
---
,......---
T .. __
- ...
--
(%)
,......-----
T ___ _
"- .
---
------
T __ _
-
---
(toone
a.otlc
...... ...,
-..
--...
1.,.= .....
,..., ..... ,
.. ..
t_ ..... _,.....-(IolJ-
tn ZIoI. _u l"IIod u.._1:41 .... J
........ ccac
O.CDlI!5C
... ...,
O.OI:r.IIC
o"*,,
188
25
10
..

75949
,
bp
CERTIFIED MAIL
August16,2012
ZO f Z AUG 20 P 2: I I .
Mr. Paul Higginbotham
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Water Quality - Permits Branch
100 N. Senate Avenue
Mail Code 65-42
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2251
BP Products North America Inc.
2815 Indianapolis Blvd.
PO Box 710
Whiting. IN 46394-0710
Subject: BP Whiting Business Unit NPDES Pennit IN 0000108 Mercury Variance Interim
Report Part IV section 01
Dear Mr. Higginbotham:
Per our NPDES Permit No IN0000108 Part IV Streamlined Mercury Variance section 0.1
Pollution Minimization Program Plan (PMPP), within 6 months from the effective date of the
permit modification to incorporate the SMV requirements, BP will conduct a review of the reports
from the Purdue I Argonne pilot study and submit a report to IDEM summarizing the
recommendations for further evaluations. Please find attached a summary of the
recommendations and our proposal for next steps.
If you have any questions regarding this report or require further information . .Please contact
Rose Herrera (219) 473-3393
Sincerely,
  / ~ d ~ W ~ ~
Linda J. Wilson
Environmental Superintendent
Whiting Business Unit
Attachments
Copy: Steve Roush, IDEM Office of Water Quality Permits Branch.
Purdue University Calumet (Purdue or PUC) and Argonne National Laboratory
(Argonne) have conducted an independent multi-year study, funded by BP, to identify
deployable technologies to treat (refinery) wastewater with the objective of meeting the
1.3 ng/l (ppt) Great Lakes Water Quality Criterion for mercury. The study was
conducted in multiple modules and the details of the study can be found at
http://webs.purduecal.edu/pwi/emerging-technologies/. The final phase, pilot-scale
study was conducted at the BP Whiting refinery using a slipstream of wastewater taken
just prior to the Effluent to the Lake (pre - ETL) outfall as the influent stream to the pilot.
The pilot-scale testing plan involved ultrafiltration and reactive filtration (Blue PRO®)
technologies.
Key findings from this phase included:
• The mercury in the feed to the unit was primarily associated with particulates - very
little dissolved mercury was measured during the test period.
• Significant variability in mercury concentrations was observed during this study. To
obtain a measure of variability, two days of composite sampling events for the
ultrafiltration pilot were conducted. These two sampling events showed that the
standard deviations were very high and ranged from 41.5 to 59 % in feed and
membrane backwash samples
Ultrafiltration Pilot Study.·
• The UF membrane pilot unit consistently provided permeate that was less than 0.5
ppt total mercury.
• Low membrane fouling rates were calculated during a majority of the study duration,
except for one (unexplained) episode of high fouling rate.
• An unexpectedly large solids accumulation was noticed in the membrane unit at the
conclusion of the pilot in spite of the regular maintenance and chemical cleanings.
However, accumulation of mercury on the membrane fibers themselves was
negligible and did not appear to affect performance.
• The separated mercury concentrated in a reject stream that is still fairly substantial .
as a percentage of the feed flow. Further testing is therefore needed to determine
treatment options for the full scale reject stream.
Reactive Filtration Pilot Study:
• The reactive filtration unit was first operated as a sand filter only mode (without ferric
or Nalmet® 1689 polymer addition). Mercury breakthrough was seen in the effluent
after 46 days of operation in this mode.
1
• Bench-scale testing had previously determined that Nalmet® polymer addition was
preferable to ferric addition in case sand filtration alone was not sufficient to meet
the treatment criterion. Effluent quality, after Hg breakthrough mentioned above,
was restored when Nalmet® (at a very high dosage of 25 ppm to each filter) was
added to each filter's influent, however, the brevity of these test conditions (three
weeks) prevent definitive conclusions from being made regarding long term
effectiveness of this approach.
• Mercury accumulation was seen in the filter during both modes of operation. It
appeared that this accumulation was enhanced during Nalmet® addition, to the
extent that all of the separated mercury appeared to be accumulating in the sand
during the Nalmet® addition rather than being concentrated into the reject stream.
The capacity of the filter to accumulate mercury before effluent mercury quality is
impacted is unknown.
• Further testing is necessary to determine the treatment options for the reject flow
from this unit, which contains the concentrated mercury, as well as options to deal
with mercury accumulation in the sand bed.
Recommendations by Purdue and Argonne for Further Evaluation Steps
The following are the key recommendations from the Purdue Argonne team for further
evaluations:
• Both Purdue and Argonne recommend a longer-term pilot study of ultrafiltration
technology at the Whiting refinery. Purdue recommends that the chronological
change of the Hg on the used ultrafiltration membrane fibers be monitored. The Hg
content of the used membrane fibers is not a concern to Argonne since the total Hg
accumulation is minimal based on the overall mass balance calculations on the
membrane fibers.
• Argonne does not recommend further pilot testing of the Blue PRO® process until
the Hg accumulation in the sand issue is better understood. Argonne recommends
that long term testing of the alternative option developed by Argonne, namely,
Nalmet® addition prior to the existing sand filters, be conducted prior to any long
term Blue PRO® testing. Purdue recommends that if the Blue PRO® process is
further considered, long term testing of the Blue PRO® process with Nalmet®
addition is needed to determine whether Hg breakthrough would occur.
• Both Purdue and Argonne have concluded that further testing is needed to
determine options for appropriate disposal of the ultrafiltration reject, or the
backwash from either the Blue PRO® process or the sand filters with Nalmet®
addition, which contains concentrated levels of Hg.
2
• The variability exhibited by samples has been identified as a concern. Argonne
suggests that future pilot work should consider the use of grab samples for the rapid
preliminary assessment of pilot performance and that these grab samples be
supplemented with the use of composite sampling in order to obtain more
representative samples and improved process analysis.
• Argonne and Purdue have some operational concerns with pilot unit availability and
reliability. The impacts from these are recommended to be closely monitored during
further testing.
BP's Next Steps of Evaluation:
Based on these recommendations, and a detailed review of the Purdue Argonne
reports, BP proposes the following activities during the next phase of the evaluation:
Both Purdue and Argonne recommend a longer term pilot of ultrafiltration technology.
Consistent with the requirements of our permit, BP Whiting will commence a pilot
demonstration unit to further review the ultrafiltration (or similar) technology. Operation
of the pilot demonstration unit of similar size as the Purdue/Argonne pilot will begin by
August 1, 2013. Completion of the pilot demonstration and submission of the final report
to IDEM will occur by March 1, 2015. The pilot demonstration evaluation will include the
following:
• Because sampling variability has been identified as a significant issue, a longer
duration sampling plan with composite and grab samples will be developed and
implemented to further evaluate mercury speciation and representativeness in the
pilot feed and effluent.
• The evaluation of options for the treatment and disposal of the reject stream will be
integrated into the testing plan.
• Performance under varying weather and process conditions as well as reliability
operability, and feasibility will be reviewed. The report to IDEM will summarize the
results of the pilot demonstration including reliability and feasibility and further
recommendations.
Both Purdue and Argonne recommend further evaluation of chemical additive effects
with sand filtration. Argonne recommends reviewing these effects before any long term
pilot study is implemented for the Blue PRO® reactive filtration technology. In addition
BP will evaluate effects of the new Brine Treatment Unit planned to be on line in first
quarter 2013 in combination with the new final sand filters to determine any additional
mercury removal. Completion of the evaluation and submission of the final report to
IDEM will occur by March 1, 2015.
3
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Brine Treatment Unit and the new sand filters
in removing mercury will be performed in 2013-2014. Additional benefits from the
usage, optimization of dosage, and potential side issues (e.g. toxicity) from the use
of precipitants such as Nalmet® 1689 will be evaluated. Mercury accumulation in
the sand filters, as well as capacity before breakthrough, will be monitored and
options for the treatment of the backwash stream will also be evaluated.
• Performance under varying weather and process conditions as well as reliability
operability, and feasibility will be reviewed. The report to IDEM will summarize the
results of the study including reliability and feasibility and further recommendations.
4
Whiting Business Unit
BP Products North America inc.
2815 Indianapolis Blvd.
PO Box 710
Whiting. IN 46394-0710
bp
,teve Roush
(DEM
;)ffice of Water Quality - Pennits Branch
100 N Senate Avenue
.. ndianapolis, IN 46204-2251
 

fJ =/!nr::rt:!:!

  IIOWIS
02 1R $
0002003042 AUG1 G 2'
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 46
I !ill illi" III! "'1111111 iI, i I ill illlil f I fll Ill! i! 1 i, ill 111111
Assessing the Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Ohio EPA Water Rules on the
Ohio Economy
April 24, 1997
prepared by
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Surface Water
and
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation
and
DRI/McGraw-Hill
in support of
Amended and New Rules in OAC Chapters 3745-1, -2, and -33
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 1 April 24, 1997
Summary
The cost of implementing the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (GLI) in Ohio
has been a subject of considerable debate. To provide definitive data on the cost of the
proposed rules, which address the GLI and statewide wasteload allocation and NPDES rules,
Ohio EPA contracted with two consulting organizations to perform an in-depth evaluation of the
effect of the proposed rules on Ohio’s economy. This report outlines the process used by Ohio
EPA and its contractors to identify representative wastewater treatment facilities, calculate costs
to those facilities, extrapolate facility costs to the whole state, and model the expected impact on
the Ohio economy. Although some alternatives evaluated during the cost study would have been
quite costly, the final proposed rule package is projected to have a minor cost implication to
Ohio wastewater dischargers and no detrimental impact on the overall Ohio economy.
Potential benefits of implementing the rules are contained in a separate report.
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential economic impact on Ohio municipal and
industrial point source wastewater dischargers due to implementing the GLI for the Lake Erie
drainage basin and adopting updated water quality standards, wasteload allocation procedures,
and NPDES permitting procedures statewide. Preliminary economic results were used to
develop the final proposed rule package to ensure that the necessary rules are implemented in
both a cost effective and environmentally protective manner. This report, summarizing the work
of Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and DRI/McGraw-Hill, presents the estimated
costs of the final proposed rule package. A separate report by Hagler Bailly Consulting evaluates
the potential benefits of implementing these rules.
Background
Amendments are proposed to be made to seven existing rules in Chapter 3745-1 (Water Quality
Standards) and three existing rules in Chapter 3745-33 (Ohio NPDES Permits) of the Ohio
Administrative Code. Eight new rules are proposed for Chapter 3745-1; one new rule is
proposed for Chapter 3745-33; and eleven new rules are proposed for a new Chapter 3745-2
(Implementation). These rules are being proposed to implement three separate requirements:
The federally mandated GLI;
The requirement in ORC Section 6111.12 that all changes to Ohio's wasteload allocation
manual be made in rule; and
The requirement in ORC Section 6111.041 and the Clean Water Act (Section 303) to
periodically update water quality standards.
Approach
The Ohio EPA formed an External Advisory Group (EAG) of approximately 25 members (and
alternate members) representing municipalities, industries, environmental groups, citizens, and
academia to provide input to the Ohio EPA during the development of these rules. Volunteers
from the EAG served on an economic subgroup to assist in the development of a work plan to
evaluate the economic impacts of the rules.
Figures and Tables follow all report text.
1
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 2 April 24, 1997
Developing an interpretation of the regulations that formed the basis of the direct cost estimates
to municipalities and industries in Ohio was the first task of the economic analysis. The GLI
allows states flexibility in implementing the guidance so that strategies other than end-of-pipe
treatment would be encouraged. The key strategies allowed in the GLI are the use of pollution
prevention and the development of plans to address all sources of pollutants (both point sources
and nonpoint sources, including air deposition, runoff, and contaminated sediments) to develop
cost effective and environmentally protective measures to achieve water quality standards.
The EAG economic subgroup identified a number of issues as potential cost drivers. Where
more than one implementation option was possible, the subgroup designated different
alternatives for evaluation. The regulatory options evaluated in the economic study include:
1. Permit limits based on total recoverable metals water quality criteria versus permit limits
based on dissolved metals water quality criteria.
2. End-of-pipe treatment for mercury with no variance provisions versus pollution minimization
and a variance from the mercury limit.
3. No intake credits available for noncontact cooling water (NCCW) with possible treatment of
NCCW versus use of intake credits and exemption of NCCW from meeting water quality-
based effluent limits.
4. Water quality-based effluent limits triggered only when a facility’s waste water quality
exceeds the calculated wasteload allocation versus triggering such limits when the effluent
quality exceeds 75% of the allocation in certain circumstances (decision process is called
“determining the reasonable potential”).
5. Carcinogenic risk for human health of 1 in 100,000 (10 ) versus 1 in 1,000,000 (10 ).
-5 -6
6. Ohio EPA current whole effluent toxicity (WET) provisions versus Wisconsin WET approach.
The proposed rules have the most potential to affect facilities that hold wastewater discharge
permits which contain water quality-based effluent limits. Ohio EPA examined the number of
facilities in various industrial categories and POTW size categories (publicly-owned treatment
works are typically sewage treatment facilities owned and operated by municipalities and
counties). Ohio EPA and Foster Wheeler screened facilities against a set of regulatory and
operational criteria and selected facilities representative of the broader population of Ohio
dischargers with permits containing water quality-based effluent limits (Table A ). A total of 18
1
dischargers participated in the study (Figure 1). Impacts on indirect industrial dischargers to
POTWs were also evaluated.
Ohio EPA staff determined discharge limits and monitoring requirements under the proposed
rules for each regulatory option for each facility. The participating facilities and Foster Wheeler
evaluated the impact of each regulatory option by comparing the facility’s current effluent quality
to the proposed discharge limits for each and developing strategies for each scenario in terms of
pollution prevention and/or end-of-pipe treatment. The number of dollars it would cost to comply
with the proposed rules and each of the regulatory options was then estimated and expressed in
terms of dollars spent per year for each pound of pollutant removed. Finally, the compliance cost
estimates were used to evaluate and modify the proposed rules where necessary.
With respect to the issues identified by the economic subgroup, the final proposed rule package
contains the following provisions:
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 3 April 24, 1997
1. Dissolved metals criteria are available and Ohio EPA conducts dissolved metals sampling
and develops translators for some dischargers.
2. Relief from the mercury wildlife and human health criteria is available in the form of a special
mercury variance for low-level discharges.
3. Intake credits are available until 2007, except for NCCW, which may be exempted from
receiving WQBELs in certain circumstances.
4. The risk level for carcinogens is 1 in 100,000 (10 ).
-5
5. Reasonable potential is triggered at 100% (comparing the facility’s waste water quality to the
allocation), with the comparison at 75% when most of the water body’s capacity to
assimilate wastes is allocated.
6. The current Ohio EPA WET evaluation approach is used.
A criteria issue (silver) not originally identified as a cost driver showed significant cost impacts
during the preliminary analysis and was therefore addressed in the final proposed rules.
Costs of the Proposed Rules
The impact of the final proposed rules on Ohio’s economy was estimated by extrapolating the
cost data generated for the 18 participating facilities to all other affected facilities in the state.
DRI/McGraw-Hill used the aggregated costs in their model of the Ohio economy to predict the
overall impact.
Direct Costs for Representative Plants
Tables B and C summarize the costs to the representative plants in the Lake Erie drainage basin
and the Ohio River drainage basin, respectively. Each table is further divided into industrial
dischargers and publicly owned treatment works. Capital costs noted in the tables include
expenditures for equipment, installation, engineering services, special studies, and
contingencies. Annual operation and maintenance costs consist of waste management and
disposal, utility use, chemicals used in treatment of wastes, sampling, and labor to maintain and
operate the treatment facilities. Total annualized costs are based on operations and
maintenance costs and the expected life of the capital expenditure items.
In the Lake Erie drainage basin, two industrial facilities (in the organic chemical and steel
industries) project significant treatment costs to deal with specific pollutants in their waste
streams. One industry (metal finishing) and all the POTW facilities estimate a small net cost
savings under the proposed rules. The most significant cost considerations for these facilities
are for technical studies (such as dissolved metals translators (DMTs) studies and facility
pollutant minimization plans (PMPs)). However, significant savings in effluent monitoring costs
are also projected for many sectors.
In the Ohio River basin, most of the industries and all the POTW facilities project a small net cost
savings under the proposed rules. Again, the most notable cost considerations are for technical
studies, but significant savings in effluent monitoring costs are also projected.
Extrapolation of Direct Costs for the State
The costs of the proposed rule package for each representative facility were extrapolated to the
whole population of similar facilities in Ohio based on discharge flow volume. The number of
dischargers addressed in each industry or POTW size range is summarized in Table A, which
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 4 April 24, 1997
also indicates which of the representative plants was used as the basis for the statewide
aggregation in each industry or POTW category. Where no representative facility in a category
was available, the representative facility that most closely matched the category type from the
perspective of wastewater management was substituted. The costs for each group of similar
facilities were then summed to arrive at a statewide cost estimate.
Tables D through G show the projected statewide direct costs of the proposed rule package. In
the Lake Erie basin (Table D), a net annual savings of more than $136,000 is estimated for
POTWs, while POTWs in the Ohio River basin (Table E) should collectively save more than
$294,000 each year. Small study and evaluation costs are expected, but savings in monitoring
costs result in a projected net savings to POTWs.
Total costs of about $869,000 are anticipated for industrial dischargers in the Lake Erie basin
(Table F). Most of the costs are attributable to the organic chemical industry (both directly and
as a surrogate for the rubber manufacturing facilities). Table F also shows the breakdown of
estimated costs by type: capital, material, labor, and energy. The proposed rules are not
projected to have an economic impact on any indirect industrial dischargers in the Lake Erie
basin.
The cumulative net impact of the proposed rules on industrial facilities in the Ohio River basin
(Table G) is expected to be about $12,600. Steel mills are expected to be the most impacted,
with a total cost of $174,000 projected for the 23 facilities in the basin. Most industrial sector
types in the Ohio River basin are projected to have a net cost savings under the proposed rules.
The overall direct cost of the proposed rules for the state of Ohio is projected to be $882,000 for
industries, with a net cost savings of $431,000 forecasted for POTWs.
Statewide Indirect Costs
The total benefit of an environmental program is measured not only by counting the amount of
pollution removed, but also by analyzing the impact of that program on human health, wildlife,
and the value of resources. In the same way, measuring the direct costs of compliance with
environmental regulations on industrial facilities, or the cost savings for POTWs, does not
provide a complete assessment of their impact on the economy. Indirect costs must also be
measured in terms of production, jobs and income.
Compliance costs must be either absorbed by the affected firms in the form of lower profits, or
passed on to other firms and consumers as higher prices. Lower profits affect the state
economy by reducing the incentive to invest, while higher prices shift the costs to purchasing
industries and final consumers. Ultimately, as reduced competitiveness causes layoffs, a cycle
of income and expenditure reductions spreads the impact beyond the manufacturing sector.
Two different sets of assumptions were made regarding POTW costs. In the first scenario, the
model assumes that savings for POTWs are passed along to consumers and business in the
form of lower sewer rates. These lower rates in turn would lower the relative cost of doing
business in Ohio, increasing its competitiveness. In addition, lower sewer charges for
consumers would raise their discretionary income. Ohio residents could then spend the
additional money on local goods and services, providing a boost to the domestic sectors of the
state economy. In the second scenario, it is assumed that POTW savings are not passed along
to consumers and businesses. There is therefore no reduction in the cost of doing business in
Ohio, and no increase in discretionary income for Ohio residents.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 5 April 24, 1997
DRI used the compliance cost estimates as inputs to the DRI Ohio economic model to capture
the indirect economic effects of compliance costs. Foster-Wheeler provided DRI with values for
direct compliance costs by industry and production factors: capital, materials, labor, and energy
costs. Some materials costs were negative, reflecting reduced monitoring and laboratory costs.
Costs for the two basins, Lake Erie and Ohio River, were summed together to get total state
costs.
The sectors for which direct compliance costs were estimated were: pulp and paper, power
plants, metal finishing and fabrication, steel mills, organic and inorganic chemicals, refineries,
and rubber. For all of these sectors, the increased or decreased costs were imposed on the
components of the cost equations for the sectors, in the form of indexes.
For the industry impacts, total capital, labor, energy, and material costs were calculated from real
shipments data and the four factor shares for each industry. Indexes for increased capital costs
in the first year were calculated as the total of baseline capital costs, plus increased capital
costs, divided by baseline capital costs. Similar indexes were created for labor, materials, and
energy costs for all the impacted sectors. In a number of cases, the new rules would allow lower
materials costs for certain sectors. Initial compliance cost ratios were projected over the forecast
period as a constant share index, in order to allow for production changes over time. The
assumption is that additional compliance costs are proportional to production; if a plant doubled
in size, additional compliance costs would also double.
When direct compliance costs are added to the total cost of production for a sector, and Ohio
costs rise relative to other areas, the state becomes a more expensive place to do business, and
therefore less competitive. Manufacturing production and possibly employment in targeted
sectors will fall in Ohio relative to other areas that are not affected by the increased compliance
costs.
For POTWs, the cost impact was assumed to fall on residents and businesses. It was assumed
in the first scenario that these cost decreases would be passed along as sewer rate decreases to
firms and consumers. These business and nonbusiness rate changes would make the cost of
doing business, and the cost of living in the state, lower (or higher) than otherwise, in comparison
to other states. In this way, the change in costs of POTWs would ripple through the Ohio
economy. In addition, lower rates would raise disposable income, as taxpayers would spend the
extra money from sewer rate decreases on other goods and services. In these two ways, the
direct increased costs of POTWs multiply through the economy.
Scenario 1. The total impact of Ohio rules on the state economy would be relatively small. Total
increased costs of $928,000 (excluding negative costs of miscellaneous and federal facilities)
imposed on manufacturing sectors would be offset somewhat by negative or decreased costs
imposed on POTWs of around $431,000. POTWs would pass along lower costs as lower sewer
rates. The total net additional compliance costs of $500,000 should be compared Ohio Gross
state product in 1997 forecast at $300 billion. Clearly, these compliance costs are minimal when
compared to the Ohio economy overall.
The resulting impact on production, employment, and income is likewise projected to be small. In
the years of greatest impact, 2001 to 2002, total employment would increase by 14 jobs. A slight
decline in manufacturing jobs due to increased compliance costs would be more than offset by
increases in nonmanufacturing employment in trade and services due to lower POTW costs
passed through to lower sewer charges, and correspondingly higher real discretionary income.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 6 April 24, 1997
Increased compliance costs would be concentrated in a few manufacturing sectors: chemicals,
refineries, rubber and plastics, and steel mills. Although all of them would experience declines in
output, only steel mills would see a slight employment decrease. This is due both to the
relatively large compliance cost increase in the sector, and the high sensitivity of steel production
to relative costs. Although chemicals would also experience a proportionately large compliance
cost increase, its output is less sensitive to relative cost pressures. Rubber and plastics would
initially see an output decline due to higher compliance costs. However, its output would
eventually increase, due to increased interindustry demand from other sectors, especially
electrical equipment and transportation equipment. These latter two sectors would benefit from
the lower POTW costs, which would feed through into lower rates and reduced business costs.
They would also benefit from the boost to discretionary income enjoyed by consumers due to
lower sewer charges.
In a number of sectors, increased compliance costs for capital would be offset by lower costs for
operations and maintenance. In other words, purchases of studies or capital equipment would
replace current spending for monitoring and lab testing. In several industries, the savings from
materials costs would more than offset increased capital costs; pulp and paper, fabricated metals
and metal finishing are among them. All of those industries would see increased production,
although employment impacts would be small.
Other impacts would be minimal. There would be very little change in wage rates, the
unemployment rate, the Ohio consumer price index (CPI), and population.
Scenario 2. The second scenario differs from the first in only one respect; lower POTW costs
are not assumed to be passed on in lower sewer rates to businesses and consumers. All of the
benefit is assumed to go to the sewer authority, or to the local government. Savings from lower
POTW costs are assumed to be spent on other sewer authority or government projects.
In the second scenario, the maximum employment change would be a loss of three jobs, one in
primary metals, and two in nonmanufacturing. Production declines in all affected manufacturing
sectors would be slightly greater, as there is no offset to the their increased compliance costs.
Other impacts would again be minimal, as in the first case.
Other Cost Considerations
The interactive EAG process used to develop the proposed rules has produced rules that are
both protective of the environment and cost effective to implement. Evaluating the compliance
costs of specific rule provisions, and quantifying the amount of pollutant reduction, has allowed
Ohio EPA to characterize the impact of the most probable results. This reduced the regulatory
uncertainty for both the Ohio EPA and the regulated community.
The direct compliance costs associated with all options listed in the “Approach” section of this
report were evaluated. These options identified four key implementation issues that could have
led to very significant compliance costs with little demonstrated reduction on pollutant loadings.
Of the four issues, two account for the majority of the added costs: mercury requirements and
intake credit phase out and the implication relative to non-contact cooling water streams. Two
others are significant but less important: limits based on total recoverable metals criteria (as
opposed to dissolved) and ambient water quality criteria for silver. The cost and technical factors
associated with these four alternative regulatory options are reviewed briefly following the
1 ppt =1 nanogram per liter (ng/l)
2
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 7 April 24, 1997
discussion of the possible economic impact the four options would have had if they had been
included in the proposed rules.
An estimate of the statewide direct compliance costs associated with this collection of issues is
contrasted in Table H with the cost of the proposed rules. The proposed rules will result in
considerable “savings” for Ohio dischargers as compared with the four alternative regulatory
options: about $50 million per year (cumulative) for industry in each basin, approximately $12
million per year for POTWs in the Ohio River basin, and over $1.2 billion per year for POTWs in
the Lake Erie basin.
The impact of the four alternative regulatory options on the Ohio economy was also analyzed
using the DRI model. In this case, compliance costs for manufacturing industries were much
higher. In addition, POTW costs were very significantly positive, due to the need for much more
expensive water treatments. Whereas the rule case increased total costs by $500,000, the
alternative regulatory options scenario would increase costs by $1.3 billion: $79 million on
manufacturing firms, and $1.2 billion on POTWs. In this case, real output would decrease in all
impact sectors, and also all other manufacturing sectors except nonelectrical machinery. A
maximum total employment decline of 47,000 jobs (-0.8%) would be reached in 2001.
Manufacturing jobs would fall by 13,000 (-1.21%), and nonmanufacturing jobs would fall by
34,000 (-0.74%). The largest percentage employment declines would be suffered by the rubber
and plastic industry (-1.14%), and metal fabrication and finishing (-2.24%). Total state and local
government taxes would increase by $1.3 billion, or 3.7%, to pay for the increased POTW costs.
Total personal income would fall by 0.8%, and real discretionary income would fall by 1.2%.
Mercury Requirements
The water quality criteria for the protection of wildlife associated with the GLI results in permit
limits for mercury in the range of 14 parts per trillion (ppt) to 1.3 ppt, depending on the
2
applicability and nature of a mixing zone in the receiving water body. These concentrations are
lower than the current Ohio EPA Method Detection Level (MDL) of 200 ppt and the Ohio EPA
Practical Quantification Limit (PQL) of 1000 ppt. Consequently, there is a great deal of
uncertainty regarding the actual level of mercury in Ohio water bodies and waste water
discharges. Many dischargers who currently monitor for mercury obtain results showing "non-
detect" at the MDL or PQL associated with their respective analytical methods. Newer "clean"
analytical sampling and analytical methods currently under development and testing by the U.S.
EPA are promising a lower MDL of approximately 0.2 ppt. Available data analyzed using these
new techniques shows that water bodies and waste water discharges generally exceed 1.3 ppt.
At the present time, however, it is not generally practical to measure and determine if a
discharger's effluent is or is not in compliance with permit limits in the range of 14 to 1.3 ppt.
Similarly, the amount of reduction in loading necessary to achieve compliance with a mercury
limit at these very low levels cannot be precisely specified due to these current analytical
limitations. Reducing the concentration of mercury in an effluent stream from the current MDL of
200 ppt to an allowable limit of 1.3 ppt would require a 99.35% reduction in loading. If actual
mercury concentrations were much less than the current "non-detect" levels, proportionately
lower percentage reductions would be needed for compliance. The necessary percentage
reduction in mercury loading is important to determining how the reductions could possibly be
achieved if effluent treatment is required.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 8 April 24, 1997
Different water treatment technologies can provide different characteristic reductions in mercury
levels because of the chemical or physical processes on which they are based. The level of
reduction possible also depends on the initial mercury concentration in the influent stream to be
treated. For influent concentrations up to 100,000 ppt, four primary treatment processes are
typically effective in reducing mercury levels: biologically activated sludge, chemical precipitation,
ion exchange, and reverse osmosis. The systems are estimated to have annualized costs for
typical industrial or POTW flows on the order of $10 to $100 million per pound of mercury
removed. Details on the cost and effectiveness of each process are included in the attachment
to this report.
Intake Credits and Non-contact Cooling Water
The more stringent ambient water quality standards associated with the GLI are, for some
pollutants, very near or lower than current background levels of these same constituents in
Ohio’s waters. This situation creates uncertainty with industrial dischargers regarding the
possible need to treat water drawn into a facility from a water body whose background quality
does not currently comply with the new ambient water quality standards when that water is used
in a manner that would not change its chemical characteristics prior to discharge. The
implications of this uncertainty is further magnified by the phasing out of intake credits by 2007 in
the GLI. Under the GLI, other mechanisms for addressing the situations currently associated
with the issue of intake credits are likely to be implemented by the phase out date (e.g., total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs)).
One type of discharge stream most significantly affected by this situation is non-contact cooling
water (NCCW). NCCW streams associated with Ohio dischargers range in flows from 0.01 to
over 1000 MGD. Large NCCW streams are generally associated with power plants and steel
mills, but other industries also can have smaller NCCW streams and outfalls. A requirement to
treat a sizable NCCW stream to remove a small amount of a pollutant that was present in the
intake flow and was not added by the facility would result in very significant costs to those
facilities with typically little reduced pollutant loading benefit, especially for those with one or
more large NCCW streams.
Current federal and Ohio regulations do not contain provisions to grant intake credits for water
quality-based limits. However, current Ohio EPA policy allows for consideration of background
water quality in the development of wasteload allocations and permit limits when background
concentrations exceed ambient water quality criteria. Typically, Ohio EPA would require
sufficient sampling and a demonstration of “no net addition” of the pollutant whose concentration
is exceeded in the intake water body.
Under the proposed rules, intake credits will be available statewide until 2007, as specified in the
GLI. However, provisions are contained in the proposed rule which would allow for NCCW
streams to be exempt from receiving WQBELs under certain prescribed circumstances that
demonstrate the “no net addition” situation.
Dissolved Metals
Expressing water quality criteria for metals as the dissolved form has been recommended by
U.S. EPA since 1993. Using the dissolved portion is perceived by the regulated community as a
benefit because higher WQBELs may result, but the environmental community is concerned
about accumulation of metals in aquatic organisms and a buildup of metals in sediments.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 9 April 24, 1997
Effectively using the dissolved criteria to generate permit limits for point sources requires that the
relationship between the total recoverable and dissolved components (known as a translator) be
defined in the waterbody receiving the wastewater discharge. A translator is affected by many
waterbody characteristics including flow, solids concentration, conductivity, and pH. Thus, to
apply dissolved criteria while protecting Ohio waterbodies requires that substantial regional and
location-specific data be collected in Ohio to define the translator relationship.
Ohio EPA has devised a strategy to make dissolved criteria available for use in Ohio while
providing safeguards for waterbodies:
1. Ohio EPA will move forward with a sampling plan to determine translators for specific water
bodies and make translators available to a large number of dischargers. Although not every
discharge can be included, the Agency will examine the dischargers most affected by the
proposed rules and focus its translator development on those dischargers.
2. Ohio EPA will grant dischargers who cannot comply with lower total metals permit limits a
compliance schedule. The schedule would allow time for translator studies to be performed
that may justify higher limits based on dissolved metals criteria.
3. Ohio EPA will allow dischargers who can comply with lower total metals permit limits up to
two years to conduct translator studies to justify limits up to their current permit loading level
without the revised limits being disallowed for antibacksliding or antidegradation reasons.
This is a transitional accommodation that will expire in five years.
4. Ohio EPA will use the existing biological criteria in the water quality standards rules (OAC
3745-1) to ensure that designated uses are protected.
Silver Criteria
Silver was evaluated in the direct cost impact study using permit limits based on draft U.S. EPA
aquatic life water quality criteria published in the Federal Register for comment on May 14, 1990
(55 FR 1986). Those criteria were never finalized. On J une 30, 1992 Tudor Davies, Director of
the U.S. EPA Office of Science and Technology, indicated in a letter to U.S. EPA Regional Water
Management Division Directors that, based on public comment, U.S. EPA has decided to do
additional research on silver before finalizing the criteria.
The draft silver criteria were used in the direct cost impact study because those criteria represent
a worst case scenario and criteria calculated using the GLI aquatic life methodology would likely
result in criteria no more stringent than those draft criteria. The use of those criteria resulted in
high projected wastewater treatment costs for two POTWs (Lorain and Lima) and one industry
(USS/Kobe) in the Lake Erie basin and one POTW (Springfield) and one industry (Navistar) in the
Ohio River basin.
Ohio EPA had not intended to propose numeric silver criteria in rule. Rather, the narrative
methodologies in the proposed rule would be used to calculate criteria or Tier II values for silver
when needed. Based on the results of the direct cost impact study, Ohio EPA is now proposing
to retain its current silver criteria in rule until information becomes available to calculate alternate
criteria. By retaining the current silver criteria, treatment costs for silver are not significantly
increased under the proposed rules.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 10 April 24, 1997
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Pulp and paper mills LEB: 1 (1) Mead Paper, discharging to Paint Creek
typically 'A' in Ohio permit number ORB: 11 (10) near Chillicothe in the Scioto River basin
Pulp and paper mills manufacture pulp, which
is derived from wood fibers. The pulp is then
converted into products such as paper,
cardboard, and boxes.
(ORB)
Power plants LEB: 7 (6) Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI) -
typically 'B' in Ohio permit number ORB: 18 (14) Eastlake Facility, discharging to Lake Erie
Power plants provide the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of electricity to
the general public; may also provide
distribution of natural gas as an energy source.
east of Cleveland (LEB)
AEP/Buckeye Power Cardinal Operating
Plant, discharging to the Ohio River and a
small tributary south of Steubenville
(ORB)
Metal finishing LEB: 7 (7) Argo-Tech, discharging to Lake Erie east
typically 'C' in Ohio permit number ORB: 19 (15) of Cleveland (LEB)
Metal finishers may produce or purchase raw
metal products, which are then colored,
electroplated, coated, or treated in some way
to create a final product which can be
distributed to the consumer.
Navistar, discharging to an unnamed
tributary of Moore Run, which flows into
the Mad River north of Springfield, in the
Great Miami River basin (ORB)
Steel mills LEB: 2 (2) USS/Kobe, discharging to the Black River
typically 'D' in Ohio permit number ORB: 28 (24) north of Elyria (LEB)
Steel mills convert raw material/ore into usable
steel. The steel is formed into basic shapes
such as plates, strips, rods, or sheets.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel - South Plant,
discharging to the Ohio River south of
Steubenville (ORB)
Inorganic chemical plant LEB: 8 (7) Dischargers in this category often receive
typically 'E' in Ohio permit number ORB: 4 (2) water-quality based effluent limits
Inorganic chemical plants produce basic
compounds or use chemical processes in their
operations. Chemicals produced include
synthetic fibers, pigments, drugs, paints, and
fertilizers. Inorganic chemicals used in daily
operations may be salts, acids, or alkalies
(bases).
(WQBELs) and will be affected by this
rulemaking. However, dischargers in the
category are quite varied, and no facility
would be representative of the others.
Given the scope of the economic study,
no facility in this category was included.
The category “metal fabrication” should
most closely approximate costs for this
category.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 11 April 24, 1997
Organic chemical plant LEB: 4 (3) Arcadian (BP Chemicals), discharging to
typically 'F' in Ohio permit number ORB: 14 (12) the Ottawa River near Lima, in the
Organic chemical plants primarily manufacture
organic chemicals. One such group might be
solvents like ether, acetone, and ethyl alcohol.
Other compounds could be plastics, perfumes,
flavorings, and organic acids.
Maumee River basin (LEB)
Shell Chemical, discharging to the Ohio
River downstream of Marietta (ORB)
Refinery/oil producer LEB: 3 (3) BP Oil Company, discharging to Maumee
typically 'G' in Ohio permit number ORB: 1 (1) Bay in Lake Erie near Toledo (LEB)
Refineries obtain raw petroleum (crude oil) and
convert them into useful and usable products.
Depending on the amount of refining,
numerous products can be made. Such
products are gasoline, kerosene, oils, greases,
asphalt, and countless others.
Food processor - Dischargers in this category typically
typically 'H' in Ohio permit number receive limits for oxygen-demanding
The food processing industry is primarily
concerned with the manufacturing or
processing of foods and beverages for human
consumption. Other related areas may include
preparing feed for animals and the production
of manufactured ice.
parameters, which are not proposed to
change from current practice in this
rulemaking.
Stormwater - Most dischargers in this category do not
typically 'I' in Ohio permit number receive WQBELs; this rule package
Facilities that deal with stormwater collect
and/or reroute excessive water that is
produced when a storm event occurs.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Sand and gravel producer - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'J ' in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
These facilities are where the mining of sand
and gravel takes place. At the pit, the sand
and gravel is dredged, screened, and washed.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 12 April 24, 1997
Tannery/rendering plant - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'K' in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
These plants obtain nonedible portions of
slaughtered livestock and create useful
products such as leather, fish and animal meal,
fish oil, and greases.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Coal washer - Dischargers in this category do not
typically 'L' in Ohio permit number typically receive WQBELs; this rule
Coal washers are usually on-site at a strip
mine. Coal cleaning involves refining the coal
and reducing impurities in the rock so that it
may be more energy efficient when burned.
package should have de minimus effects.
No representative of this category is
necessary.
Industrial sewage - Most dischargers in this category do not
typically 'M' in Ohio permit number receive WQBELs; this rule package
Industrial sewage is the domestic wastewater
produced by industrial facilities. These
facilities may or may not have on-site treatment
processes prior to disposal.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Miscellaneous LEB: 2 (0) Most of the facilities in this category were
typically 'N' in Ohio permit number ORB: 4 (3) reassigned to categories that reflected
This category includes non-contact cooling
water, storm water, boiler blowdown,
petroleum bulk storage terminals, ground
water remediation and landfill storm water
runoff.
their process waste. Those that remain
are involved in the manufacture of glass
products. The category “metal
fabrication” would most closely
approximate the costs associated with the
rulemaking for these facilities.
Federal facilities LEB: 1 (1) Dischargers in this category usually
typically 'O' in Ohio permit number ORB: 4 (3) receive WQBELs and will be affected by
Federal facilities include government owned
and operated businesses. In Ohio, federal
facilities include laboratories, research centers,
and weapons manufacturing facilities.
this rulemaking. Given the scope of the
economic study, no facility in this
category was included. The costs
associated with the category “metal
finishing” should be used to approximate
costs for this category.
Acid mine drainage - Most dischargers in this category do not
typically 'P' in Ohio permit number receive WQBELs; this rule package
Acid mine drainage is typically derived from
strip mining of coal. Runoff from strip mines
produces highly acidic water when reacted
with minerals found with the coal.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 13 April 24, 1997
Plastic fabrication LEB: 0 (0) Most dischargers in this category do not
typically 'Q' in Ohio permit number ORB: 3 (2) receive WQBELs; this rule package
Plastic fabricators manufacture numerous
plastic products, ranging from films and plastic
sheets to lamination, bottles, hoses, and
bubble formed packaging.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Rubber fabrication LEB: 6 (2) These dischargers sometimes receive
typically 'R' in Ohio permit number ORB: 8 (2) WQBELs and could be affected by this
Rubber fabricators produce many rubber
products, such as tires, inner tubes, garden
hoses, belts, and footwear (soles).
rulemaking. Dischargers in the category
are quite varied, and one facility would
not be representative of the others.
Given the scope of the economic study,
no facility in this category was included.
Depending on the facility, the costs
associated with the categories “metal
fabrication”, “organic chemical plant”, or
“plastic fabrication” should be used to
approximate costs for this category.
Metal fabrication LEB: 3 (3) Burnham Boiler Company, discharging to
typically 'S' in Ohio permit number ORB: 12 (8) the Licking River near Zanesville (ORB)
Metal fabricators shape and create specific
metal products, which may or may not be
derived from iron. Fabricated products include
metal cans, hand tools, cutlery, hardware,
screws, bolts, and washers.
Railroad facilities - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'T' in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
Railroads generally provide long distance
transportation of goods and/or passengers. A
complete railroad system includes terminals,
switch yards, and the line on which the railway
operates.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
No treatment - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'U' in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 14 April 24, 1997
Drinking water purification plants - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'V' through ‘Z’ in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Public WWTP, greater than 50 MGD LEB: 5 (4) Dischargers in this category receive
typically 'F' or 'M' in Ohio permit number ORB: 4 (4) WQBELs and will be affected by this
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
rulemaking. Given the scope of the
economic study, no facility in this
category was included. The costs
associated with the category “Public
WWTP, 10 to 50 MGD” should be used
to approximate costs for this category.
Public WWTP, 10 to 50 MGD LEB: 13 (13) Lima WWTP, discharging to the Ottawa
typically 'E' or 'L' in Ohio permit number ORB: 15 (15) River (LEB)
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
Lorain East WWTP, discharging to Lake
Erie (LEB)
Springfield WWTP, discharging to the
Mad River (ORB)
Public WWTP, 1 to 10 MGD LEB: 58 (55) Allen Co. Shawnee #2 WWTP,
typically 'D' or 'K' in Ohio permit number ORB: 114 (106) discharging to the Ottawa River near
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
Lima (LEB)
Bucyrus WWTP, discharging to the
Sandusky River (LEB)
Galion WWTP, discharging to the
Olentangy River (ORB)
Gallipolis WWTP, discharging to the Ohio
River (ORB)
Public WWTP, 0.5 to 1 MGD LEB: 20 (14) Dischargers in this category typically
typically 'C' or 'J ' in Ohio permit number ORB: 63 (44) receive limits only for oxygen-demanding
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
parameters, which are not proposed to
change from current practice in this
rulemaking. A few (
category have WQBELs because they
have indirect dischargers and an
approved pretreatment program.
Table A. Number of Ohio Facilities with Wastewater Permits Containing Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (6 pages)
Facility Type
No. of Facilities
(No. of WLAs)
A
Representative Facility
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 15 April 24, 1997
Public WWTP, 0.1 to 0.5 MGD LEB: 78 (23) Dischargers in this category typically
typically 'B' or 'H' in Ohio permit number ORB: 166 (86) receive limits only for oxygen-demanding
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
parameters, which are not proposed to
change from current practice in this
rulemaking.
Public WWTP, less than 0.1 MGD LEB: 137 (13) Dischargers in this category typically
typically 'A' or 'G' in Ohio permit number ORB: 182 (27) receive limits only for oxygen-demanding
These facilities are designed to accept and
treat sewage from households and/or
businesses.
parameters, which are not proposed to
change from current practice in this
rulemaking.
Other public - Dischargers in this category typically do
typically 'N' through 'Z' in Ohio permit number not receive WQBELs; this rule package
Represents mostly Federal and state facilities,
regional authorities, PUCO facilities,
subdivisions and apartment complexes, semi-
public facilities, schools and hospitals, mobile
home parks, and miscellaneous.
should have de minimus effects. No
representative of this category is
necessary.
Indicates the approximate number of facilities in category with an active process discharge in the Lake
A
Erie drainage basin (LEB) or the Ohio River drainage basin (ORB). Facilities with a permit number
designation that did not truly indicate existing plant processes were included in the proper facility type.
Number of WLAs indicates approximate number of these facilities for which a wasteload allocation
(resulting in water quality-based permit limits) has been conducted.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 16 April 24, 1997
Figure 1. Representative Facilities
Lake Erie Drainage Basin Ohio River Drainage Basin
Facility Category Facility Category
Arcadian Ohio, L.P. Organic chemical Mead Paper Pulp & paper
CEI, Eastlake Plant Power AEP, Cardinal Plant Power
Argo-Tech Metal finishing Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Steel
USS /Kobe Steel Steel Navistar International Metal finishing
BP Oil, Toledo Oil refining Burnham Boiler Metal fabrication
Lima WWTP Large POTWs Shell Chemical Organic chemical
Lorain WWTP Large POTWs Springfield WWTP Large POTWs
Allen Co. Shawnee #2 WWTP Small POTWs Galion WWTP Small POTWs
Bucyrus WWTP Small POTWs Gallipolis WWTP Small POTWs
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 17 April 24, 1997
Table B. Summary of Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Representative Facilities in the
Lake Erie Drainage Basin
Facility Constructed Annualized Cost Drivers
Facility Total Annual
Type O&M Cost
Total Total
Capital Cost Cost
($) ($/Year) ($/Year)
INDUSTRIAL DIRECTS
BP Chemical - Organic $3,374,250 $286,331 $511,281 Cn (Free), DMT Study,
Arcadian Chemicals PMP, Net reduced
monitoring
CEI - Eastlake Power Plant $5,000 $384 $717 DMT Study, Net
increased monitoring
BP Oil, Toledo Refinery / Oil $10,000 $7,398 $8,065 DMT Study, PMP, Net
Refinery Producer increased monitoring
Argo - Tech Metal $5,000 ($5,304) ($4,971) DMT Study, Net reduced
Finishing monitoring
USS / Kobe Steel Mill $251,000 $30,700 $47,433 Se, DMT Study, PMP,
Net increased
monitoring
POTWs
Lima WWTP
Direct POTW $10,000 ($6,140) ($5,473) DMT Study, PMP, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
Lorain WWTP
Direct POTW $10,000 ($10,442) ($9,775) DMT Study, PMP, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
Allen Co. Shawnee
#2 WWTP
Direct POTW $0 ($234) ($234) Net reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
Bucyrus WWTP
Direct POTW $10,000 $(728) ($61) DMT Study, PMP, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 18 April 24, 1997
Table C. Summary of Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Representative Facilities in the
Ohio River Drainage Basin
Facility Constructed Annualized Cost Drivers
Facility Total Annual
Type O&M Cost
Total Total
Capital Cost Cost
($) ($/Year) ($/Year)
INDUSTRIAL DIRECTS
Mead Paper Pulp and Paper $5,000 ($1,580) ($1,247) DMT Study, Net
reduced monitoring
AEP-Cardinal Power Plant $5,000 ($2,392) ($2,059) DMT Study, Net
reduced monitoring
Wheeling-Pitt Steel Mill $10,000 $6,924 $7,591 DMT Study,
Steel (South) Background Study, Net
increased monitoring
Navistar Metal Finishing $5,000 ($4,784) ($4,451) DMT Study, Net
International reduced monitoring
Burnham Boiler Inorganic $0 ($5,604) ($5,604) Net reduced monitoring
Chemicals
Shell Chemical Organic $0 $2,448 $2,448 Net increased
Chemicals monitoring
POTWs
Springfield
WWTP
Direct POTW $5,000 ($1,510) ($1,177) DMT Study, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
Galion WWTP
Direct POTW $5,000 ($4,428) ($4,095) DMT Study, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
Gallipolis WWTP
Direct POTW $5,000 ($1,176) ($834) DMT Study, Net
reduced monitoring
Indirects None Affected $0 $0 $0 None
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 19 April 24, 1997
Table D. Aggregated Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Lake Erie Basin POTW Facilities
Sector Facility Annualized
WLA Total
Type Cost
Capital Material Labor Energy
Cost Cost Cost Cost
(#) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year)
POTWs Direct (4) ($30,497) $2,667 ($33,164) $0 $0
>50 MGD
POTWs Direct (13) ($96,965) $8,667 ($105,632) $0 $0
10 to 50 MGD
POTWs Direct (60) ($8,860) $20,000 ($28,860) $0 $0
1 to 10 MGD
TOTALS ($136,323) 77 Facilities $31,333 ($167,656) $0 $0
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Table E. Aggregated Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Ohio River Basin POTW Facilities
Sector Facility Annualized
WLA Total
Type Cost
Capital Material Labor Energy
Cost Cost Cost Cost
(#) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year)
POTWs Direct (4) ($4,707) $1,333 ($6,040) $0 $0
>50 MGD
POTWs Direct (15) ($17,560) $5,000 ($22,650) $0 $0
10 to 50 MGD
POTWs Direct (107) ($272,277) $35,667 ($307,944) $0 $0
1 to 10 MGD
TOTALS ($294,634) 126 $42,000 ($336,634) $0 $0
Facilities
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 20 April 24, 1997
Table F. Aggregated Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Lake Erie Basin Industrial Facilities
Sector Facility Annualized
WLA Total
Type Cost
Capital Material Labor Energy
Cost Cost Cost Cost
(#) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year)
Pulp and Paper Direct (1) ($1,247) $333 ($1,580) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power Plants Direct (6) $4,304 $2,000 $2,304 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Metal Finishing Direct (7) ($34,795) $2,333 ($37,128) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Steel Mills Direct (2) $59,667 $19,267 $25,400 $11,000 $4,000
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Inorganic Direct (7) ($16,812) $0 ($16,812) $0 $0
Chemical Plants
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Organic Chemical Direct (3) $792,913 $349,166 $129,497 $235,687 $78,562
Plants
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Refinery / Oil Direct (3) $24,194 $2,000 $22,194 $0 $0
Producer
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Direct (2) ($11,208) $0 ($11,208) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal Facilities Direct (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rubber Direct (2) $57,903 $25,874 $8,743 $17,465 $5,822
Fabrication
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Metal Fabrication Direct (1) ($5,604) $0 ($5,604) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hospitals Direct (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Photographic Direct (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTALS $869,315 $400,973 $115,806 $264,152 $88,384 34 Facilities
(34 Direct,
0 Indirect)
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 21 April 24, 1997
Table G. Aggregated Projected Costs of Proposed Rules for Ohio River Basin Industrial
Facilities
Sector Facility Annualized
WLA Total
Type Cost
Capital Material Labor Energy
Cost Cost Cost Cost
(#) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year) ($/Year)
Pulp and Paper Direct (10) ($12,467) $3333 ($15,800) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Power Plants Direct (14) $28,821 $4,667 $33,488 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Metal Finishing Direct (15) ($66,760) $5,000 ($71,760) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Steel Mills Direct (23) $174,585 $15,333 $159,252 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Inorganic Direct (3) ($22,416) $0 ($22,416) $0 $0
Chemical Plants
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Organic Chemical Direct (12) $29,376 $0 $29,376 $0 $0
Plants
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Refinery / Oil Direct (1) $8,065 $667 $7,398 $0 $0
Producer
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Miscellaneous Direct (3) ($16,812) $0 ($16,812) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Federal Facilities Direct (4) ($17,803) $1,333 ($19,136) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rubber Direct (2) $4,896 $0 $4,896 $0 $0
Fabrication
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Metal Fabrication Direct (7) ($39,228) $0 ($39,228) $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Hospitals Direct (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Photographic Direct (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Facilities
Indirect (0) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTALS $12,615 $30,333 ($17,718) $0 $0 94 Facilities
(94 Direct,
0 Indirect)
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 22 April 24, 1997
Table H. Evolution of the Draft Rules and Associated Projected Total Annualized Costs,
(Relative to Current Ohio Rules and Procedures)
Proposed Rules
Alternative
Regulatory Options
Lake Erie Basin
Industrial Facilities
$869,000 / Year $46,500,000 / Year
5 Sectors Increase Cost 11 Sectors Increase Cost
5 Sectors Save 1 Sector Saves
3 Sectors No Change 1 Sector No Change
POTWs
($136,000 / Year) $1,210,000,000 / Year
All 3 Flow Size Categories Save All 3 Flow Size Categories Increase Cost
Ohio River Basin
Industrial Facilities
$12,600 / Year $49,500,000 / Year
4 Sectors Increase Cost
7 Sectors Save
2 Sectors No Change
12 Sectors Increase Cost
1 Sectors Saves
POTWs
($295,000 / Year) $11,900,000 / Year
All 3 Flow Size Categories Save
1 Flow Size Category Increases Cost
2 Flow Size Categories Save
(net savings/negative costs relative to current circumstances shown in parenthesis)
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 23 April 24, 1997
Attachment: Mercury Treatment Strategies
Different water treatment technologies can provide different characteristic reductions in mercury
levels because of the chemical or physical processes on which they are based. The level of
reduction possible also depends on the initial mercury concentration in the influent stream to be
treated. For influent concentrations up to 100,000 ppt, four primary treatment processes are
typically effective in reducing mercury levels. The first two processes are removal by biologically
activated sludge or by chemical precipitation. Both of these processes have been applied in
various POTW and industrial water treatment contexts. Chemical precipitation followed by
filtration can at times produce an effluent mercury concentration in the range of 100 to 1000 ppt,
while achieving loading reductions on the order of 40% to 85%. Similarly, activated sludge
processes can at times produce an effluent mercury concentration in the range of 10 to 50 ppt,
while achieving loading reductions up to approximately 85%. Both of these proven approaches
would not be effective in achieving effluent levels below 1.3 ppt or loading reductions well over
99%. The performance of both of these processes is affected by the form of mercury present in
the water stream, as well as the chemical characteristics of the other co-contaminants in the
stream to be treated.
The other two candidate treatment processes for mercury are ion exchange (IX), which
chemically captures the mercury in the water on the surface of a specially engineered resin as
the water flows across it, and reverse osmosis (RO), where the mercury is concentrated in a
waste stream using pressure and concentration gradients and a system of permeable
membranes. Both of these technologies have been used to "polish" or produce very high quality
water in certain commercial and industrial applications.
IX is reported to achieve loading reductions greater than 85%, however, the previously described
limitation on the ability to measure very low concentrations in the effluent stream creates a great
deal of uncertainty regarding the limiting performance of this technology. Commercially available
IX systems can be effective in reducing mercury concentrations down to about 1000 ppt with a
performance guarantee from the vendor. These systems are proven and practical (due to the
importance of direct contact of the water with the resin for a minimum required residence time)
only for system flow rates up to about 5 to 50 gallons/minute (or 0.015 million gallons/day
(MGD)), which is at the low end of the range of discharge flow rates associated with Ohio's
dischargers (which is 0.01 to 50+MGD). IX systems must typically be preceded in an overall
treatment system by a more cost-effective "pre-treatment" process which reduces the majority of
the contaminant mass in the stream (mercury and other co-contaminants such as organic
compounds and total suspended solids) since these materials would quickly saturate or clog the
IX resins and make the "polishing" operation extremely expensive and unreliable. The used up or
spent resins containing the removed mercury represent a hazardous waste stream which must
also be managed and disposed. Some resins can be "regenerated" or cleaned, however this
process generally transfers the removed mercury into a concentrated acid or caustic solution that
also requires handling and disposal as a hazardous waste. Currently, IX as a commercially
available treatment option for mercury is practically and economically limited to very low flow
rates (as compared to typical industrial or POTW effluent flow rates). The ability of IX systems to
achieve effluent concentrations on the order of 1.3 ppt has not been demonstrated and vendors
will not currently guarantee removal to levels this low. Various forms of "coated solids" also are
under development as an alternative to resins. The removal performance of these materials is
currently comparable to resins.
Cost Impacts of Proposed Water Rules 24 April 24, 1997
RO, the final candidate process, uses an extensive series of membrane-containing pressurized
chambers to separate a slightly contaminated influent stream into a treated effluent stream of
very high quality (i.e., low mercury concentration) and a second highly contaminated effluent
stream of relatively lower volume or flow rate. This process is very dependent on system
pressures and flow patterns and, consequently, generally involves rather large, equipment-
intensive systems. RO systems can accommodate a wide range of flow rates, from very small to
very large scale systems. RO treatment systems also must be preceded by a more economical
pre-treatment operation to enable the reverse osmosis units to perform more economically and
reliably. The dirty contaminant collection stream produced by RO can amount to approximately
5% to 20% of the flow rate of the original influent stream to be treated, depending on the system.
As such, this by-product stream creates its own water management and discharge/disposal
concerns. The capital costs for larger RO systems for mercury removal of the scale needed to
address typical industrial or POTW discharge flows are estimated to range from $2 to $5 per
gallon/day of treated flow (including the required pretreatment system). These systems are
estimated to have annualized costs for typical industrial or POTW flows on the order of $10 to
$100 million per pound of mercury removed. The ability of RO systems to achieve effluent
concentrations on the order of 1.3 ppt also has not been demonstrated and vendors will not
currently guarantee removal to levels this low.
BATTELLE
PROPRIETARY, PRIVILEGED, AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TO BE USED ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES

Draft Report


Mercury Reduction and Treatment Cost
Update to Meet Great Lakes Water
Quality Standards for Wildlife

by

Amy Thomas
Joseph Simkins
Maureen Wooton
Natasha Sadoff
Amy Leibrand

Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201

for

David Pfeifer, EPA Technical Leader
Frank Anscombe, Acting EPA Work Assignment
Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5

Contract No. EP-W-09-024
April 10, 2012


April 10, 2012 Draft i DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Battelle for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). Information contained in this report does not necessarily reflect the views of the
USEPA. The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Neither Battelle, USEPA, nor any person(s) acting on
their behalf: 1) makes any warranty, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy,
efficacy, or applicability of the contents herein; or 2) assumes any liability that is incurred from
the use or reliance upon any information, guidance, suggestions, conclusions, or opinions
contained in this work.

April 10, 2012 Draft ii DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Table of Contents

Page
DISCLAIMER ............................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... iv
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Approach ........................................................................................................................ 1
2.1. Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 1
2.2. Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 2
2.3. Cost Analyses ............................................................................................................ 2
3.0 Cost-Effectiveness of Mercury Reduction and Treatment Technologies ............................. 4
3.1 Mercury Treatment Technologies ............................................................................... 5
Adsorption .................................................................................................................. 5
Adsorption Costs ..................................................................................................... 6
Bioremediation ........................................................................................................... 9
Bioremediation Costs .............................................................................................10
Chemical Processes .................................................................................................11
Chemical Treatment Costs .....................................................................................12
Filtration ....................................................................................................................13
Filtration Costs .......................................................................................................15
Ion Exchange ............................................................................................................18
Ion Exchange Costs ...............................................................................................19
3.2 Pollutant Minimization Programs ...............................................................................19
PMP Costs ................................................................................................................20
4.0 Findings ............................................................................................................................22
5.0 References ........................................................................................................................26
Appendix A. Resources and Keywords Used in Literature Search ......................................... A-1
Screening Criteria for Literature Search Results .............................................................. A-2
Overview of Literature Search Results ............................................................................. A-3
Appendix B. Interview Questions Used in Data Collection ...................................................... B-1
Appendix C. Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for 0-20 MGD Facility Flow Sizes ................ C-1

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Effectiveness, current operational scale, and primary form(s) of mercury
removed by mercury technologies for wastewater ................................................. iv
Table 1. Major Classes and Types of Mercury Treatment Technologies .............................. 4
Table 2. Capital and annual operations and maintenance costs for chemical
treatment systems in 2011 dollars .........................................................................13
Table 3. Range of reported PMP costs for large-scope and small-scope PMPs .................22
Table 4. Mean yearly cost per gallon of wastewater treated by adsorption and filtration
systems over a 20-year lifetime, across all facility flow sizes (0 to 80 MGD) .........26
Table of Contents (Continued)
April 10, 2012 Draft iii DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Table A1. Resources Included in the Literature Search ...................................................... A-1
Table A2. Keywords Used in Literature Search ................................................................... A-2
Table A3. Overview of Literature Search Results ................................................................ A-3

List of Figures

Figure ES-1. Comparison of estimated annual capital and O&M costs for filtration and
adsorption systems annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size ....................... vii
Figure 1. Estimated average capital costs of adsorption systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD) .................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Annual O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation .................................................. 8
Figure 3. Estimated total annual capital and O&M costs for adsorption systems
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size ....................................................... 9
Figure 4. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD) ...................................................................................16
Figure 5. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation .................................................17
Figure 6. Estimated total annual capital and O&M costs for filtration systems
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size ......................................................17
Figure 7. Examples of PMP initiatives and associated costs (Source: AMSA 2002) .... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 8. Comparisonof estimated capital costs for filtration and adsorption systems
in millions of dollars, by facility flow size ..............................................................25
Figure 9. Comparison of estimated annual O&M costs for filtration and adsorption
systems in millions of dollars, by facility flow size ................................................25
Figure C-1. Estimated average capital costs of adsorption systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD) ................................................................................. C-1
Figure C-2. Annual O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation ............................................... C-2
Figure C-3. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD) ................................................................................. C-2
Figure C-4. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation ............................................... C-3





April 10, 2012 Draft iv DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Great Lakes Initiative mercury water quality standard to protect wildlife is 1.3 nanograms
per liter (ng/L) or parts per trillion (ppt) (USEPA 1995). The 1997 Ohio EPA study, Assessing
the Economic Impacts of the Proposed Ohio EPA Water Rules on the Ohio Economy (Ohio
EPA 1997), has been used in Ohio and other Great Lakes states as the basis to support variances
from meeting this mercury standard. At the time of the 1997 Ohio EPA report, a limited number
of mercury treatment technologies were available, and their ability to achieve effluent mercury
levels on the order of 1.3 ppt could not be demonstrated. Since 1997, technological advances
have been made in the treatment of mercury in wastewater (Purdue 2010; Argonne 2011). This
report seeks to update the 1997 Ohio EPA study with current information on the cost-
effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies to meet the Great Lakes effluent limit of 1.3 ppt.
The objective of this investigation is to evaluate current mercury treatment technologies to
determine the level of removal that is currently achievable and affordable for removing mercury
from wastewater.
Five major classes of wastewater treatment technologies were assessed: adsorption,
bioremediation, chemical, filtration, and ion exchange. Pollutant minimization programs (PMPs)
were also evaluated as an alternate approach to treatment technologies for reducing mercury in
wastewater streams. Four approaches were found to achieve the Great Lakes Initiative mercury
water quality standard of 1.3 ppt: PMPs, filtration, adsorption, and chemical processes
(primarily precipitation/co-precipitation).
These approaches are not effective in all wastewater streams. The effectiveness of mercury
treatment technologies in reducing effluent mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt depends on
influent concentrations of mercury, the fraction of dissolved mercury, and other characteristics of
the wastewater stream. In addition, not all technologies have been demonstrated to achieve the
1.3 ppt standard in full-scale operation. Table ES-1 summarizes the effectiveness of mercury
removal processes (ability to achieve 1.3 ppt), their removal efficiencies, current operational
scale, and the primary form(s) of mercury removed. Influent mercury concentrations required
for a technology to achieve 1.3 ppt vary by product but are generally less than 20 ppt.
Table ES-1. Effectiveness, current operational scale, and primary form(s) of mercury
removed by mercury technologies for wastewater
Technology
Class
Ability to achieve
1.3 ppt standard
Current scale of
technology
a

Primary form of mercury removed Percent removal
of mercury Particulate Dissolved
PMP YES FULL Unknown Unknown Unknown
Adsorption YES FULL X >99%
Filtration YES PILOT X X
b
>99%
Chemical YES BENCH X 96%
Bioremediation NO FULL Unknown X 80-90%
Ion Exchange NO
c
BENCH X
d
X 89-96%
PMP = Pollutant Minimization Program
a
Current scale of technology that has been demonstrated to achieve 1.3 ppt mercury effluent concentrations.
b
Hybrid reactive filtration technology (Blue PRO®) has been demonstrated to remove both particulate and dissolved
mercury.
c
Preliminary bench-scale testing of electro-deionization suggested that the technique could meet the 1.3 ppt limit, but
the technology was several years from commercial viability.
d
Most ion exchange technologies remove dissolved mercury, but in bench-scale tests, electro-deionization
technology removed particulate mercury.

April 10, 2012 Draft v DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
PMPs are the most cost-effective means of reducing mercury. Implementing a PMP as a first
option can offer cost savings by potentially achieving the 1.3 ppt limit without treatment
technology, or by reducing influent mercury levels to a level at which treatment technologies can
more cost-effectively remove mercury to concentrations below 1.3 ppt. PMP costs were found to
range from $16,500 to $65,000 for small-scope PMPs that are typically employed at facilities
with flows less than 5 MGD, and from $150,000 to $350,000 for large-scope PMPs that are
typically employed at facilities with flows greater than 5 MGD.
Filtration is primarily effective at reducing particulate mercury from wastewater but has not
demonstrated the ability to remove dissolved mercury effectively. Pilot tests have shown that
ultrafiltration and reactive filtration technologies are capable of meeting the 1.3 ppt standard, but
the achievement of 1.3 ppt by filtration systems in full-scale operation could not be confirmed in
this investigation. Filtration technology vendors have reported removal efficiencies greater than
99% depending on influent levels and forms of mercury present. Filtration technology costs are
relatively low (Figure ES-1) for facility flow sizes less than 20 MGD but increase exponentially
for facility flow sizes greater than approximately 40 MGD.
Adsorption technologies remove dissolved mercury but are typically used in combination with
other mercury removal technologies, such as precipitation/co-precipitation or filtration to remove
particulate mercury. Current adsorption products have proven effective at the bench scale in
removing both particulate and dissolved mercury from wastewater. In this investigation, only
one full-scale operation utilizing a combination of adsorption technology and filtration was
observed to demonstrate mercury removal to levels below 1.3 ppt. The system is employed to
treat water collected from a contaminated site in Michigan. Other adsorption technology vendors
reported achievement of greater than 99% removal of mercury, but the ability of current
adsorption products to meet the 1.3 ppt standard in full-scale operation could not be confirmed.
The costs of adsorption technologies are relatively high (millions of dollars per year) even when
capital and O&M costs are combined and spread out over 20 years (Figure ES-1).
Chemical treatment processes, primarily precipitation and co-precipitation, have been shown to
be effective in achieving effluent mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt when combined with
filtration in bench-scale tests. Precipitation/co-precipitation processes remove dissolved
mercury, and filtration is typically required to remove particle-bound mercury from a wastewater
stream. Iron co-precipitation was able to achieve 96% removal of mercury in bench-scale tests
(Purdue 2010). No data on the effectiveness of chemical treatment processes in removing
mercury below 1.3 ppt in pilot tests or full-scale operation were obtained. The costs of chemical
treatment processes are highly variable, and the ability of chemical treatment processes to
achieve levels below 1.3 ppt is uncertain. Available data for the costs of chemical treatment
processes alone—not in combination with other treatment technologies that may be required to
achieve mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt—suggest that capital costs average approximately
$1.4 million with annual O&M costs of approximately $0.5 million. However, chemical
processes are unlikely to be used in isolation to achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt,
and supplemental technologies used in conjunction with chemical treatment would incur
additional costs.
Bioremediation technologies, including constructed treatment wetland systems and microbial
bioreactors, have been implemented in full scale to remove mercury from wastewater. Removal

April 10, 2012 Draft vi DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
efficiencies greater than 90% have been achieved, but neither technology has been demonstrated
to achieve mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt.
One ion exchange technology has been shown to remove mercury from wastewater to levels
below 1.3 ppt. Bench-scale testing demonstrated that an electro-deionization technique
developed by The Water Company was able to meet the 1.3 ppt standard (Purdue 2010).
However, at least five years of technology development is needed for the process to reach
commercial viability, and high power consumption requirements may impact the cost-
effectiveness of this technology. While most ion exchange technologies remove dissolved
mercury and mercury complexes from waste streams, the electro-deionization technology
developed by The Water Company was capable of removing particulate mercury (Purdue 2010).
The mercury removal efficiency of electro-deionization was not reported, but other ion exchange
technologies were reported to achieve removal efficiencies of 89% to 96% in bench-scale tests
(Purdue 2010).
Figure ES-1 presents combined capital and O&M costs of filtration and adsorption technologies
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size. Costs obtained for chemical treatment systems
were insufficient to compare with the costs of filtration and adsorption technologies and are not
shown. For visualization purposes, confidence bands (95% confidence intervals) around the
trend lines are not shown. The areas of uncertainty in adsorption and filtration costs overlap
across much of the estimated cost trends for lower facility flow sizes, indicating that actual costs
may be significantly higher or lower than the predicted trend lines. Actual costs will vary by
facility. The estimated costs in Figure ES-1 should be considered approximate values for the
flow ranges provided.
The results suggest that estimated annual costs of adsorption systems are higher than estimated
annual costs of filtration systems for facility flow sizes of 0 to 40 MGD. However, the two
technologies target different forms of mercury. Filtration systems primarily remove particulate
mercury, which is associated with total suspended solids and can be controlled to some degree by
controlling total suspended solids. Dissolved mercury, which is the target of adsorption
technologies, is much harder to capture. Identifying the forms of mercury present in wastewater
is an important consideration in the selection of a mercury treatment technology. The forms of
mercury present will vary by the nature and size of the facility and upon the type and extent of
discharges to the wastewater stream. The varying nature of wastewater streams necessitates pilot
tests to determine whether a treatment technology is effective at a particular treatment plant. The
cost of conducting pilot tests is not included in the capital and O&M costs presented in Figure
ES-1.
Many wastewater treatment plants in the Great Lakes have implemented PMPs as a cost-
effective means of reducing mercury. At some plants, PMPs have successfully achieved the 1.3
ppt standard for mercury. When a PMP is not effective, the main types of mercury treatment
technologies currently available for achieving effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt are
filtration, adsorption, and precipitation/co-precipitation. To treat wastewaters containing
primarily particulate mercury, implementation of advanced filtration technologies to meet the 1.3
ppt standard appears to be affordable for smaller size facilities (in the 0-20 MGD range).
However, the costs of adsorption systems to capture dissolved mercury remain relatively high.
As another means of capturing dissolved mercury, the addition of chemical processes at

April 10, 2012 Draft vii DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
treatment plants that already employ other mercury removal approaches, such as a PMP and
filtration, may offer a less expensive option for achieving the 1.3 ppt standard.


Figure ES-1. Comparison of estimated annual capital and O&M costs for filtration and
adsorption systems annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size


April 10, 2012 Draft 1 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
1.0 Introduction
The Great Lakes Initiative mercury1 water quality standard to protect wildlife is 1.3 nanograms
per liter (ng/L) or parts per trillion (ppt) (USEPA 1995). The 1997 Ohio EPA study, Assessing
the Economic Impacts of the Proposed Ohio EPA Water Rules on the Ohio Economy (Ohio EPA
1997), has been used in Ohio and other Great Lakes states as the basis to support variances from
meeting this mercury standard. At the time of the 1997 Ohio EPA report, a limited number of
mercury treatment technologies were available, and their ability to achieve effluent mercury
levels on the order of 1.3 ppt could not be demonstrated. Since 1997, technological advances
have been made in the treatment of mercury in wastewater (Purdue 2010; Argonne 2011). This
report seeks to update the 1997 Ohio EPA study with current information on the cost-
effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies to meet the Great Lakes effluent limit of 1.3 ppt.
The investigation includes mercury pollutant minimization programs (PMPs) as a method of
reducing mercury effluent levels. The objective of this investigation is to evaluate current
mercury treatment technologies to determine the level of removal that is currently achievable and
affordable for removing mercury from wastewater.
2.0 Approach
2.1. Literature Review
Literature searches were conducted using targeted vocabulary terms to query two scientific
citation databases, Scopus/Science Direct® (Elsevier) and Web of Knowledge/Web of Science®
(Thomson Reuters). Both citation databases are online, web-based commercial platforms that
allow simultaneous searching of multiple content types and science and technology resources,
including peer-reviewed journal articles, government and other high-quality websites, book
series, patents, trade publications, and conference proceedings. Both databases allow for direct
import of query results, including citations and abstracts, into reference management software.
To ensure coverage of all major aspects of technologies for mercury removal from wastewater,
manual searches of individual websites of selected technology vendors, organizations, or
agencies involved in wastewater management were also conducted. Table A1 in Appendix A
provides a summary of the scientific literature citation databases, websites, and other resources
included in the literature search.
Search terms related to technologies for the treatment and removal of mercury from industrial
and municipal wastewater were used to query the citation databases and search online resources.
Table A2 in Appendix A summarizes keywords used in the search. Search terms were
augmented as appropriate to include plurals and variants, root terms, alternative spellings, and
synonyms. Terms were combined as necessary using Boolean AND/OR/NOT logic to achieve a
manageable number of search results (<3,000). The timeframe of the search was primarily
limited to literature published or released to the public since 1995.

1
In this report, discussion of mercury levels or concentrations refers to total mercury unless otherwise indicated.

April 10, 2012 Draft 2 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
The search strategy identified several thousand potential articles related to technologies for
mercury removal from wastewater. Screening criteria were applied to sort the literature results
for relevancy and priority for further review. Appendix A discusses the screening criteria
utilized. Titles and abstracts of references were screened initially. If abstracts suggested that an
article was relevant or its relevance was unclear, full articles were checked for relevance. The
bibliography sections of particularly useful or key articles and reports were also further
examined for additional relevant references. These secondary references were then obtained and
reviewed for relevance. However, an exhaustive review of all available literature (i.e., a review
of full articles of all literature search results) was not conducted.
All literature identified in the initial queries of the Scopus/Science Direct and Web of
Knowledge citation indexes and the website searches were imported into an EndNote reference
management software database. Within this reference management software, duplicate
references were identified and deleted using a built-in tool, and article titles and abstracts were
screened and tagged with a priority designation (i.e., Key, Relevant, Supporting) for further
review. Resources identified as “Key” were obtained for full review and data extraction for the
cost analysis. An overview of the literature search results is presented in Appendix A.
2.2. Data Collection
Interviews were conducted via email and telephone with state agencies, industrial and municipal
wastewater dischargers, and technology vendors. Information collected included cost, efficacy,
and operational data for mercury removal technologies and pollutant minimization approaches.
To ensure consistent data collection, a set of interview questions was developed that focused on
collecting quantitative data related to mercury treatment technologies, including amount of waste
generated, system capacities, treatment efficacy, technology lifetime, and costs (capital,
installation, and operation and maintenance). Information on PMPs was collected, where
relevant; specific information requested included activities associated with implementing PMPs,
mercury influent and effluent concentrations, and costs associated with PMP implementation.
The interviews also allowed for the collection of qualitative anecdotal information beyond the
scope of the interview questions. The interview questions are provided in Appendix B.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting staff at state agencies in
Great Lakes states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin) were contacted. Additional agency, facility, and technology vendor contacts were
identified through state agency staff and internet research. The collection of data expanded
beyond facilities in the Great Lakes states when relevant information was discovered. Data
collected through interviews and extracted from the literature were entered into an Excel
spreadsheet for use in the cost analysis and interpretation of results.
2.3. Cost Analyses
A variety of cost information was originally considered for analysis. Key component costs used
in the final presentation of results were refined based on the quality of available data from the
literature or supplied by vendors. Costs for key aspects of major classes of the mercury
treatment technologies were evaluated with respect to both the fixed and variable costs of

April 10, 2012 Draft 3 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
acquiring and operating a technology, with cost values imputed in some places where data were
incomplete or missing.
First, literature and vendor elicitation data were collected and categorized. Next, costs were
aggregated into a single data set that tracked the year of the observation as well as other detailed
information about the technology type and associated expenditures by average flow size
operation in terms of millions of gallons per day (MGD). Costs were then converted to present
value (2011 dollars) from their base year using the current release of the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) in order to normalize dollar amounts (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011).
To assess the cost-effectiveness of different technologies, a series of fractional polynomial cost
curves was fit to each class of technology to describe the relationship between installation size
(for various sizes) and the associated costs of installing and operating mercury removal systems.
Fractional polynomial regression is a simple equation that is commonly used to estimate a
smooth relationship between two parameters. For treatment categories that were not
demonstrated to meet the 1.3 ppt standard for mercury, cost curves were not generated, but
available cost data are presented as points of reference. This approach is consistent with
estimating cost curves for water treatment plants as outlined in USEPA reports for more generic
water treatment options, several of which are currently used to treat mercury (USEPA 1979).
To protect the confidentiality of cost data obtained from vendors, only aggregated data results
are shown so that no specific vendor or facility is identified. For each class of technology,
estimated cost trends are presented by facility flow size using the complete data set for a given
technology. The cost curves include a 95% confidence interval that represents the approximate
variation in potential costs for a given facility size that could reasonably be observed around the
estimated trend. This range characterizes the degree of uncertainty in estimated costs for a given
facility flow size.

To obtain a total annual cost of system implementation, capital investment costs for a treatment
system were annuitized across a finite system lifetime. A conservative estimate of system
lifetime of 20 years of active use was assumed for each technology with a 7% discount rate,
using standard costing analysis methodology (USEPA 1992). The annuitized yearly capital cost
was added to annual O&M expenditures to calculate a total annual cost of system
implementation.

The costs of implementing PMPs were also investigated. The level of effort involved in
implementing a PMP varies considerably among treatment plants, as does the level of mercury
reduction achieved through PMP efforts. As a result, the costs of PMP implementation obtained
from the literature and data collection effort are presented as a general range of costs that are not
tied to specific effluent outcomes.

April 10, 2012 Draft 4 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
3.0 Cost-Effectiveness of Mercury Reduction and Treatment
Technologies
Current technologies for removing mercury from wastewater can be classified into five major
categories (Table 1): adsorption, bioremediation, chemical, filtration, and ion exchange. These
five general classes include hybrid technologies that combine one or more treatment technology
types. Hybrid technologies are categorized into associated treatment technology classes. For
example, a reactive filtration process that involves co-precipitation and adsorption in addition to
filtration is classified in the filtration category in the table below. In addition, pollution
prevention efforts aimed at controlling sources of mercury upstream, sometimes referred to as
mercury pollutant minimization programs or PMPs, are an alternate approach to treatment
technologies for reducing mercury in wastewater streams.
Table 1. Major Classes and Types of Mercury Treatment Technologies
Classification Technology Type
Adsorption
Activated Carbons
Synthetic Adsorbent
Biosorbents
Bioremediation
Bioreactors
Biofilms
Constructed Treatment Wetland
Systems
Phytoremediation
Chemical
Precipitation
Co-precipitation
Chemical Reduction Processes
Chemical Oxidation Processes
Chemical Separation Processes
Filtration
Reverse Osmosis
Reactive filtration
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
Nanofiltration
Sedimentation
Other Membrane Separation
Processes
Ion Exchange
Ion Exchange
Electro-deionization
The form of mercury present in wastewater is an important consideration in the selection of a
mercury treatment technology. Mercury in wastewater may exist in three chemical species:
elemental or metallic, ionic, and organic. Elemental mercury is a silver liquid at room
temperature, and it is only slightly soluble in water. Elemental mercury is commonly found in
mercury-containing devices such as thermometers, manometers, switches, and fluorescent lamps.
Elemental mercury can also be combined with other metals in the form of alloys. Ionic mercury
consists of mercury atoms with a +2 charge that readily form salts that dissolve in water.
Organic mercury is formed when mercury atoms bond to organic groups to form organomercury

April 10, 2012 Draft 5 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
compounds. Organomercury compounds are soluble in water and can bioaccumulate in aquatic
life. Most wastewater streams contain several forms of mercury that can change over time
(MWRA/MASCO 1997).
The chemical species of mercury can bind to particulate matter and form a physical species of
mercury that is often a significant portion of the total mercury in a wastewater stream. Standard
EPA methods separate dissolved mercury from particulate mercury by filtration through a 0.45
micron (µm) filter. Dissolved mercury is typically composed of ionic mercury and soluble
mercury compounds (able to pass through a 0.45 µm filter). Total mercury concentrations are
usually quantified as dissolved mercury and particulate mercury, without advanced techniques to
determine mercury speciation (MWRA/MASCO 1997).
3.1 Mercury Treatment Technologies
In the past few years, the technological feasibility of removing mercury from wastewater to very
low levels (in the ppt range) has advanced greatly (Argonne 2011; Purdue 2010). Achievement
of the Great Lakes Initiative mercury water quality standard of 1.3 ppt has become possible
through advancements in technology. The present investigation focused on the potential for five
general classes of mercury wastewater treatment technologies to meet the 1.3 ppt standard.
These technologies are discussed in the following subsections. Each subsection describes:
The basic technology or technologies utilized for mercury removal
Form of mercury reduced, particulate vs. dissolved mercury
Products utilizing the technology
Mercury levels achieved by the technology
Factors that may affect technology effectiveness or cost
Costs per flow volume
Adsorption
Adsorption processes utilize a sorbent material that removes inorganic mercury from wastewater
by a chemical force that holds mercury onto the sorbent. Adsorbents include synthetic
adsorbents, biosorbents, and various forms of activated carbon (e.g., granular activated carbon,
sulfur-impregnated activated carbon) (USEPA 2007). Many different organic materials have
been tested as biosorbents at the bench scale and show promise for reducing mercury (for
example, see Wan Ngah and Hanafiah 2008; Miretzky and Cirelli 2009; Farooq et al. 2010;
Bhatnagar et al. 2010; Agarwal et al. 2010). An adsorbent composed of mercaptan groups on
mesoporous silica has also demonstrated the ability to remove mercury from wastewater
(Walcarius and Delacôte 2005; Feng et al. 1997). Once saturated, adsorption media must be
regenerated or disposed. The cost-effectiveness of adsorption technologies depends on pH, flow
rate, spent sorbent media requiring treatment or disposal, influent concentrations of mercury and
other compounds that may compete with mercury for adsorption, and the presence of suspended
solids and organic compounds that can foul the adsorption media (USEPA 2007).

April 10, 2012 Draft 6 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Adsorption technologies remove dissolved phase mercury but are typically used in combination
with other mercury removal technologies, such as precipitation/co-precipitation or filtration to
remove particulate mercury (USEPA 2007; Argonne 2011). Current adsorption products can
remove various forms of mercury (elemental, ionic, and organomercury compounds) (Selective
Adsorption Associates 2012; PNNL 2008) and have proven effective in removing both
particulate and dissolved phase mercury from wastewater (Argonne 2011).
Products utilizing adsorption technologies for mercury removal from wastewater include:
Calgon Filtrasorb
®
, Calgon OLC, Captech 10-250, Mersorb
®
LW, Thiol-SAMMS

, Mar System
Sorbster

, Sol-gel Solutions tailored products, and others. MAR Sorbster, Thiol-SAMMS,
Mersorb LW, Calgon Filtrasorb, and Calgon OLC have been shown to be effective in achieving
mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt at the bench scale (Argonne 2011; Purdue 2010). MAR
Sorbster was also reported to be effective in reducing mercury levels below 1.3 ppt in laboratory-
scale tests with municipal wastewater, achieving 66.5% mercury removal (MAR Systems
product literature 2012).
A few adsorption products have been tested at the pilot scale for the ability to remove mercury to
levels below 1.3 ppt. Pilot-scale tests of pharmaceutical wastewater using Filtrasorb 400
(granular activated carbon) demonstrated removal efficiencies greater than 99%, but influent
mercury levels were relatively high (3.8 mg/L), and effluent mercury levels in the 1 ppt range
could not be achieved (Cyr et al. 2002). A pilot plant consisting of four columns operating in
series and packed with Filtrasorb 600, with filters placed before the first column and after the last
column, achieved a minimum effluent level of 26 ng/L, but influent mercury concentrations were
on the order of 2500 ng/L (TetraTech 2002).
While Captur technology (Captech 10-250) was not effective in bench-scale tests conducted by
Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne 2011), a pilot plant using Captech 10-250 was reported
to achieve positive results in removing mercury to levels below 1.3 ppt in leachates from a
contaminated site (Mininni and Graham 2010). In October 2011, a combination of Captur
technology and filtration was implemented in full scale to treat water collected from a
contaminated site in Michigan, and results have demonstrated that the system is reducing
mercury concentrations from 5 ppt to below 1.3 ppt (CMS Land 2011).
Full-scale Mersorb operating units are reported to achieve greater than 99% removal of mercury
(Soffel, 2012). With greater than 99% removal efficiency, Mersorb units treating water
containing mercury at concentrations of 100 ppt or less would achieve effluent mercury levels of
1.0 ppt or less. However, the achievement of 1.3 ppt by full-scale Mersorb units in operation
could not be confirmed in this investigation. No data on the effectiveness of other adsorption
products in full-scale operation were obtained.
Adsorption Costs
Several adsorption products are commercially available to remove mercury from wastewater.
Many vendors have variants of adsorption systems that use different media products or
pretreatment steps to reach low levels of mercury in effluent at a wide variety of flow size
operations. The cost components involved in estimating the total installation and operation of
adsorption systems include:

April 10, 2012 Draft 7 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Cost of proprietary adsorption system, typically priced with minor installation costs
included per unit. Note that adsorption systems are generally able to scale to larger
facility sizes through integration of additional units.
Adsorbent media cost for system, generally sold as discrete units that integrate
directly with the system but sometimes sold at a per unit mass price.
Regeneration or replacement cost for adsorbent media over the operational life.
Waste disposal of any byproducts.
One of the advantages of adsorbent technologies is that they are relatively self-contained and do
not often require significant investment in new construction or retrofitting. Treating or disposing
of adsorbent media is a significant driver of O&M costs. O&M costs in the form of power
consumption and system repairs are also important factors in the lifetime cost of a system.
Insufficient information was obtained to present the costs of individual O&M components
separately.
Cost data from a variety of proprietary and non-proprietary adsorbent treatment systems
operating at full scale were aggregated with quotes from major adsorption system vendors. In
addition to the cost of the adsorption system and initial media, capital costs include all necessary
installation, construction, or retrofit costs for the system, as quoted from vendors, cited in the
literature, or estimated using EPA industry standard cost curves applicable to 1 to 200 MGD
treatment plants (USEPA 1979), unless otherwise noted. Based on the aggregated data, cost
curves for adsorption were estimated using fractional polynomial regression. The relationship
between facility flow size, measured in MGD, and estimated average capital costs of adsorption
systems are shown in Figure 1 with a 95% confidence interval around the predicted costs.
Predicted capital costs were estimated over the range of available facility sizes where cost data
for adsorption systems were available from the literature and vendor quotes.
Similarly, estimated O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility size are shown in Figure 2.
O&M costs are presented in terms of millions of dollars per calendar year of operation. Capital
expenditures for adsorption systems begin increasing at a steeper rate after facility flow sizes of
approximately 40 MGD (Figure 1), while O&M costs increase at a lower and essentially constant
rate after approximately 20 MGD flow sizes (Figure 2). The estimates suggest that annual O&M
costs for adsorption systems are nearly as high as, or higher than, the capital cost of installing a
new system. Estimated capital and O&M costs of adsorption systems for a region of interest (0-
20 MGD) are presented in Appendix C. Figure 3 presents combined total annual capital and
O&M costs annuitized over 20 years. All estimated costs should be considered approximate
values for the flow ranges provided.


April 10, 2012 Draft 8 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

Figure 1. Estimated average capital costs of adsorption systems in millions of
dollars, by facility flow size (MGD)

Figure 2. Annual O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
1
1

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Capital Expenditures
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
2
0
1
1

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Annual O&M Expenditures

April 10, 2012 Draft 9 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

Figure 3. Estimated total annual capital and O&M costs for adsorption systems
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size
Bioremediation
Various bioremediation processes have been used to remove mercury from wastewater, including
biofilms, phytoremediation, constructed treatment wetland systems, and bioreactors. Two
processes, constructed treatment wetland systems and bioreactors, were found to be effective in
reducing mercury. Constructed treatment wetland systems pass wastewater through vegetation
to remove mercury prior to discharge to a receiving aquatic system. Biological treatment using
mercury-resistant bacteria in a packed-bed bioreactor has also been demonstrated to remove
mercury from wastewater by microbial reduction of ionic mercury to elemental mercury,
followed by activated carbon filtration (Wagner-Döbler et al. 2000; Wagner-Döbler 2003).
Full-scale constructed treatment wetland systems have been designed and tested to remove
multiple constituents, including mercury, from industrial wastewater (Mooney and Murray-
Gulde 2008). The design of the system includes a parallel series of treatment ponds containing
plants that provide a continual source of organic matter to pond sediments, which bind mercury
and other metals (Nelson and Gladden 2008; Mooney and Murray-Gulde 2008). Gravity flow is
used to route wastewater through the ponds before it is discharged to a receiving waterbody
(Nelson and Gladden 2008). Prior to entering a constructed treatment wetland system,
wastewater may be pretreated to maximize mercury removal (Laws et al. 2008).
Full-scale constructed treatment wetland systems have demonstrated high levels of mercury
removal (80% to 90%), but effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt have not been reported (Nelson

April 10, 2012 Draft 10 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
and Gladden 2008; Mooney and Murray-Gulde 2008; Laws et al. 2008). Mercury concentrations
achieved by a full-scale constructed treatment wetland system designed to treat wastewater from
a coal-fired power plant were approximately 0.02 µg/L (20 ng/L) (Mooney and Murray-Gulde
2008). Another constructed treatment wetland system treating approximately 1 MGD of
industrial process wastewater and stormwater achieved mercury effluent levels in the range 5 to
10 ppt (Nelson and Gladden 2008).
Microbial mercury remediation utilizes a bioreactor system containing mercury-resistant strains
of bacteria on a porous carrier material. Numerous bacterial species and strains have been tested
at the bench scale or used in pilot bioreactor systems, including both native strains and
genetically engineered strains of bacteria (for example, see Dzairi et al 2004; Von Canstein,
Kelly et al. 2002; von Canstein, Li et al. 2002; Yan et al. 2011). The technology is applicable to
mercury in the ionic form, and pre-treatment may be required to oxidize incoming mercury to the
ionic form and stabilize the performance of the bioreactor (Wagner-Döbler 2003). An activated
carbon filter is used as a polishing step to remove mercury. Greater than 90% removal
efficiencies for mercury have been reported for microbial bioreactors treating industrial
wastewater in full-scale (Wagner-Döbler et al. 2000; Wagner-Döbler 2003). Effluent mercury
concentrations below 10 µg/L (10,000 ng/L) were achieved after activated carbon filtration
(Wagner-Döbler et al. 2000).

Bioremediation Costs

Bioremediation processes include several potential system designs that operate in fundamentally
different ways. For the cost analysis, only methods that have been utilized in full-scale
operations were considered, namely constructed treatment wetland systems and microbial
bioreactors.
Costs for full-scale constructed treatment wetland systems vary primarily on the basis of the area
and nature of wetland treatment system that must be constructed and maintained to operate
effectively over time. Principal cost components of a constructed treatment wetland system
include:
Cost of initial construction, including any dredging and importation of flora.
Regular sampling and analysis to ensure adequate growth of vegetation.
Active treatment measures to maintain the ecosystem.
Additional factors affecting the costs of constructed treatment wetland systems include the need
for replanting(s) due to failure of plants to take root or wild animals feeding on young plants. In
addition, the presence of other metals and materials in wastewater can inhibit the growth of
wetlands plants (Laws et al. 2008).
Constructed treatment wetland systems have reasonable construction costs and low O&M costs
(Mooney and Murray-Gulde 2008). Few costs of constructed treatment wetland systems were
available. A constructed treatment wetland system comprised of eight 1-acre wetland cells
designed to treat copper was constructed at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River site

April 10, 2012 Draft 11 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
for $5 million with annual O&M costs of approximately $50,000 (Cardno Entrix 2012). Capital
costs for the implementation of a second constructed treatment wetland system (two 0.5 acre
wetland cells) designed to treat mercury and other metals at the U.S. Department of Energy
Savannah River site were $3.4 million for construction and will require approximately $75,000
annually for O&M costs (Cardno Entrix 2012). While costs are relatively low, constructed
treatment wetland systems have not been demonstrated to achieve effluent mercury levels below
1.3 ppt, as discussed above.
Costs for the second bioremediation technology, microbial bioreactors, include:
Cost of treatment system, usually a customized design that functions as a closed, end-
of-pipe treatment unit.
Cost to maintain organic treatment material, which are highly variable depending on
the type of material used.
Cost of removing or remediating wastes or organic byproducts from the treatment
process, such as sediments or slurry.
Currently operating microbial bioreactors reported in the literature were applicable to small flow
sizes. Scaling to larger facility sizes with consistent treatment efficacy has proven difficult to
achieve given the current state of the technology (USEPA 2007).
Microbial bioreactors have not been demonstrated to achieve mercury concentrations below 1.3
ppt. However, to provide a reference point for potential costs, the capital cost and annual O&M
cost of a 0.002 MGD microbial bioreactor installed in Europe are $852,000 and $153,000,
respectively (in 2011 U.S. dollars; Wagner-Döbler 2003).
Chemical Processes
Chemical processes initiate chemical reactions through the addition of compounds that enable
mercury to be removed from wastewater. Chemical processes used to treat mercury include
precipitation, co-precipitation, chemical reduction processes, chemical oxidation processes, and
chemical separation processes. The cost-effectiveness of chemical processes in removing
mercury depends on the pH, influent concentrations of mercury, the presence of other
compounds that may compete with mercury, dosage of chemicals added, and the amount of
sludge requiring disposal (USEPA 2007; Purdue 2010).
Precipitation and co-precipitation methods encompass the majority of chemical systems available
for removing mercury from wastewater. Precipitation and co-precipitation methods include:
Nalmet
®
, MetClear™, and precipitating reagents, notably iron and sulfide precipitants.
Precipitation and iron co-precipitation combined with filtration have been shown to be effective
in achieving effluent mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt in bench-scale tests using wastewater
with mercury primarily in the particulate form (Argonne 2011; Purdue 2010). Nalmet and
MetClear alone were not able to meet the 1.3 ppt standard, but the effectiveness of both
technologies significantly improved when filtration was employed following precipitation
(Argonne 2011). Presumably, filtration was sufficient to capture the predominately particle-

April 10, 2012 Draft 12 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
bound mercury in the wastewater tested. Precipitation/co-precipitation processes remove
dissolved mercury by transforming it into an insoluble solid that is removed from the liquid
phase (USEPA 2007).
Iron co-precipitation demonstrated mercury removal below 1.3 ppt at the bench scale with
adequate settling time and relatively low iron dosage (Purdue 2010). However, the ability of
iron co-precipitation to meet the 1.3 ppt limit depended on influent mercury levels; when initial
mercury concentrations were significantly higher than 4 ppt, iron co-precipitation was inadequate
in removing mercury below 1.3 ppt at reasonable iron dosages (Purdue 2010). In addition, a
major constraint in using iron co-precipitation is the potential for high concentrations of mercury
in laboratory-grade or industrial-grade iron reagents that are used in the process (Purdue 2010).
Sulfide precipitation was tested at the bench scale by Argonne National Laboratory, but results
were inconclusive due to the high concentration of mercury in the reagents used (Argonne 2011).

Chemical Treatment Costs
The cost analysis for chemical treatment technologies primarily considered precipitation and co-
precipitation methods, which are the predominant chemical processes available at operational
scale. Costs for installing and operating a chemical system involve the following components:
Cost of the chemical agent(s) to catalyze reactions, usually bought in bulk at a per
unit mass price.
Feed/storage systems for chemical agent.
Mixing/settling systems for chemical application.
Waste disposal of precipitates or other byproducts.
Overall lifetime cost of a chemical system includes the following components: applicable
construction costs for storage and mixing system components, if not already in place on site,
annual power consumption, and facilities’ maintenance costs for continued operation.
Additionally, the cost for replenishing chemical stocks will be dependent on the system flow
rate, which will in turn determine the rate of waste product disposal and regular cleaning
required to keep the system in operation.
Because many treatment facilities already have some or all of the necessary mixing and settling
systems in place, predicting capital costs for installations at currently operating facilities is
difficult. Additionally, chemical treatment processes are usually used in conjunction with other
methods in order increase the efficacy of an overall chain of treatments (or used as a
pretreatment step), further confounding operating cost information. Much of the cost literature
reviewed suggested that chemical systems were unlikely to be used in isolation to be able to
achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt and that there were few full-scale methods in
operation that could reach mercury levels in the low ppt range.
Due to the highly variable nature of chemical treatment costs as well as the uncertainty of
treatment processes in achieving levels below 1.3 ppt, chemical treatment system costs are

April 10, 2012 Draft 13 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
presented as a simple range based on data available in the literature. Costs represent chemical
treatment processes alone (not in combination with other technologies that may be required to
achieve mercury concentrations below 1.3 ppt). Capital costs are assumed to be for new builds
with very limited retrofitting to in-place systems performed. Cost ranges for capital and annual
O&M costs are presented in Table 2 in 2011 dollars.
Estimated capital costs of a new chemical treatment system range from approximately $79,000 to
$4,660,000, with O&M costs ranging from $31,000 to $1,260,000 annually. Note that the
information encompasses a wide variety of facility types and design flow sizes, as well as a wide
range of influent and effluent conditions.
Table 2. Capital and annual operations and maintenance costs for chemical
treatment systems in 2011 dollars
Capital Cost (new build) Annual O&M Cost
Average Cost $1,360,000 $450,000
Minimum Reported Cost $79,000 (0.002 MGD) $31,000 (0.002 MGD)
Maximum Reported Cost $4,660,000 (4.71 MGD) $1,260,000 (14 MGD)
Sources: Aggregated values derived from USEPA 2007; Argonne 2011; USEPA 1997; Dean
and Mason 2009; TetraTech 2002.

Filtration
Filtration involves passing wastewater through a semi-permeable membrane to concentrate
mercury in a smaller volume that does not pass through the membrane. Both the concentrated
stream and the effluent that passes through the membrane may require additional treatment to
further reduce mercury concentrations (USEPA 2007). Filtration technologies include reactive
filtration, microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, sedimentation, and other
membrane separation processes.
Filtration is primarily effective at reducing particulate mercury (Sedlack et al. 2000). Dissolved
mercury is usually too small to be removed effectively by filtration, and a pretreatment step such
as carbon adsorption to remove dissolved mercury (Argonne 2011), or precipitation/co-
precipitation to form suspended solids (USEPA 2007), prior to filtration may be needed. In
addition to removing dissolved mercury, a pre-treatment step improves the operation of filtration
technologies by reducing fouling of the membranes and subsequent cleaning (Argonne 2011). A
variety of organic and inorganic contaminants and suspended solids can cause the membranes to
become fouled (USEPA 2007).
Products utilizing filtration technologies for mercury removal from wastewater include: GE
Osmonics
®
(polyvinylidene fluoride or PVDF), GE Osmonics
®
(thin film), GE Osmonics
®

(Polyamide), Koch membranes, Memtek
®
, GE ZeeWeed
®
, Siemens Memcore
®
CP 240,
JelCleer

, and Blue PRO
®
.
2


2
Blue PRO is not strictly a filtration technology but utilizes a hybrid reactive filtration technology that combines
filtration, adsorption, and co-precipitation to reduce both particulate and dissolved mercury.

April 10, 2012 Draft 14 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Microfiltration [GE Osmonics (PVDF)], ultrafiltration (Koch), nanofiltration [GE Osmonics
(thin film)], reverse osmosis [GE Osmonics (Polyamide)], and a hybrid reactive filtration
technology (Blue PRO) have been shown to be effective in achieving mercury concentrations
below 1.3 ppt at the bench scale using wastewater with mercury primarily in the particulate form
(Argonne 2011; Purdue 2010). Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis technologies, however,
required lower operating pressures (300 psi) to improve flux and fouling rates and meet the 1.3
ppt limit; this finding suggests that pretreatment may be required to remove potential foulants,
maintain stable operations, and obtain higher flux rates (Argonne 2011).
A few filtration products have been tested at the pilot scale for the ability to remove mercury to
levels below 1.3 ppt. As part of the multi-year study conducted by Argonne National Laboratory
and Purdue University, pilot tests using refinery wastewater were completed with Blue PRO and
ZeeWeed (using PVDF for ultrafiltration). Results of the Argonne/Purdue pilot tests confirmed
the ability of Blue PRO and ZeeWeed to remove particulate mercury from refinery wastewater to
levels below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2012). In the pilot tests, ZeeWeed consistently met the 1.3 ppt limit
with influent mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 2 ppt to 19 ppt. Blue PRO met
the 1.3 ppt limit 92% of the 97-day trial period with influent mercury concentrations ranging
from approximately 2 ppt to 24 ppt. A spike in mercury levels occurred with the Blue PRO
technology, which appeared to be controlled by the addition of chemical reagent (Nalmet 1689).
Further testing of Blue PRO technology is needed to confirm whether chemical addition can
consistently maintain effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2012).
Pilot tests using the same technologies, ZeeWeed and Blue PRO, on municipal wastewater
provided the opposite results. Neither technology was effective in meeting the 1.3 ppt limit in
pilot tests conducted at the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) in Duluth,
Minnesota (Ballavance 2012).
3
The difference in results between the Argonne/Purdue pilot tests
and the pilot tests at WLSSD can be explained by the difference between the industrial and
municipal wastewaters tested. WLSSD wastewater contains dissolved mercury whereas the
refinery wastewater does not. WLSSD wastewater also contained a higher concentration of
colloids that caused the membranes to foul more frequently. The different characteristics of
industrial and municipal wastewaters may require different technologies to effectively remove
mercury to levels below 1.3 ppt. Filtration technologies are primarily effective at reducing
particulate mercury and may not be effective when dissolved mercury is present in municipal
wastewater.
Additional pilot tests using Blue PRO technology were conducted at municipal wastewater
treatment plants in northeast Minnesota (Hibbing, North Koochiching Area, and Virginia). The
pilot tests demonstrated the effectiveness of Blue PRO technology in achieving effluent mercury
levels on the order of 1 ppt (Ballavance 2012).
4

In addition to bench-scale and pilot tests, information collected from vendors for this report
indicate that commercially available technologies are capable of meeting the 1.3 ppt standard.
Blue PRO technology has been reported to achieve effluent mercury concentrations below 1 ppt

3
Details of the pilot tests at WLSSD are governed by non-disclosure agreements and require written permission
from the technology vendors to disclose publicly.
4
Details of the pilot tests are governed by non-disclosure agreements and require written permission from the
technology vendor to disclose publicly.

April 10, 2012 Draft 15 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
at full-scale installations. ZeeWeed technology has been reported to achieve metal removal
efficiencies greater than 99% depending on influent levels and forms of mercury present. With
99% removal efficiency, ZeeWeed units treating water containing mercury at concentrations of
100 ppt or less would achieve effluent mercury levels of 1.0 ppt or less, depending on the forms
of mercury present. However, the achievement of 1.3 ppt by full-scale ZeeWeed units in
operation could not be confirmed in this investigation. No data on the effectiveness of other
filtration products in full-scale operation were obtained.
Filtration Costs
Several filtration products are commercially available to remove mercury from wastewater.
Many vendors have variants of filtration systems that use different filtration products or
pretreatment steps to reach low levels of mercury in effluent at a wide variety of flow size
operations. Filtration technology costs in this analysis include filtration products whose primary
treatment step is filtration. The cost components for installing and operating a filtration
technology system for the treatment of mercury include:
Cost of construction or purchase of filtration housing infrastructure.
Initial purchase of filtration media, normally priced by unit area.
Pretreatment steps that are included in hybrid systems.
Cleaning and/or replacement of filtration media during operation.
Waste disposal of filtered material and spent media.
Some treatment plants may have the necessary infrastructure to install modern filtration media
for immediate use, making capital expenditure costs more variable than for adsorption systems,
depending on initial site conditions. Costs also vary by type of filtration technique used – for
example, costs for upgrading from standard filtration to microfiltration may not scale in the same
way as upgrading to nanofiltration. One advantage to filtration systems is that they incur
significantly lower power consumption costs than other technologies. However, filtration
systems carry the risk of potentially higher repair expenses when filters are fouled or damaged
by larger debris. In this analysis, filtration costs include pretreatment steps or other treatment
methods when they are part of a hybrid filtration system. Depending on the characteristics of a
specific wastewater stream, additional treatment methods may be needed to achieve 1.3 ppt
mercury levels, with an associated impact on costs.
Cost data on a variety of filtration systems from the literature were aggregated with quotes from
filtration technology vendors. In addition to the initial cost of the filtration system and media,
capital costs include necessary installation, construction, or retrofit costs for the system, as
quoted from vendors, cited in the literature, or estimated using EPA industry standard cost curves
(USEPA 1979). Based on the aggregated data, cost curves for filtration were estimated using
fractional polynomial regression. The relationship between facility flow size, measured in
MGD, and estimated average capital costs of filtration systems is shown in Figure 4 with a 95%
confidence interval around the predicted costs. Predicted capital costs were estimated over the
range of available facility sizes where cost data for filtration systems were available. The costs

April 10, 2012 Draft 16 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
estimated in Figure 4 should be considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.
Note that costs in Figure 4 are presented on a larger scale ($100 million increments) than the
capital costs for adsorption systems in Figure 1.
Similarly, estimated O&M costs for filtration systems by facility size are shown in Figure 5.
O&M costs are presented in terms of millions of dollars per calendar year of operation. Both
capital costs and O&M costs exhibit exponential increases as facility flow size increases. This is
largely due to decreasing marginal reductions of mercury as the number of required filters or the
media size increases for larger installations, resulting in increasingly large estimated costs. For
small facility sizes (less than 20 MGD), however, costs are relatively inexpensive compared to
other mercury removal methods. Estimated capital and O&M costs of filtration systems for a
region of interest (0-20 MGD) are presented in Appendix C. Figure 6 presents combined total
annual capital and O&M costs annuitized over 20 years. All estimated costs should be
considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.


Figure 4. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD)
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
1
1

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Capital Expenditures

April 10, 2012 Draft 17 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

Figure 5. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation

Figure 6. Estimated total annual capital and O&M costs for filtration systems
annuitized over 20 years, by facility flow size
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
1

M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s

o
f

D
o
l
l
a
r
s
0 20 40 60 80
Facility Flow Size (MGD)
95% Confidence Interval Predicted Annual O&M Expenditures

April 10, 2012 Draft 18 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Ion Exchange
Ion exchange is a process that removes ionic substances from liquid media through the use of
charged resin saturated with an exchangeable ion (Purdue 2010). Removal is accomplished by
exchanging a mercury ion for an ion from the resin medium. Once the resin is saturated with
mercury, the resin medium is either regenerated with an appropriate solution containing
exchangeable ions or disposed using appropriate methods. Ion exchange waste is concentrated
and may require special disposal depending on the contaminant removed (NDWC 1997).
Ion exchange and chelating resins capable of removing mercury from wastewater include:
DOWEX

XUS-43604
DOWEX

21K XLT
DOWEX

MARATHON™ MSA
DOWEX

G-26H
KeyleX


Ambersep

GT74
Amberlite

IRC 748
Amberlite

IRC 718
ResinTech SIR-200


ResinTech SIR-400


Amberlite

/Duolite

GT-73
Lewatit
®
MonoPlus TP 214
Purolite

S-920
Ionac

SR-4
Ionac

ASB-2

Bench-scale testing of DOWEX MARATHON MSA, KeyleX, Ambersep GT74, and Amberlite
IRC 748 demonstrated removal of mercury from wastewater at a ppt level, though none below
1.3 ppt. DOWEX MARATHON MSA, KeyleX, and Amberstep GT74 removed greater than
95.6% of mercury present in the bench-scale samples; Amberlite IRC 748 removed an average of
89% of mercury present (Purdue 2010). Bench- and full-scale ion exchange treatment of other
resins did not assess the capability to achieve mercury removal to ppt levels (ORNL 2010,
USEPA 1997).
Thiol-based ion exchange resins can be cost-effective at removing mercury because they have
faster mercury sorption rates and potentially higher capacity than other materials (ORNL 2010).
Thiol-based materials have specific and strong binding ability toward cationic mercury (ORNL
2010). Thiol-based resins include DOWEX XUS-43604, KeyleX, Ambersep GT74, ResinTech
SIR-200, ResinTech SIR-400, and Amberlite/Duolite GT-73.
Electro-deionization is a combination of ion exchange and electrodialysis that shows promise for
mercury removal. In electro-deionization, ionic components of a solution are separated with
semi-permeable ion-selective membranes placed between two electrodes (Argonne 2011).
Experimental testing demonstrated that an electro-deionization technique developed by The
Water Company was effective at removing mercury to ppt levels, and in one test the process met
the 1.3 ppt limit (Purdue 2010). However, at least five years of technology development is
needed for the process to reach commercial viability, and high power consumption requirements
may impact the cost-effectiveness of this technology (Purdue 2010).
Ion exchange technologies remove dissolved phase mercury. Current ion exchange resins can
remove anion and cationic forms of dissolved mercury, as well as mercury complexes in waste
streams containing high organic content. Electro-deionization technology developed by The
Water Company is capable of removing particulate forms of mercury (Purdue 2010).


April 10, 2012 Draft 19 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Ion Exchange Costs

A typical ion exchange system is comprised of prefiltration, ion exchange, disinfection, storage,
and distribution elements (NDWC 1997). Cost components for ion exchange systems include:
Cost of construction or purchase of infrastructure to house ion exchange media.
Systems used for the treatment of mercury are often self-contained within one unit.
Initial purchase of ion exchange media/resin, generally sold as discrete units that
integrate directly with the system.
Regeneration and/or replacement of ion exchange media/resin during operation.
Waste disposal of spent media and any byproducts.
Based on available literature data, costs for ion exchange systems are highly variable. Purchase
prices for systems at both extremes of the cost spectrum for similarly sized facilities were
observed for a number of treatment systems, making it difficult to generate capital investment
costs for a range of facility flow sizes. Newer mercury removal systems tested at the bench scale
tend to estimate very large O&M costs for full-scale applications (Argonne 2011). It is clear
from literature data that the key driver of costs is the replacement cost of ion exchange media or
resin, which loses efficacy over time, depending on many site-specific water properties such as
pH and temperature. Due to extreme variability in the cost data collected and the fact that much
of the available cost data apply to small facility size operations, it is difficult to estimate actual
costs of installing and operating ion exchange systems. Also, as discussed above, currently
available ion exchange technologies have not been demonstrated to achieve mercury
concentrations below 1.3 ppt.
3.2 Pollutant Minimization Programs
PMPs represent voluntary pollution prevention programs for dischargers to achieve mercury
reductions. PMPs involve efforts to identify and reduce sources of mercury entering a
wastewater stream. PMPs typically involve monitoring programs to identify mercury sources,
outreach to industry sectors known to discharge mercury, reduction efforts targeting the use of
mercury-containing products, and public awareness campaigns. For example, as part of a PMP,
wastewater treatment plants may initiate community recycling programs to collect mercury-
containing products or approach dentists’ offices about ways to capture dental mercury amalgam
and prevent it from being released to the wastewater system. Industrial plants might investigate
sources of mercury within the plant such as commodity chemicals and, where mercury levels are
high, acquire chemicals with low mercury levels from alternative suppliers (AMSA 2002;
Huber 1997; WLSSD 2002).
In some states, regulatory source reduction efforts have assisted wastewater treatment plants’
pollution prevention efforts. For example, regulations in New York require dentist offices to
install amalgam separators that remove waste amalgam from dental facilities’ wastewater
(NYDEC 2012). In Wisconsin, dentist offices are not regulated statewide, but municipalities
with wastewater treatment plants discharging mercury at levels above 1.3 ppt must ensure that
dentist offices pretreat their mercury waste through the use of amalgam separators (WDA 2012).

April 10, 2012 Draft 20 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
In addition, wastewater treatment plants in Wisconsin that are permitted an alternative mercury
effluent limit above 1.3 ppt are required to implement a PMP, which often involves outreach to
dentist offices and other facilities that use mercury or mercury-containing products (Wisconsin
Adopted Mercury Rule Order 2002).
A range of mercury sources and influent concentrations impacts the effectiveness of PMPs in
reducing mercury levels. Pollution prevention and source control or regulatory efforts have
shown limited effectiveness in meeting the 1.3 ppt limit for mercury (AMSA 2002). Data
collected for this report indicate that wastewater treatment plants in Wisconsin reduced mercury
effluent concentrations through PMPs, but for many treatment plants, levels were already below
1.3 ppt. One wastewater treatment plant reported achieving average mercury effluent
concentrations below 1.3 ppt approximately 8 years after a PMP was initiated. Other treatment
plants reported achieving average mercury effluent concentrations in the 1-2 ppt range as a result
of PMP implementation, but not below 1.3 ppt. Despite diligent pollution prevention efforts, in
some cases PMPs are not sufficient to meet the 1.3 ppt limit for mercury (WLSSD 2011).
PMP Costs
PMPs are one of the most cost-effective methods of reducing mercury in wastewater, in some
cases eliminating the need for end-of-pipe treatment options. Costs for PMPs are highly variable
depending on the site location, known sources of mercury influents, the population served by the
treatment plant, and available financial and labor resources. PMPs generally include
expenditures for initiatives that target mercury reductions from one or more potential upstream
sources of mercury contamination. PMP activities may include:
Outreach to local businesses/industries.
Assistance to schools for clean-out events.
Collection programs for consumer products containing mercury.
Support for mercury legislation.
Public outreach and education.
General testing and monitoring to identify sources.
The cost of PMP initiatives can involve a combination of labor, materials, and services that are
highly variable depending on the service area of a local treatment plant. One of the difficulties in
characterizing a standard cost for PMPs is determining a unique cost rate for each type of
initiative because the target audience for each initiative varies by treatment plant (e.g., number of
dentists, vehicle service shops, etc.). No standard amount of public outreach has been
established as a baseline for successful implementation of a PMP. Each PMP is uniquely
tailored to suit the needs of an individual site, sometimes within guidelines established at a state
level.
Examples of the different types of PMP efforts and their associated costs were compiled by the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (2002) based on a review of the cost of effective

April 10, 2012 Draft 21 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
pollution prevention programs and the cost to develop demonstration pollution prevention
projects. Examples of PMP efforts and their associated costs are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Examples of PMP initiatives and associated costs (Source: AMSA 2002)
Information on PMPs collected for this report indicated that PMPs were conducted on a site-
specific basis. PMPs for municipal wastewater treatment plants were typically conducted at a
city level, and costs varied by the size of the municipality. Industrial facilities generating their
own wastewater streams typically have more limited PMP activities with lower costs, but there is
a high degree of variability in the scope of industrial PMPs, which can include costs for the
limited site surroundings up to an entire service area.
A variety of estimates of PMP costs obtained from individual wastewater treatment plants,
industrial facilities, and the literature were utilized to construct a range of potential per-facility
annual costs of PMP implementation. This cost range aligns with the estimated costs for
different combinations of the activities shown above in Figure 7. The cost ranges were split into
large-scope and small-scope PMPs. Large-scope PMPs were typically employed at facilities

April 10, 2012 Draft 22 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
with flows greater than 5 MGD, addressed local medical and business dischargers, and included
extensive public outreach components. Small-scope PMPs were typically employed at facilities
with flows less than 5 MGD, addressed source components only in the immediate site area, and
included limited public outreach components. PMP costs were assumed to include costs incurred
by wastewater treatment facilities implementing the PMP and not costs incurred by dischargers
who are the target of PMPs, such as dentist offices. Approximate endpoints for PMP cost ranges
for large-scope and small-scope PMPs are presented in Table 3 in 2011 dollars.
Table 3. Range of reported PMP costs for large-scope and small-scope PMPs
PMP Scope Minimum Cost Maximum Cost
Large (>5 MGD) $150,000 $350,000
Small (<5 MGD) $16,500 $65,000
Sources: Data collected by Battelle from individual treatment facilities; AMSA 2002.
4.0 Findings
Treatment technologies are currently available to achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
However, the effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies in reducing effluent
concentrations of mercury below 1.3 ppt depends on influent concentrations of mercury, the
fraction of dissolved mercury, and other characteristics of the wastewater stream.
Adsorption, filtration (including the hybrid technology reactive filtration), precipitation/co-
precipitation combined with filtration, and PMPs have demonstrated the ability to reduce effluent
mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. In this investigation, PMPs were observed to remove effluent
mercury levels below 1.3 ppt in full-scale operation. In addition, in October 2011, a combination
of Captur technology (adsorption) and filtration was implemented in full scale to treat water
collected from a contaminated site in Michigan and demonstrated achievement of mercury levels
below 1.3 ppt (CMS Land 2011). No other full-scale units were observed to meet the 1.3 ppt
standard in this investigation.
However, bench-scale and pilot tests performed in recent years have demonstrated the
effectiveness of several treatment technologies to meet the 1.3 ppt standard. The state of
mercury treatment technology is expected to advance considerably in the next few years as
technologies are implemented at full scale. For example, a municipal wastewater treatment plant
in Minnesota is scheduled to install filtration technology in 2012 after a pilot test demonstrated
effectiveness in meeting mercury standards (Ballavance 2012).
The form of mercury present in wastewater is an important consideration in removing mercury.
Particulate mercury correlates with the percentage of total suspended solids. For waste streams
that contain primarily particulate mercury, controlling suspended solids through filtration is a
relatively inexpensive method of meeting mercury discharge limits (WLSSD 2011). However,
technologies that remove particulate mercury such as filtration may require pretreatment to
remove dissolved mercury or transform it into particulates that are removed by filtration. The
effectiveness of other technologies also improves with pretreatment. However, even with
pretreatment, dissolved mercury can be difficult to capture. Processes that remove dissolved
mercury, such as adsorption and precipitation/co-precipitation, are typically combined with other

April 10, 2012 Draft 23 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
mercury removal technologies, such as filtration, to capture particulate mercury. While PMPs
are effective in reducing mercury in effluent, depending on the level of dissolved mercury
present, levels below 1.3 ppt may not be possible without combining the PMP with additional
treatment. See the case study of WLSSD’s efforts to remove dissolved mercury, below.

Influent levels of mercury are another important consideration in reducing effluent mercury
levels below 1.3 ppt. Higher influent mercury levels (for example, greater than 20 ppt) are more
difficult to reduce below 1.3 ppt (Purdue 2010). Technologies with a removal efficiency of 99%,
for example, require influent mercury concentrations of 100 ppt (or 0.1 ppb) or less to achieve
mercury levels on the order of 1.0 ppt.
The characteristics of individual wastewater streams, such as suspended solids and nutrients, also
impact the cost and effectiveness of mercury treatment technologies. Municipal effluents have
very different characteristics from industrial wastewaters, and municipal wastewater may contain
organic matter with a high potential to foul treatment technologies or otherwise interfere with the
chemistry of treatment technologies. To properly evaluate treatment potential and cost,
prospective treatment technologies must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis at the treatment
plan under consideration (Dean and Mason 2009). The difference between industrial and
municipal wastewater was demonstrated by the contrary results observed when the same
technologies were tested using industrial wastewater (by Argonne/Purdue) and municipal
wastewater (WLSSD).
PMPs provide a cost-effective method of reducing mercury in wastewater. A PMP alone may or
may not be able to achieve mercury levels below 1.3 ppt, depending on influent mercury
concentrations and the forms of mercury present. However, PMPs can reduce influent mercury
concentrations to a level that makes treatment technologies more cost-effective in meeting the
1.3 ppt limit than if a technology were implemented alone. Treatment technologies are generally
less costly for lower influent mercury concentrations, and are more likely to achieve desired
levels.
Case Study of Efforts to Remove Dissolved Mercury from Wastewater Effluent
Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) in Duluth, Minnesota, has maintained a
mercury source reduction program or PMP since the early 1990s. WLSSD reported
achieving average effluent mercury concentrations in the range 1 to 5 ppt during 2010 with
total mercury levels at times below 1.3 ppt (WLSSD 2011). Reductions achieved through
WLSSD’s PMP appear to impact particulate mercury levels; WLSSD reported that dissolved
mercury content represents the majority of total mercury concentrations and remains
problematic (WLSSD 2011). To further reduce effluent mercury concentrations, WLSSD
conducted pilot tests of reactive filtration and ultrafiltration treatment technologies in 2010
and 2011, respectively. Neither technology was able to consistently capture dissolved
mercury to achieve the 1.3 ppt limit (B. Ballavance, personal communication 2012). Results
of the pilot tests underscore the variability of mercury treatment technologies and the
significance of the fraction of dissolved mercury and other characteristics of the wastewater
stream in designing systems to achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. Removing
dissolved mercury remains a challenge for WLSSD.

April 10, 2012 Draft 24 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
When a PMP is not effective, the main types of mercury treatment technologies currently
available for achieving effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt are filtration, adsorption, and
precipitation/co-precipitation. Bioremediation processes, including constructed treatment
wetland systems and microbial bioreactors, have achieved high levels of mercury removal but
have not demonstrated effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt. Likewise, ion exchange and
chelating resins have not been demonstrated to achieve mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
Preliminary bench-scale testing of electro-deionization suggested that the technique could meet
the 1.3 ppt limit. However, the technology was several years from commercial viability
(Purdue 2010).
Of the three main mercury treatment technologies, filtration primarily removes particulate
mercury associated with solids, while precipitation/co-precipitation and adsorption technologies
remove dissolved phase mercury. The findings of this investigation suggest that a combination
of technologies is required to capture both particulate and dissolved forms of mercury to achieve
effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
Comparisons of filtration and adsorption technology costs are presented in Figures 8 and 9. Cost
data were collected primarily from pilot tests and the literature. Limited vendor data was
supplied. Costs obtained for chemical treatment systems were insufficient to compare with the
costs of filtration and adsorption technologies. Figures 8 and 9 compare the capital and annual
O&M costs, respectively, for filtration and adsorption technologies for facility flow sizes less
than 80 MGD.
For smaller facility sizes, estimated capital costs for filtration remain lower than adsorption
system costs. However, for sufficiently large flow sizes (beginning at approximately 40 MGD),
filtration systems experience exponentially higher cost-scaling to meet the same treatment
standard. This is reinforced by the literature’s description of the physical limitations of the
technology and the increasing rate at which filters must be added for higher flow rate facilities to
achieve effluent mercury levels below 1.3 ppt.
The cost estimates presented in Figures 8 and 9 are not weighted to reflect the relative risks of
operating treatment systems outside the conditions under which the original data were collected.
In addition, the cost estimates contain a degree of uncertainty that is depicted by the shaded areas
(95% confidence interval) around the trend lines in Figures 1 through 6. The areas of uncertainty
in adsorption and filtration costs overlap across much of the estimated cost trend for lower
facility flow sizes, indicating that actual costs may be significantly higher or lower than the
predicted trend line. Actual costs and removal effectiveness will vary by facility depending on
influent levels of mercury, the fraction of dissolved mercury and suspended solids in influent and
effluent, and other characteristics of the wastewater being treated. The costs estimated in
Figures 8 and 9 should be considered approximate values for the flow ranges provided.
Additional costs may be incurred prior to purchase and installation for pilot testing to assess the
effectiveness of a particular technology at a treatment plant.


April 10, 2012 Draft 25 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

Figure 8. Comparison of estimated capital costs for filtration and adsorption
systems in millions of dollars, by facility flow size
Figure 9. Comparison of estimated annual O&M costs for filtration and adsorption
systems in millions of dollars, by facility flow size

April 10, 2012 Draft 26 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Another way to compare the cost effectiveness of mercury treatment systems is to calculate the
cost per gallon of wastewater treated for each system observation and to summarize the
distribution of unit costs by system type. To assess this metric, capital investment costs for a
treatment system are annuitized across a finite system lifetime. A conservative estimate of
system lifetime of 20 years of active use was assumed for each observation, with a 7% discount
rate using standard costing analysis methodology (USEPA 1992). The annuitized yearly capital
cost was added to annual O&M expenditures to calculate a total yearly cost of system
implementation, which was then compared to the number of gallons treated per year. Table 4
summarizes the results of this calculation.
Table 4. Mean yearly cost per gallon of wastewater treated by adsorption and
filtration systems over a 20-year lifetime, across all facility flow sizes (0 to
80 MGD)
Technology Type
Mean Cost per Gallon
per Year
Standard Deviation
Filtration $0.026 0.077
Adsorption $0.018 0.042
Across the entire range of treatment system data for all facility sizes with available cost data,
adsorption technologies display the lowest cost per gallon of treatment. This is primarily due to
the increasing costs of filtration systems at high flow sizes. For smaller facilities, the cost per
gallon treated by filtration would likely be lower than the cost per gallon treated by adsorption.
5.0 References
Agarwal, H., Sharma, D., Sindhu, S.K., Tyagi, S., Ikram, S. 2010. Removal of mercury from
wastewater use of green adsorbents - a review. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural
and Food Chemistry 2010, 9, (9), 1551-1558.

Argonne National Laboratory. 2011. Emerging Technologies and Approaches to Minimize
Discharges into Lake Michigan. Phase 2, Module 3 Report. ANL-11/13. Available at
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_Systems/Research/process_technology/PDFs/ANL_11-
13_Final.pdf.

Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA). 2002. Mercury Source Control &
Pollution Prevention Program Evaluation. Prepared by Larry Walker and Associates.

Ballavance, B., MPCA. Email communication to N. Sadoff, Battelle. February 2012.

Bhatnagar, A., Vilar, V.J.P., Botelho, C.M.S., Boaventura, R.A.R. 2010. Coconut-based
biosorbents for water treatment - A review of the recent literature. Advances in Colloid and
Interface Science, 160, (1-2), 1-15.

Cardno Entrix 2012. Constructed Treatment Wetlands. Available at
http://www.cardnoentrix.com/liability/constructed_treatment.


April 10, 2012 Draft 27 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
CMS Land. 2011. Fall 2011 Update. Available at
http://www.protectingourbay.com/Uploadedfiles/Protecting_Our_Bay/Newsletter/LTB%20Upda
te%2010-2011.pdf.

Cyr, P.J., Suri, R.P.S., Helmig, E.D. 2002. Water Research, 36: 4725-4734.

Dean, J.D. and R.P. Mason. 2009. Estimation of Mercury Bioaccumulation Potential from
Wastewater Treatment Plants in Receiving Waters: Phase I Final Report. Water Environment
Federation (WERF) 05-WEM-1CO.

Dzairi, F.Z., Zeroual, Y., Moutaouakkil, A., Taoufik, J., Talbi, M., Loutfi, M., Lee, K., Blaghen,
M. 2004. Bacterial volatilization of mercury by immobilized bacteria in fixed and fluidized bed
bioreactors. Annals of Microbiology, 54, (4), 353-364.

Farooq, U., Kozinski, J.A., Khan, M.A., Athar, M. 2010. Biosorption of heavy metal ions using
wheat based biosorbents - A review of the recent literature. Bioresource Technology, 101, (14),
5043-5053.

Feng, X., Liu, J., Fryxell, G.E., Gong, M., Wang, L.Q., Chen, X., Kurath, D., Ghormley, C.S.,
Klasson, K.T., Kemner, K.M. 1997. Self-Assembled Mercaptan on Mesoporous Silica
(SAMMS) Technology for Mercury Removal and Stabilization. PNNL-11691, September 1997.

Huber, K. 1997. Wisconsin Mercury Sourcebook: A Guide to Help Your Community Identify &
Reduce Releases of Elemental Mercury. Available at
http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/04/03851/waste.pdf.

Laws, R.E., Byers, E., Dopatka, J., Mardini, R., McCarthy, J. 2008. Duke Energy Carolinas’
WFGD Retrofit Program: Operation at Marshall and Belews Creek Stations. Presented at
MEGA Symposium 2008, Baltimore, MD.

MAR Systems product literature. Available at http://www.marsystemsinc.com/site.cfm/Case-
Studies.cfm. Accessed February 2012.

Mininni, R. and D. Graham. 2010. Report on the Pilot Plant Operations of the Captur Process:
Captur–CMS Land Contract: Bay Harbor Project. Available at
http://www.littletraversebayrsg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1

Miretzky, P. and A.F. Cirelli. 2009. Hg(II) removal from water by chitosan and chitosan
derivatives: A review. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 167, (1-3), 10-23.

Mooney, F.D. and C. Murray-Gulde. 2008. Constructed treatment wetlands for flue gas
desulfurization waters: Full-scale design, construction issues, and performance. Environmental
Geosciences, v. 15, no. 3 (September 2008), pp. 131–141.

MWRA/MASCO (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority/Medical Academic and Scientific
Community Organization, Inc.) Mercury Work Group, Phase II, End-of-Pipe Subcommittee.

April 10, 2012 Draft 28 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
1997. Pretreatment Guidance Manual, Chapter 6 Wastewater Characterization. Available at
http://www.masco.org/system/files/downloads/programs/phase_ii_pretreatment_guidance_manu
al_11632.pdf.

National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC). 1997. Tech Brief: Ion Exchange and
Demineralization. Available at http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm.

Nelson, E.A. and J.B Gladden. 2008. Full-scale treatment wetlands for metal removal from
industrial wastewater. Enviro. Geosciences, v. 15, no. 1, pp. 39-48.

NYDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2012. Subpart 374-4:
Standards for the Management of Elemental Mercury and Dental Amalgam Wastes at Dental
Facilities. Available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4377.html.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 2010. Technology Evaluation for Waterborne Mercury
Removal at the Y-12 National Security Complex. December 2010.

Ohio EPA. 1997. Assessing the Economic Impacts of the Proposed Ohio EPA Water Rules on
the Ohio Economy. Prepared by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface
Water; Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation; and DRI/McGraw-Hill. April 24, 1997.

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory). 2008. Thiol-SAMMS™ information. Available
at http://samms.pnnl.gov/forms/thiol.stm.

Purdue University Calumet Water Institute. 2012. Community Briefing: Emerging Technologies
and Approaches to Minimize Discharges into Lake Michigan. March 20, 2012. Available at
http://webs.purduecal.edu/pwi/files/2012/03/community-briefing-final-031912.pdf.

Purdue University Calumet Water Institute. 2010. Emerging Technologies and Approaches to
Minimize Heavy Metal Discharges into Lake Michigan. Available at
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/emergtech/Purdue%20Phase%202%20Module%203%20Report%
20May%202011.pdf.

Sedlack, D.L., Bedsworth, W.W., Jenkins, D., Kang, S.J., Murin, J. 2000. Assessing Methods of
Removing Metals from Wastewater: A Review of Data and Methodologies. Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF) Project 97-CTS-4.

Selective Adsorption Associates, Inc. 2012. Product data: Mersorb® LW.

Soffel, B., Selective Adsorption Associates. Email communication to J. Simkins, Battelle,
February 22, 2012.

Sol-gel Solutions, LLC. 2007. Product literature: Technology for Removing Mercury from
Water to 1 - 10 ppt. Available at http://www.sol-gel-solutions.com/.


April 10, 2012 Draft 29 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
TetraTech. 2002. Technology Evaluation for the Big Spring Water Treatment System at the Y-12
National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management, BJC/OR-1239.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Consumer Price Index. Available at
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Treatment Technologies for
Mercury in Soil, Waste, and Water. Available at http://clu-in.org/542R07003.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development.
1997. Capsule Report: Aqueous Mercury Treatment. July 1997, EPA/625/R97/004.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1995. 60 FR 15366. Final Water
Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes Systems.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory. 1979. Estimating Water Treatment Costs. Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to
200 mgd Treatment Plants.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). 1992. Circular A-94: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of
Federal Programs. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094.

Von Canstein, H., Kelly, S., Li, Y., Wagner-Döbler, I. 2002. Species diversity improves the
efficiency of mercury-reducing biofilms under changing environmental conditions. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 68, (6), 2829-2837.

Von Canstein, H., Li, Y., Leonhauser, J., Haase, E., Felske, A., Deckwer, W.D., Wagner-Döbler,
I. 2002. Spatially oscillating activity and microbial succession of mercury-reducing biofilms in a
technical-scale bioremediation system. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68, (4), 1938-
1946.

Wagner-Döbler. 2003. Pilot plant for bioremediation of mercury-containing industrial
wastewater. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 62:124-133.

Wagner-Döbler, I., Von Canstein, H., Li, Y., Timmis, K.N., Deckwer, W-D. 2000. Removal of
Mercury from Chemical Wastewater by Microorganisms in Technical Scale. Environ. Sci.
Technol., 34, 4628-4634.

Walcarius, A. and C. Delacôte. 2005. Mercury(II) binding to thiol-functionalized mesoporous
silicas: critical effect of pH and sorbent properties on capacity and selectivity. Anal. Chim. Acta
547, 3–13.


April 10, 2012 Draft 30 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Wan Ngah, W.S. and M.A.K.M. Hanafiah. 2008. Removal of heavy metal ions from wastewater
by chemically modified plant wastes as adsorbents: A review. Bioresource Technology, 99, (10),
3935-3948.

WLSSD (Western Lake Superior Sanitary District). 2011. Mercury Pollutant Minimization Plan
NPDES/SDS Permit MN0049786, Updated for Year 2010.

WLSSD (Western Lake Superior Sanitary District). 2002. Blueprint for Mercury Elimination:
Mercury Reduction Project Guidance for Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available at
http://www.wlssd.com/WLSSD_Blueprint_Mercury_Reduction.pdf.pdf.

Wisconsin Adopted Mercury Rule Order, § 2 NR 106.145(7). Laws of Wisconsin. 2002.

Wisconsin Dental Association (WDA). 2012. Amalgam regulations: Statewide mandate or not?
Available at http://www.wda.org.

Yan, R., Yang, F., Wu, Y., Hu, Z., Nath, B., Yang, L., Fang, Y. 2011. Cadmium and mercury
removal from non-point source wastewater by a hybrid bioreactor. Bioresource Technology, 102,
(21), 9927-9932.


April 10, 2012 Draft A-1 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX A. RESOURCES AND KEYWORDS
USED IN LITERATURE SEARCH
Table A1. Resources Included in the Literature Search
Resource Description
SciVerse Scopus/Science
Direct® (Elsevier)
http://www.hub.sciverse.com/a
ction/home/proceed
Multidisciplinary abstract and citation database
providing access to:
18,500 peer-reviewed journals (including 1,800 Open
Access journals).
425 trade publications.
325 book series.
250 conference proceedings
Millions of .edu, .org, .com, and .gov websites
Web of Knowledge/Web of
Science® (Thomson Reuters)
http://www.isiwebofknowledge.
com/
Multidisciplinary abstract and citation database
providing access to:
23,000 high impact journals
23 million patents from 40 patent-issuing authorities
110,000 conference proceedings
9,000 quality websites
256 scientific disciplines
Google/Google Advanced and
Google Scholar
http://www.google.com
Web-based searches across diverse resources;
includes journal articles (Google Scholar), as well as
broad universe of professional societies/consortia,
online repositories, universities, state/local government
agencies, trade organizations.
Argonne National Laboratory
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_
Systems/Research/process_te
chnology/

Research on advanced wastewater treatment,
including emerging technologies for minimizing
mercury pollutant discharges to Lake Michigan
(website and report bibliography review)
http://www.es.anl.gov/Energy_Systems/Research/proc
ess_technology/PDFs/ANL_11-13_Final.pdf
Purdue University, Calumet
Water Institute
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/e
mergtech/

Research on advanced wastewater treatment,
including evaluation of technologies for the removal of
mercury and vanadium from refinery wastewater
(website and report bibliography review)
http://www.purduecal.edu/pwi/emergtech/Purdue%20P
hase%202%20Module%203%20Report%20May%202
011.pdf
Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District
http://www.wlssd.com/pollution
_mercury_prevention.php
Mercury pollution prevention information, including
WWTP mercury minimization plan
Water Environment
Federation/Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF)
www.werf.org
Independent scientific research organization dedicated
to wastewater and stormwater issues


April 10, 2012 Draft A-2 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Table A2. Keywords Used in Literature Search
Key Search Terms
Mercury, Hg
Wastewater, effluent, discharge
Treatment/removal/reduction technology
Pollutant minimization plan
Source reduction
Technology-Related Search Terms
Ion exchange
Reverse osmosis
Biological treatment
Chemical precipitation/co-precipitation/reduction/flocculation
Adsorption
Membrane filtration, extraction
Treatment efficacy
Target Industry Terms
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)/Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Coal fired power plant (CFPP)
Oil refinery/producer
Pulp and paper
Metal fabrication/metal finishing/steel
Rubber fabrication
Chemical industry, chloralkali
Other Miscellaneous Search Terms
Cost (installation, operation, maintenance), economics, operational lifetime
Particulate, dissolved Hg

Screening Criteria for Literature Search Results
The search strategy identified several thousand potential articles related to technologies for
mercury removal from wastewater. To meet the objectives of this study, references that provided
specific information on the following parameters were targeted for further review.
Cost of technologies or approaches for the removal, reduction, or treatment of
mercury in wastewater from an industry or facility type of primary interest (see third
bullet below).
Efficacy of technologies or approaches for the removal, reduction, or treatment of
mercury in wastewater from an industry or facility type of primary interest.
Industries or facility types of primary interest were defined as: Wastewater treatment
plants (WWTP)/publically owned treatment works (POTW), coal fired power plants
(CFPP), oil refineries/producers, pulp and paper, metal fabrication/metal
finishing/steel, rubber fabrication, the chemical industry, and other industrial facilities
that release mercury in their wastewater. Large-volume facilities generating
wastewater in the million gallons per day (MGD) range were also considered to be of
highest relevance.

April 10, 2012 Draft A-3 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
Due to the extensive body of research in the literature on mercury treatment, removal, and
reduction technologies for wastewater applications in general, literature results were prioritized
for relevance and inclusion in the final project report according to the following categories and
criteria:
1. Studies or reports that described costs and efficacy of technologies or approaches for
treatment of mercury in wastewater at the pilot scale or as fully-implemented
treatment systems were considered “Key Studies” (of highest relevance) for
inclusion in the final project report, cost analysis, especially studies that contained
information on installation, operation, and maintenance costs.
2. Studies or reports that described efficacy only of technologies or approaches for
mercury removal from wastewater at the pilot scale or as applied to an existing
facility’s effluents/wastewater were considered “Relevant Studies” (of intermediate
relevance).
3. Studies or reports that described theoretical efficacy of research-phase or bench scale
technologies for mercury removal from synthetic aqueous media were considered
“Supporting Studies” (of low relevance); these low relevance technologies were not
included in any cost or efficacy summaries.
4. Studies not meeting the criteria for any of the priority categories above were
considered “Not Relevant” for the purposes of this project.
Overview of Literature Search Results
The search strategy initially identified approximately 4,630 articles, reports, and other documents
related to technologies for mercury removal from wastewater. Approximately 2,830 results were
determined to be duplicates from across the two citation indexes. The remaining references were
screened according to the relevance criteria previously described, and approximately 1,210
results did not meet the minimum criteria for relevance to this project. The remaining 590
references were screened as shown in Table A3.
Table A3. Overview of Literature Search Results
Priority Designation Number of References in Category
Key Reference (includes cost information) 35
Relevant Reference (efficacy data only) 200
Supporting Reference (research phase) 355
Total 590
The results of the literature search included both peer-reviewed and gray literature. The peer-
reviewed literature included primary studies with original data and review studies. The gray
literature included industry reports, workshop or conference reports, pollutant minimization
plans (e.g., from local sanitary districts), wastewater management planning documents,
technology vendor documentation, and key government research reports.

April 10, 2012 Draft B-1 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS USED
IN DATA COLLECTION
Battelle is developing a report for the US Environmental Protection Agency that will evaluate
mercury treatment technologies to determine the level of mercury removal that is currently
achievable and affordable for a large group of dischargers, and whether new technologies exist to
remove mercury from wastewater. We are looking for the costs of existing and new technologies
and information on the effectiveness of available mercury treatment technologies. When it is
finished, the report will update a 1997 report that has been used as a basis for granting variances
from the Great Lakes mercury water quality standard for protection of wildlife of 1.3 nanograms
per liter (ng/L).
The data that you provide will remain confidential and will be aggregated in the report. Please
answer the following questions to the best of your ability. If you have data for more than one
type of technology, please fill out a separate copy of this document OR enter your answers into
the accompanying spreadsheet with a row for each type of treatment technology.

1. What type of mercury treatment technology is being used?


2. Who is the vendor of the technology?


3. Does the technology treat mercury in the particulate or dissolved form?


4. What is the maximum system capacity of the technology in place? (in terms of MGD (millions of
gallons per day))


5. What is the average system usage of the technology in place? (in terms of MGD)


6. When was the system installed? Or approximate number of years in operation?


7. What is the expected system operational lifetime (in years)?


8. What level of mercury does the technology achieve (effluent concentrations)?


9. What is the average treatment efficacy of the technology system? [How effectively does the
technology reduce influent levels of mercury?] Or, what are influent levels of mercury?



April 10, 2012 Draft B-2 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

10. Does the facility have any kind of advanced filtration step to remove phosphorus?


11. What was the mercury treatment system’s acquisition, or capital, cost? Did this include
installation? If not, what was the installation cost?


12. What are the operation costs for materials? Labor? Energy? (on an annual basis, if possible)


13. What are the system maintenance costs (on an annual basis)?


14. Does the system generate waste? [If no, skip to Q19.] If yes, how much disposable waste is
generated (kilograms per year)?


15. Is this waste treated as hazardous?


16. What are the waste disposal costs (per year, per gallon or per kg)?


17. Does the facility have a pollutant minimization program in place? [If no, skip to the end.]


18. Do you have any information on the effectiveness of the pollutant minimization program in
removing mercury from wastewater effluent?


19. What is effect of the pollutant minimization program on the average treatment efficacy of the
mercury treatment technology, if any? Is the efficacy of the technology measured independently
of any upstream reductions in mercury levels?


20. What are the pollutant minimization program’s costs? Labor? Materials?



Lastly, could you provide contact information or the names and locations of facilities that are
currently using mercury treatment technologies? We might need to contact individual facilities
to obtain cost information and mercury levels being achieved.
Thank you very much for your time. Your assistance on this project is very much appreciated.

April 10, 2012 Draft C-1 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote
APPENDIX C. ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR 0-20 MGD
FACILITY FLOW SIZES
To provide better clarity of estimated costs for facilities in the 0-20 MGD range, the following
graphs are presented on a lower resolution scale.


Figure C-1. Estimated average capital costs of adsorption systems in millions of
dollars, by facility flow size (MGD)



April 10, 2012 Draft C-2 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote

Figure C-2. Annual O&M costs for adsorption systems by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation

Figure C-3. Estimated average capital costs of filtration systems in millions of dollars,
by facility flow size (MGD)

April 10, 2012 Draft C-3 DRAFT – Do not cite or quote


Figure C-4. Annual O&M costs for filtration technologies by facility flow size (MGD) in
millions of dollars per calendar year of operation


BP WHITING REFINERY
COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE
DOCUMENTATION
Prepared For
BP Whiting Business Unit
BP Products North America Inc.
2815 Indianapolis Blvd.
Whiting, Indiana 46394
Prepared By
 
TETRA TECH
1 S. Wacker Drive, 37th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
August 2012
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
INTRODUCTION
As part of the NPDES permit renewal process, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) is evaluating the BP Whiting Refinery cooling water intake structure (CWIS) for compliance
with the Clean Water Act Section 316(b) rule. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requires the permit issuing authority to conduct a best professional judgment (BPJ) evaluation of the
CWlS to establish that the CWlS is equivalent to the best technology available (BTA). Therefore, IDEM
is requesting that the BP Whiting Business Unit provide a description of the CWlS that includes the
average velocity of the inflow through the intake screens, as well as engineering drawings of the CWlS.
The following sections present the CWlS configuration, water station description, and average through-
screen velocity.
CWIS CONFIGURATION AND DRAWINGS
General
Lake Michigan is the water source for both water stations. At the present time, there are two water
intakes located approximately 1,330 and 1,440 feet offshore, about 300 feet apart. Buoys are strategically
placed over each intake and painted in accordance with Coast Guard specifications to protect both water
intakes from Lake Michigan water craft. This protects the intakes during the shipping season (April to
November). During the winter season (December to March) they are changed out with alternate buoys.
Although grating exists on the intake system to exclude large debris, no intake screen system exists.
One water intake supplies water to the 1911 tunnel; the other intake supplies water to the 1942 tunnel.
These tunnels are tied together near the water stations, so that both tunnels serve both water stations (see
Figure 1 of the Appendix). Although each water station can be isolated for maintenance, the current
configuration does not allow either tunneVintake to be isolated. The tunnels terminate in the suction well
located below the floor of each station. All pumps in each station take suction from the station well.
1911 Tunnel and Intake
In 1911 a brick tunnel was constructed into the lake and connected to the "old" pumping station.
The inside dimensions of the brick tunnel are 5 feet 0 inches wide by 5 feet 6 inches high; while
the wall thickness data is not known. See Figure 4 in the Appendix for a typical cross section.
The length of this tunnel is 2,400 feet from the lake intake to the land shaft located adjacent to the
tunnel flush tank. (A land shaft is used during the construction of a tunnel.) The invert of this
tunnel is approximately 60 feet below the lake water level. See Figure 2 of the Appendix for
details on the tunnel profile. A suction well was connected to the land shaft to provide suction for
the pumps in the "old" water station (this station has been replace during construction of the No.
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
1 Water Station and 1929 Flume). This tunnel is still in operation and is connected to the tunnel
constructed in 1942 and to the two water stations as shown in Figure 1 of the Appendix.
Details of the water intake structure to the 1911 tunnel are not as clear. A recent diving
inspection provided the details shown in Figure 4 of the Appendix. The intake was originally
designed with what appear to be three arms capped with cylindrical screens which fed into a
central pipe 8 feet 4 inches in diameter. Over time, modifications have been made to maintain the
intake structure in operable condition, but much ofthe original structure remains intact. One of
the screened arms is no longer present and the central pipe is now an open pipe receiving vertical
water flow. This intake provides a small proportion of the total design intake flow and is located
approximately 1,330 feet offshore.
1929 Flume
The No.1 Water Station was constructed in 1929. A reinforced concrete tunnel, sometimes
called a "flume", also was constructed to connect the land shaft of the 1911 tunnel with the
suction well of the No.1 Water Station. The inside dimensions of this rectangular flume are 10
feet 0 inches wide by 11 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this flume is approximately 27 feet
below the lake water level. There is a gate well and a sluice gate (manual or electric motor
operated) inside No.1 Water Station to block off the water supply for necessary repairs inside the
suction well of No. 1 Water Station. This will not bypass the 1911 intake as flow will continue to
No.2 Water Station.
1942 Tunnel and Intake
The No.2 Water Station was constructed in 1942. Also constructed at this time was a second tunnel into
the lake. The length of this tunnel is 2530 feet from its water intake to the 10 feet 0 inch inner diameter
reinforced concrete land shaft located northwest of No. 1 Water Station. The inside dimensions of the
"egg shaped" tunnel connecting the water intake to the land shaft are 6 feet 8 inches wide by 7 feet 5
inches high (see Figure 3 of the Appendix). The invert of this tunnel is 60 feet below the lake water level.
See Figure 2 of the Appendix for tunnel profile details.
The reinforced concrete rectangular tunnel constructed between the land shaft and the flume to No, 1
Water Station has internal dimensions of 8 feet 0 inches wide by 9 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this
tunnel is approximately 26 feet below the lake water level. A gate well (but no sluice gate) is located in
this tunnel section.
2
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
The reinforced rectangular tunnel constructed between the land shaft and the suction well in No.2 Water
Station is 7 feet 0 inches wide by 7 feet 0 inches high. The invert of this tunnel is approximately 26 feet
below the lake water level. There is a gate well and a manually operated sluice gate to block off this
tunnel for necessary repairs inside the suction well of No. 2 Water Station. This gate has a gearbox for
easier operation, and it is located outside and northwest of No. 1 Water Station close to the land shaft.
Details of the water intake structure to the 1942 tunnel are shown in Figure 3 of the Appendix. The 10
feet 0 inch inner diameter inlet shaft is reinforced concrete construction. The intake structure is welded
steel construction, except for yellow pine wood slats which are bolted to the structure to keep out large
debris. The intake structure has an internal steel framework that is not shown in the sketch and has a
velocity cap which directs inlet water towards a more horizontal angle. In the early 1980s, a frazzle ice
and biological fouling prevention system was put in place. Hot water and chlorine solution are pumped
out to manifolds running the circumference of the intake in order to reduce ice and biological growth.
This intake provides the majority of the total design intake flow and is located approximately 1,440 feet
offshore.
WATER STATION DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Water Station Nos. 1 and 2 receive water via both intake tunnels to a wet well located under each water
station. All pumps in each station take suction from the station well. No.1 Water Station houses five
pumps (including one smaller firewater pump) with a design capacity of 117.8 million gallons per day
(MGD). One pump was removed, but equipment is still in place for it to be re-installed to satisfy future
needs. No.2 Water Station houses four pumps with a design capacity of 146.3 MGD. A recent upgrade
to the firewater system included a new pump house for three firewater pumps with a design capacity of
17.3 MGD. This pump house's suction well is tied into the land shaft. The four fIrewater pumps in No.1
Water Station and the new firewater pump house operate on demand and are not often in use. The
capacity of all three pump houses combined is 281.4 MGD
Pumps are generally operated by maintaining a pressure of approximately 34 to 35 psig in the main
header and the number and combination of pumps turned on at a given time depends on refmery water
demand. Therefore, the actual flow at individual pumps or water stations is variable. Flow meters are
located at the Lakefront Waste Water Treatment Plant to measure discharge to the lake. Water intake
values are, therefore, back-calculated, incorporating losses incurred within the refmery. The calculated
total average intake flow from 2009 to 2011 was 91.9 MGD. A theoretical analysis of intake tunnel
volumes and frictional impacts estimated that 67 percent of the total water intake flows through the 1942
3
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
tunnel and 33 percent through the 1911 tunnel. Estimated flows for the 1942 and 1911 tunnels based on
this percentage split are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
AVERAGE ACTUAL INTAKE FLOW FROM 2009-2011
Time Period
Intake 1942 Flow Intake 1911 Flow Combined Flow
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
2009 67.4 33.1 100.5
2010 61.8 30.3 92.1
2011 55.9 27.4 83.3
2009-2011 (Average) 61.7 30.3 92.0
A VERAGE THROUGH-SCREEN VELOCITY
Average through-screen velocity was measured on November 13,2009, during a routine intake
inspection. Divers used a hand-held velocity meter and positioned it along the intake plane at specified
locations, orienting the meter until the greatest velocity at each location was observed. Fifteen locations
were measured at the 1942 intake and one measurement was taken at the 1911 intake. Figure 5 of the
Appendix, indicates the locations of each velocity observation for both intakes and the corresponding
values. Average intake flow on November 13 was calculated at approximately 85 MGD. During the
period when the diver was taking velocity measurements, pumps were operated at 35 psig to simulate
high refinery water demand and increased intake water velocities. The average velocity observed at the
1942 intake was 0.26 feet per second (fps) with a maximum velocity of 0.35 fps. The single velocity
measurement for the 1911 intake was made at the center of the intake pipe and had a value of 0.56 fps.
This location is likely the maximum velocity of the intake pipe velocity field and the average velocity
would therefore be less than this value.
4
BP Whiting Refinery Cooling Water Intake Structure Documentation
APPENDIX
TUNNEL AND INTAKE FIGURES
FIGURE 1 CWIS PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 2 CWIS PROFILE VIEW
FIGURE 3 1942 TUNNEL AND WATER INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
FIGURE 4 1911 TUNNEL AND WATER INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
FIGURE 5 VELOCITY MEASUREMENT
i LAND sHAFT
r
r---r--
~ . .     . , .
... '<W'7/R
b
nON
n
Q.
CONNECTKl N
()
1911 TUNNEL PROFILE
INTERMEDIATE SHAFT
SLUICE OATE '"'\..
/ LAND SHAFT
1--"
",rww;pr:r·, 1J4.-1i#QC01!.,
I ~ : I \
1
rAlION
ION
1I
I
1942 TUNNEL PROFILE
lAKE MICHIGAN
II
~
~
II
bp
10 20
! I
SCALE IN rEEf
10 20
! !
SCAI.E IN FEET
TETRA TECH EM INC
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER
INTAKE STRUCTURE
FIGURE
CWIS PROFILE VIEW
2
loU! JO BZ &'23121)12
"
I             I ~ 6'''' - - -I
.... !
1942 INTAKE TUNNEL
CROSS SECTION
"
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL STEEL
FRAMEOORK
tSTEELIl.
REINFORCEMENT
CONCRETE
INLET SHAFT
1942 INLET STRUCTURE
~
I------- 10'-0" I.e
1942 INLET STRUCTURE
SIDE VIEW
t STEEL PLATE
lAKE&onow.
bpi
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER
INTAKE STRUCTURE
1942 TUNNEL AND WATER
INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
M6 JG az
FIGURE
3
0I2J/2012
OLD4"PIPE
INTO BOnOM
INTAKE ARM -"
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
000000 0
0000000
0000000
100000000
0000000
0000000
0000000
1911 INLET STRUCTURE
PLAN VIEW
6" FLANGE AROUND TOP.
Z'THICK
OlD4"PIPE
,.
1911 INTAKE TUNNEL
CROSS SECTION
FLOW
1
1911 INLET STRUCTURE
SIDE VIEW
- ---
BRICK ruNNEL
  --1
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
0000000000000000
10000000000000000
000000000000
CYLINDERWrrH
HOLES ON
ALL SIDES

bp   WATER FIGURE
O
1911 TUNNEL AND WATER 4
INTAKE SHAFT DETAILS
Me  
%" STEEL PLATE
VELOCITY
MEASUREMENT
LOCATION
(TYP.)
INLET STRUCTURE ON
1942 WATER INTAKE SHAFT
PLAN VIEW
VELOCITY ZONE (V-1)
A 0.32 fps
8 0.34 fps
C 0.25 fps
D 0.19 fps
E 0.31 fps
VELOCITY ZONE (V-2)
A 0.33 fps
B 0.14 fps
C 0.28 fps
D 0.18 fps
E 0.19 fps
VELOCITY ZONE (V-3)
A 0.23 fos
B 0.30 fos
C 0.19 fps
D 0.35 fps
E 0.27 fps
o
o
INLET STRUCTURE ON
1911 WATER INTAKE SHAFT
PLAN VIEW
b
I
WHITING REFINERY COOLING WATER I FIGURE
P INTAKE STRUCTURE
VELOCITY 5
MEASUREMENT
a=f2.
Attachment #2
Commentor’s CWIS Review Calculation Sheet
1911 CWIS
Diameter of open intake end is 8.33 feet (Applicant submittal, figure 4)
Area of open circular intake of 1911 intake =pi*r*r
= 3.1416 * 4.17 * 4.17
= 55 square feet
1911 CWIS intake facial plane normal velocity from diver measurement =0.56 ft / sec
Volumetric rate of flux of flow through 1911 intake facial plain =
=(55 sq ft) * (0.56 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=19.9 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1911 intake flow volume.
1942 CWIS Intake area
Through geometric calculations on measurements taken from drawings in Applicant’s CWIS
documentation, Commentors determine that Applicant’s 1942 CWIS intake consists of eight
identical trapezoidal shaped area elements with the dimensions shown in area A in the attached
drawing.
Area of Area A of trapezoid =50.2 sq ft
Area of Area B from circular arc is estimated through calculating direct vertical view projection
area of arc = 10 sq feet
Total area of one of eight identical intake facial plane elements = 60 sq feet
Total area of all 1942 CWIS facial intake inlet facial plane elements = 480 sq feet
1942 CWIS intake facial plane normal velocity from diver measurement =
= 0.26 ft/sec (average); or 0.35 ft/sec (maximum); or 0.14 ft/sec (minimum)
Approximation of volumetric rate of flux of flow
through total area of 1942 intake facial plain under average
facial plane normal velocity of 0.26 ft/sec =
=(480 sq ft) * (0.26 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=80.7 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1942 intake flow volume
(Calculated at average normal facial velocity)
Approximation of volumetric rate of flux of flow
through total area of 1942 intake facial plain under maximum diver-measured
facial plane normal velocity of 0.35 ft/sec =
=(480 sq ft) * (0.35 ft/sec) * (3600 sec/hr) * (24 hr/day) * (7.48 gal/cub ft) * (MG/1E+06 Gal)
=109 MGD for November 13, 2009 Applicant Operations - 1942 intake flow volume
(Calculated at maximum detected normal to facial plane velocity)
I ~ - 'i, 'J -' ---'»I
I
I
~ \
I
b, .1'>-.1
\
I ~ /-;).2       ~
\
.
,
'--
....
Michigan
Inlake
--
T ",."
Attachment 3. Water Flow Diagram
BP Products North America Inc. " Whiting Reflnery
(Flows In Million Gallona per Day)
City of Whiting J
I WCE I
I
Ptliqjr
Hammond
' .36
TO.
74
TO .•
~ '0 . ...
BPWhiting
Refine
·
·
Once.ThfOugh Cooling
·
108.4"
I
O ~   z   •• 100.65'
Water (Olew) Exehangef$
·
~
j"'
Procell Units
·
U '.65
·
·
0
" .00
0
0
3.' 0
•. ,
11.16
r····· .. ··
7.' 0
0 0

0.4 0.33
Losses
INEOS PIS
Chemical Plant
Water 1.8
0 0
~
'---l
(
OtiIf.U E
0 0
0
orcw
~ -
0
Tr.atmenl 0.33
----- ' .-
+- ,
002 86.2 0 Seoll'ltar 0 Boile,.
0
0
0
0
0
0 . __ .. .. ........ ,
0
0
0
0
- : ; 0
0 0
:
0
Sleam Condensate
1
7
.
45 0 0
0.'
0 0
o 0
Ev. potIJlion
'- .. _ .. --- ----' , -- --_. -- ......... ~
0
0
C,"ONng 0
•••
·· .. ·---- T
r .....
Flfewaler
. _ ... ... -
0
"
2,45
Outfall E
(
19.9
Wastewlter 0 -
Treatment Plant OOS
I 1.97
Outfall' 1.120
Siormwater I
Ballast Watlr 0.'
003&004'
Nela: ~ given as maximum monlh1y avefilge (pre-WRMP)
"Future ProjeCllo indude additlona' stormwallr collldian and routing from tank dikes In
ITF, Stalg1itz part, STF, STFA, I nd Marina Ooc;k locations to outfa!1s 003 Ind 00..
See A1tlchment10. Outfall 003 and 004 flow based on pre' Projet1 rele858 data.
LIIIIM
••••• • un. available, but not normally used.
I..
;:;----1
Emergency
I Iklrage
0
0.7
.
.. --- . - - - - . - - - - - - - - - ~
Off-Rle
2.2
Facilities
(WCEJPraxalr4.PG
- -
CavornlTermlnal)
--
"'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'2.52
R • ."" .... "
0
0
Groundwater
0
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
0
Canal . -_ .
Inlel
0.'
Sanitary
Wastewater
.-
,
ADVENT
ENVIRON
CASE-BY-CASE
ANTIDEGRADA TlON
ANALYSIS
Prepared for
d
BP
Whiting Indiana
Prepared by
ADVENT-ENVIRON
201 Summit View Drive, Suite 300
Brentwood, TN 37027
November 2005
TABLE 10, BP WHmNG LAKEFRONTWWTP CXHO NITROGEN EVALUATlON
Typical Relinefy CODIBOD"
AFU Effluent COD ..
estimated AFU Eft BODa
Effluent to L.a1I.e BOD:
BOD Removal"
BOD RelnO¥ttd=
lbs N Jibs BOO Req'd for Bloa:
800 Removed"
Nitrogen Req'd for BIO'"
Mitch 200e SWS bottoms NHl-Na:
MlIdI200S SWS bortolnl low-
MIlCh 2008 SWS bott4mI NH3-N-
May 2008 SWS bOlOms NH3-H-
MIJ20G6 SWS
May 200e SWS boaoms NH3-N-
Avg SWS BoUomsNH).Nor
7 Sep emu.nt Nitrogen"
NfU.#4 frOIfI oller ro&.Iy pI'I)ClHMP
Nitrogen loading"
Nitnlgen Req'd ror BIo:
Available N for NitrifIcation=
NKrogen In Ef'ftulnt to Lake"
I
Percent NltriflcaUonIl
Nitrogen Nlb'lft.ct"
lb. Oxygen pet Ib 80Da
Oxygen Req'd fw 8la"
Oxygen Req'd for Nitrification ..
Oxygen Req'd for Nitrification:
Tolat Oxygen Requllttd:
Alkalinity Req'd for Nitrif'icaUon"
Alkalinity Req'd for Nltriflcallon:o
Nitrogen NlWl6d-
Effluent Nitrate-Nltrogen=
Elffuent to Lake=
I.S
26,887 IbsId
17,825 1bsId
255 _
99%
17,888 Ibsld
O.05lbs
17,689 lWeI
883 .....
32 mgIl
700 ;pm
289 lbaid
2' mgIl
7S0gpm
228 .....
248 IbIId
1.868 IbSld
1,420 lbald
1,688 lblh:l
883' ....
784 IbsId
78 Ibsld
....
709 !blld
1.2 IbIIb
21,203 IbsId
4.57 Ibs 0zIfb
3,240 IbaId
24,443 /blld
7.14 Iblllb
6,082 Ibsnct
709 (bald
70lillblld
16.2 mgd
PoItCXHO
Typical Refinef)' COOIBOD=
2003-2005AFU Emusnt COO=o
Expected COO Increase wICXHO"
Eatimlted AFU Eft" CODa:
Estimated AFU Eft' BOD=
2OQ3.2005 SOD Removala:
Estimated EJfIuanllo Lake
Estimated BOD RefnO'ftd"
Ibs N Ilbs 800 Req'd for Blo-
Eltlmaktd BOD R.moved"
Nltttlgen Req'd Bloa:
NHrN from oth8f raflnary proces ... =
SWS botroma NHrN-
SVVS bottoms ftowo
SWS bottmns NHrNII
EstImated NH3-N loading-
E81Imated Nitrogen Loadlngo
Niltogen Req'd for
AV.IlRIe N for NilltftcaUono
2(1)3.2005 Perc&nt NltriftcaUorP
Estimated Nitrogen In Efftuent 10 take-
Nitrogen Nhrlfl&d"
Ibs Oxygen per lb BOO=
Oxygen R&q'd for Blo:
Oxy .... Req'd for NI1riIcaIJona
Oxygen Req'd fot NitrificaUone:
Total OXygen Required'"
Alkalinity   for NitrificeUon-
AlkaJlnlty Req'd for NlltfftcaUon-
Nitrogen Nitrllied ..
Effluent Nitrate-Nitrogen'"
Effluent to take=
1 .•
26,887 IbsJd
42%
38,169 Ibaht
25,448 Ibaht
....
362 IbsId
25,0&4 IbsId
O.05lbs
25,084 IbsId
1,254 IbIId
1,420 !bsld
30 mgll
2,500 gpm
........
2,320 IbsId
2,320 IbsId
1,254 IbSId
1,068 ' 1bI/d
90% , ....
103 !bald
993 _
1.2 Jbnb
30,100 IbsId
4.57 bs o,tIb
4,401 Iblid
34,501 IbaId
7.14 !blAb
8,878 IbaM
963 Ibald
983 'bold
21.4
I
T .... LE 11, 8P WHmNG L.AKEFRONTWWTP CXHO NITROGEM IYALUAnoN (MOOIFlED WITH 2ODt· 2002 MAX MONTHLV "'VERAGE
2001·acl20,.,.U_ PostCXHO
Typal Rellnely coomoo- 1.S TypICal RellneryCODlBOo- U
AFU EfDutnt COO· 2.8.117 IbsId 2001·2002 AFU EIIIuent COO- 28.1'7 IbSld
EsUmIIed AFU Elf BOO- 17.m IbIId Expected COO IncruM wlCXH()co
.. "
EftIuIrd 10 L.aktI BOD· 710 .... IEItlmaIecI NU EI coo- 38.189 !bald
800 ......... .... EsUmetH NU Elf BOD- 25,448 IbsId
BOD RIft'IO'IId8 17.135 Ibtld 2001·2002 BOO RemaVllt- ....
EsUmeced emuenllo LeJle BOO- 1,121.,1Id
ElIImIted BOO RIttnowda 24,325 Iblld
Ibl N IlbI BOO Req'd fOt 810- 0.051bt lb. N lib. BOD Req'd lor 110- 0.051bs
BOD Rel'l'lOVed- 17,135 IbIId EtUrnated BOD ~ ~ 24,325 Ibtht
NIIt." Req'1:I 101 BIOa 8571bofd NIttOQan Req'd tot BrOD 1.216 IbSid
M11U12OOI SWS ~ NH).fI-
,,-
NHyN fn::Im olhw ,.I\nery ptOC8I .... 1.420
""" MIfdI2COt sv.s o ~ fttMoo 700 ....
MardI 2001 sws bottoIN NteN- 28 ..... SWS boHoml NH.I·Na 3Q
-
SWS ....... _
.........
tMr 20CI SWS .... NH,....
.. -
SWS botIoms NH"N'" 900 .....
Mar 2001 SWS lICIOfI'II flow:>: 700 ....
Mar 200t SWS boIomI NH,<H_
.. 0_
Eslimeled HHs-N IoedIng- 2.320 IbIId
Awe IWS eoaomsHH$-H- 241 D»sId
7 s.p Efluant NIttOgen- 1.688 IbtId
MO.H !MIn 0!Mr "a.y ,_ 1,420 lbald
NlltOgenl.oadlqJ- t,l588 IbIId Eatlmated NlUogen lOIdlng. 2.320 Iblld
Nltrogtn Req'd for Bl0- W .... NlItogen Req'd for Db- 1.216 Iblld
Available N ttt Nltrl1IcatlGn:o "1 IbIId AvlDlbfe H fot Nllrlticatlon- 1. 104 Iblld
NltrOgtn In Elluent 10 LIJcI- 502 Ib111S 301.2002 Percent NUrlIIClIJon:o 38% Iblid
Percent NlttttIcIIIons
,.,.
E. Utnaled NIIrOgen In Elnuint 10 L.akP 6131blld
Nitrogen NMIed- 3QO ,-
NUrogtn Nllllfiecp: 421 !!IlId
Iba Oxygen 1* Ib BOD- 1.2 IbIIb Ibi Oxygen per Ib BOO .. t.2 IbIIb
Oxygen Rtq'd for RIo- 20,562 IbSId OxyQtn Rtq'd for BIoa Zi,1iO IbIId
Oxygen Req'd rot NI&rIlcaIIona 4.57 Ibi O,IRI Oxygen Req'd for NllttftClllon2 4.57 IbI 0",
Oxygen Req'd lot N1triIIcI1Iono> 1,413 IbsId Oxygen Req'd fot NltrlftclVon- 1,11'22 IbIId
ToIII 0rivM "_"
2U75 D»IId TOUI ~ RequlrecI - 31,112 !bald
MIDnIIy Req'd lot NIIriIcItIon- 7.14 IbIIIb AIIIIrtlIy Rtq'd for NIlrilcalJona 7.141bsM1
AIkIQtIhy Req'd fot NltrtllctUon- 2.207 IbIIId AlklII\IIy Req'd tor Nllrillcatlon- 3,003 ItISIId
................ 301 ltIlId NItrOg .... HItrffI8cI- 421 [blld
e ....... Nltral.-Nltmgen-
300' ....
Eflhlent Nhret.NJtrogeft" 421 IbsId
EDltnt to Lllle-
1 ~ ~ ... -
2 1   ~ :::.
TABLE 12. BP WffT1NO CXHO NITROOEN EVAl.UAnON (MODIAED Wmt 2OO,-2QOZ LONG TERM AVERAGE)
r
       
PostCXHO
Typical R.nnery CODIBOo- U Typlcal ReflNlry CODJBOD- •. s
AFU Elftuent COOD 26.811 IbtId 2001·2002 AFU Eftluanl COO::: 28,187 IbtId
Est/matad AFU Elf BOOa 17.925 IbIId Expected COD lncr8ase wICXH()oo
.. "
EIJIIltIIt to LaIut BOOzo 489 IbsId EsUmBled AFU Elf CODa 38,189 IbsId
BOD RemovaJa
.,%
Ellfrnated AFU Err BOO= 25,448 IbsId
SOD Removed<> 17,438 1bsId 2001·2002 BOD Re/TlOYila
9'"
E5tIntlltd Etnuent to Lake BOt):> ........
EItImaItd BOO Removad" 24,152 Iblld.
Ib, N J Ibs BOD Req"d for Bios O.05lbs Ibt N Ilbs BOO Req'd for BiQa. O.OS Ibs
BOO Removed- 17,431 IbSld EatIrnated BOD Removed::: 24,752 IbsId
Nilrogltn Req'd for BIoD 872lbsld Nltmgltn Req'd for Bb<>" 1,231 IbsId
I
MarcfI 2OC8 SWS botIomi NJQ.H. 32 mgll NHrN from oIhtf' refinef)' processes.a 1,420 IbsId
YaId\ 2O(If SWS bottoms Bow- 1COopm
Mardl2C08 SWS boIomt NH).Noo zao llIaid SW5 boCtoms MirNa 30 mgll
SWS boIkImI ftO'oP 1,SOOgpm
May:lgQl SWS boUom. NH3·N .. 24 m;ll.. SWS bottoms NHrN= ... m ...
May 20M SWS bcIttoIM ftowII 710gpm
MI)' 2006 SWS boIIorN NH3-N-
.,8 ""'"
Estlm.ted HH,-N loading'" 2,320 IbsId
Ayg SWS BoUomaHH).Hoo 2481blld
7 Sep Effiu8nt Nltrogeft8' USII IbsId
1,420 lb11d
Nltrogon Loactng= 1,888 IbSid E.tlmated Nltrugen Lm/nr 2.320 lbs1d
NItOgen Rtq'd for 8foa: 8721bsht NillO"e" Req'd for Bio= 1,238 lbsld
AvaDable N for Nl\rif"lCaIlon- 198m ... Available N for N1\ItflcaIiotP 1,0&2 Ibsfd
In Effluent to t..ke=: 117 Ibald 2001.2002 Percent Nltrfftcatlonu .. ,,-
Percent Nltriflcallonll
.'"
eatlmlled N!Zrog.n In em"nt to La. 1S$lbaId
Nl!rogen Ni1lffiad- e79lbald Nnl'Opln Nltrtfled .. 923 lbsfd
IbI Oxyglft per lb 800 .. 12 IbI1b IbI Oxypn p.r tb BOD= 1.2 IbIIl)
Oxypn Req'd for 8Joa 2O,92l1ba1d OxygIIn Req'd rot BIo<> 29,r02 lbald
Oxygen Raq'd rOt NitrificatIon- 4.57 ll)'Oi\lt Oxygen Req'd kit NltrtftcatlorF ".57 lbIo,Ab
Oxygen Rectd fot Nitrification .. 3,104 IbaId Ox)'gen Roq'd ror NlIrUlcatlona ",2t9 lbald
Total Oxygen Requinld. 2",02$ Ibald Tota1 Oxyglln RequJreda 33,921 !bald
AlkalInIty Req'd for NitrilcatJona AIkafInIy Req'd fw Nltrtnc:atlon=> 7.1" (bsII)
AlUllrtlty Req'd fer NltrtfiQUon= 4,&49 Iblild MalIni)' Req'd ror NHcatlon .. 1S,591 Q)aftj
NittO;tn NUri'Jed" 819lbs1d NitrtJg9n Nltrified=
on ""'.
EfIlu.nl Nltrale-Hlttogon- 1S71l11tts1d Effluent NI1rale-NJtrogetP 923 .....
EmuuI I
Eftluont
10 uk, ..

ElfluInl ,emu.nt Lakea

..."'"
. .,...
,
Addendum to ·Cas&-by-Caae AntidegradaUon Anatyll.- Prepared for SP WhIUng, Indiana,
  to IDEM November 30, 2005
EVALUA TlON OF AMMONIAoN MASS DISCHARGE AFTER REFINERY RECONFIGURATION
AND USE OF CXHO
The evaluallon has been conducted using:
• monitoring data on BP Whiting Refinery Lakefront wastewater operations to define
ammonia removal efficiency
• InfOfTlUlIion from EPA
1
• InformatJon on BP \NhIung, BP Toledo, and BP Cheny Point Refinery sour water atrfpper
performance
• information on Canadian heavy crudel.
J
To avoid overstating ammonia effluent concentrallonl. evaluation. of technology-based
discharge limits and VWIfP performance ata balld on long tenn averages and monthly
average., not mmdmum or minimum valulI,
WWTP Ammonl, Ramova'
The LakeflOnl WWTP Is nol .pec;r1C8lly dHlgned 10 dograde (nitrify) ammonia. h_
conditfons do exist in the aeration tank that Blow the growth of nltrine,. and the man of these
nftrifters has been effective In degrading ammonia." The removal effictancy und for thfl Anti-Oeg
Analysis has been devetcped 8. follow.' :
• Innuent: 1.668 ibid Long· Tenn Average (2003--2005 operational dala)
• lnnuenl: Assume that the 2003·2005 Innuent man Is equIvalent to 2001·2002 Innuent
.
• Effluent: 502 ibid Maximum Monlhly Averaga (2001-2002 OMR)
·Ammonia Removal Elliclency (RE) '" = (1,668-S02) 11658 ' 70% (a. on 'average')
Post-CXHO Ammonl. Mu.
Add,lon" Coking. Hvdtplru.llna. Alkylalb!) [mP8d on affluent ammon" Inc!'88l' baled gn EPA
InfonnaUon. .
The current monthly average ammonia diSeharge limit Is 1,030 ibid, which was developed for the
refinery In 1974 and catrled I_ani 10 !he cu"",,1 ponnlt. The ELG limit or 2,9711bslday crable 2
of Anti-Oeg Analysis) for ammonia Is based on the existing refinery configuration at 420.600
bblsld, prIo'lo the CXHO roconIiguratlon. The ELG 11m" being raqunled (0, CXHO configurallon
is 3.358Ibslday (based on 420.000 bblsld) 81 summarized on Table 8 of Analysis. This
Ifmi Is beJow the Water QuaUty Based Etauant limits (WQBEl.) for  
The 3,358 Iblday limit fot ammonia Is determined from the posl-CXHO raconfigufBlion aruf
prooall unit feedtales (n per Best Available Technology established In 40 CFR 419). As
described In the AnU-Oeg Analysis. since uUllzaUon of CXHO wm result In InCt885ed coker
production. Increased hydrolreatlng. and Increased akylatlon. the amu.nt mo. discharge of
ammonia Is expected to be Increased according to EPA ELGa fot "bear refiD8ly conltOl
lechnology.
1 DeYelopment Document for P8ltdeum Refining ELGt
2I'1t1p:llpubs.usgs.govIfslfs070-031fs070.03.hImI
, Aa ncMd In the Anti-Oeg AnaJylit, due to lnctaased "-qUincy of recyde 01 the emue"t prior to Outfal 001
In 2003 to 2005, efluent data from 2001 to 2002.re UNd.
ADVENT -ENVIRON:BP Whiting AnJl.{leg 1 12·Doc.Q8
'-
Addendum to -Case-by-CsH AnUdegradatlon Anal)'ll.- Prepared for BP \Nhltlng, Indiana,
submitted to IDEM November 30, 2008
Using the EPA assessment of refinart.. employing Best AvaHable Treatment technology,
increasing aude proceulng and doubling cracklng and cckIng capacity should result In a 226
percent Increase In effluent ammonia mau from currently pennltted levela .
. The request to Increase ammonia UmllS to CXHO ELG levels (I.e., 3,358 Ibid monthly average
ammonla) Is also neeeasary given that crude alai, Nlltogen (N) lavals will change using Canadlan
crudes. Th' CXHO crude slate Is expeded to contain 4.5 times more N than the exlltlng crude
slale. Thla percent Increase Is determined from the nitrogen content of bitumen and the nitrogen
content of West Texas Inlennedlate (WTI) crude. Throughout our CXHO Investigation process,
BP, ADVENT-ENVIRON, and othera have used W11as the -C8tch-alr for the current crude slate.
The aU properties database from Envitonment canada's Environmental Technology Centre
reports WTI nitrogen content at 0.08 percent (800 ppm)·. Information from the OJ Sanda
OisGovory Can"" presents tho nillogon conlent 0' bilumon 0\ 0.36 percenl (3,800 ppm), a 350
pertent Inerun (or 4.5 Umes).'
The buk of the N will end up as ammo" In lOur waler. The primary functJon of the sour water'
system Is to remove/recover hydrogen sulfide. Since the I)'Stem Is not speefficaJly designed to
remove I recover ammonia, It is anticipated tl\at the ammonia In the stripped sour water will
increase al a result of the change In etude slate from existing configuration 10 CXHO
configuration. However, exact percent InCf8818S are not known. There are no data avsQabla on
whal porcanllnore ... could bo antlclpaled due to a cllango In crude etato, For IhI' analysis.
ADVENT·ENVIRON has assumed a lOur water stripper boUoms ammonla...,ttrogen concentration
of 80 mgIL' Using currently configured lourwaterttripperl with a flow of 750 gpm at 30 mgILl
ammonla-N end 0 posl-CXHO flow projodod \0 be 2500 gpm 0\ 80 mg/l. on Inc ..... of2,131.7
Jbld ammonla-N in process wasl8waler II anticipated due to the qua&ty of the CXHO CIUde slate.
ArJmooia=N Influan! Mass Calcylatlon
projected InOuant based on change In reflnary configuration, which la calculated based on the
lakefronl Long-Term Average Influent adJuatad for EPA ELG for BAT Monthly Average Percent
IDettaSe:
1,668 Ibid • 226% Increase:l 5.437.7 Ibid ammonla·N
Additionallnnuent Ammonla-N based on CXHO crude slate:
2.131.7 Ibid ammonl.N
Projected post..cXHO Influent Ammonla·N (basad on refinery conflQuration + change In crude
$/a1O wilh CXHO)
6437.7 ibid + 2131 .7 Ibid = 7,689.4 Ibid
• Environmenr.J T.chnology CenIN (www.'k1nIn!.otpId.,.bas.s.tIA'pmp8t'UesMel.ult" spxJ. on PrcperUes
Database. West TeQllnttmledlate. Envlmrvnent ClMdt. 2001.
'8Itumtn F.ct ShHt, 011 Sands Discowry Centre, AIbert8, canadl.
I Sow water atrtpplng performance relative to ammonia valle • .,. function of capacity (e.g .. .. am.
temperature) Ind pH (e.g .• poJnl of addition of cauadc:). B •• ed on Ihe lourWllbtreonflguration for the BP
refinelte • • 8l'TlmOfI48 content ceo vary tom 10 moIL to 80 mgIl.. Baed on ADVENT·ENVlRON operfeoce
with .lmlIlr sour water ttrlppar opareUona, ammonJa.N c:en vaty from 30mgll. to 100 mgIl..
1 CUmtnt 1'8&nerv SWS !lows and ammonl.N levela presented In Tibia 10 of Anti-Deg An.tylil.
ADVENT·ENVIRON:BP WhllJng AnII.Qog 2 12-0ec-OO
Addendum to -Case-by.case AntidegradaUon Analysis- Prepared for BP WhIUng, Indiana,
submitted to IDEM November 3D, 2008
Post-CXHO Prcioded effluent Mass
• Pro}ected Influent =: 7.569.4 ibid
• Removal Efficiency :t:I 70% (as an 8V8lBg8)
}> Emuent Mess = 2,270.8 Ibid  
Historically. SP has operated tho Lakefront VI/tNrP to achieve an effluent quality for BOO, COO,
pheno1iCI, on & greale. and ammonia that is between 10 percent to 40 percent of monthly
8V8I'8gB discharge limits. Only TSS haa been maf1BgBd with a margin of safety, with an
effluent quality between 60 to 80 percent of monthly average dIscharge limits. The projected
post-CXHO ammonla of 2,271 ibId is 88 percent oflhe monthly average BAT discharge IImll
Lak.front WWTP Optlons to Attain Current Ammon II'" Olachlrga Limits
Technically ¥fable trea\mant to further reduce ammonla-N to achieve 1,030 Ibid monthly average
discharge for petroJeum refinery wastewaters Is through conversion of the existing blo1oglcal
treatment to a nltrificatlon - denitriflCatlon activated sludge ptanL Baaed on AOVENT·ENVlRON'a
iniUal design calculations, two additional 1.14 MG tanks would have to be conatructed at tha
l.akeffont WWTP (or the anoxic portion of tha nkrificatlon - denitrification SYltem. WIth a 30'
helght. eaen of Ihese tanks would reqube approximately 5,000 ft3i of area per lank. as wen as
space for additional piping, pump., and aquipmenl O.e .• estimated total 12,000 aq ft). The BP
lakefronl WWTP does not have the avaUabla spate to accommodate thU8 additional tanka. and
placement of these tanka separate of the WNTP woukf mutt In extensive piping, pumps, and
process InefficiencJes making this option extl8mety expensive, if not. Infeasible. As land lpac819
not available at the Lakefront. ills not appropriate to develop capital and operatIons co.ls.
ADVENT·ENVlRON:BP Whltlng AnlJ.lleg 3 12·000-00
Attachment #6