Document ZyJjvY0gpzY6bzG77QkGnkVJ

North American Refining June 29, 1983 (conoco) Conoco Inc. P.0. Box 37 Westlake, LA 70669 1318) 491-5211 CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Mark Satterwhite Permits Branch (6W-PS) U. S. EPA Region VI 1201 Elm Street, Interfirst Two Building Dallas, TX 75270 Dear Mr. Satterwhite: Comments on Draft Permit No. LA0003026 Conoco Inc. (Conoco) appreciates the opportunity to review and offer comments on the subject draft NPDES permit which we have received for our Lake Charles refinery. Conoco respectfully urges that EPA amend the proposed permit limitation for biochemical oxygen demand (5-day) (BODc) and ammonia as N (ammonia) in a manner consistent with the statements made herein which are consistent with the permit approved, by Louisiana Environmental Control Commission (ECC). Conoco undertook extensive capital investment to expand the Lake Charles refinery, planning on a consistent permitting policy which would increase effluent limitations with throughput. As part of the expansion, the waste water treatment system is being revised to provide compliance with Best Available Technology (BAT) limitations as calculated for the expanded refinery from the 1982 Petroleum Point Source Guidelines. The refinery recently received a State wastewater discharge permit reflecting the major expansion of refinery capacity. The comments outlined below are the changes requested to make the EPA proposed permit consistent with the approved Louisiana State Permit: I. WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR B0D5 and AMMONIA II. STORMWATER TOC CONCENTRATIONS III. DISCHARGE POINTS IV. NUMBER OF OUTFALLS MCD 0002220 V. DEFINITION OF OUTFALLS ` - Mr. Mark Satterwhite Page 2 June 29, 1983 Our principal concern is with respect to the proposed permit limits for Outfall 001 regarding the parameters for BOD,- and ammonia. The proposed permit limits for these parameters are evidently based on the 1974 Calcasieu River Waste Load Allocation Report (1974 Report), whereas all other values are based on the EPA Petroleum Refining Point Source Category Guidelines (Refining Guidelines) dated October 18, 1982. I. WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR BODg AND AMMONIA We earnestly request that the proposed permit limit for Outfall 001 respecting BODr and ammonia be changed to represent the 1982 Refining Guidelines. We feel there are a number of pressing practical, technical, economic and legal reasons for justifying such a change. The reasons are: 1. The 1974 Report is an unrepresentative model of the Calcasieu River and should not be used to set waste water limitations. The refinery cannot accept B0D5 and ammonia levels based on the 1974 Calcasieu River Waste Load Allocation Report. The 1974 report is acknowledged by both State and local industry as being unrepresentative of a real world year-round model of the Calcasieu River. As such, it should not be used to set waste water limits. Several permits and modifications of permits have been granted by the State and the EPA with levels above those that the study recommends. Using the study now is inconsistent with past practices. Realizing the shortcomings of the 1974 study, both the state and local industry recommended launching another project to develop a more representative waste load allocation for the Calcasieu River. This study is due by the end of the year. We propose, as does the State, utilizing BAT guidelines for effluent limits until this new study is fully analyzed and new limits accepted by both the State and industry. MCD 000002221 The purpose of the national Refining Guidelines was to place all refineries on approximately the same economic basis. It is most inequitable for EPA now to disrupt this economic parity by ignoring the State of Louisiana's judgment in this matter. 2. EPA should propose permit values for BODr and ammonia consistent with those of. the State of Louisiana. Conoco has received from the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Louisiana a final permit for the Lake Charles refinery and the parameters -for BODg and ammonia are based Mr. Mark Satterwhite Page 3 June 29, 1983 upon the 1982 Refining Guidelines. Under 122.62 (d) (1) and (2) of the Consolidated Permit Regulations (CPRs) an NPDES permit may include more stringent limits than the Refining Guidelines if based upon State water quality standards. The State of Louisiana has deemed it appropriate to insert limits for BODg and ammonia based upon the 1982 Refining Guidelines rather than the 1974 Report. We submit that the function of specifying conditions based upon State water quality standards is in the sole province of the State. The State of Louisiana is the sole arbiter as to its water quality standards. Accordingly, we vigorously urge that EPA follow the lead of the State. We feel it is highly irregular for EPA not to accept the State's judgment as the status of its own water quality standards. 3. Conoco cannot technically meet the proposed permit values for BODg and ammonia. It is not technically feasible based on our calculations for the refinery to meet a 459 pound per day B0D5 limitation with the present treatment system including the new dissolved air flotation unit. The refinery's effluent had a 95% probable BODg of 765 pounds per day for 18 months of data through December of 1982. We project that the Heavy Sour Crude expansion will produce a 95% probable effluent of up to 1,300 pounds per day BODg after installation of the new flotation unit. 0 It would take a minimum of 2i to 3 years to pilot test, design, and construct additional treatment equipment to meet the EPA proposed limit for BODg. An extensive source and treatment study would have to be made before the refinery could reliably evaluate the effect of the expansion on the ammonia discharge. 4. Material and substantial changes in the Lake Charles refinery warrant "backsliding". While the proposed EPA NPDES permit does not so indicate, it may be that the Agency is reluctant to change values for BODg and ammonia because of the provisions against "backsliding" 5 encompassed in 122.62 (1). This section states in substance that effluent limitations shown in a previously issued permit must be imposed in a subsequent permit unless: "...the circumstances on which the previous permit was based are materially and substantially changed since the time the permit was issued and would constitute cause for permit modification." (-Emphasis added) mcd 000002222 Mr. Mark Satterwhite Page 4 June 29, 1983 The fact sheet alludes to the fact that after September 1, 1983, the Lake Charles refinery will have increased the vacuum distillation capacity by 70% and the delayed coking capacity by 250%. In addition after July 1, 1984, the thermal cracking capacity will be increased by 70%. These modifications clearly constitute the "material and substantial changes" contemplated by the regulations. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement reached between EPA and numerous petitioners in the CPR litigation (NRDC v. EPA, No. 80-1607, D. C. Cir. filed June 2, 1980), PA proposed certain rules appearing in the November 18, 1982, Federal Register. One of the agreed upon provisions was the so-called rtanti-backsliding" provision contained in 122.62 (1). EPA proposed to eliminate this anti-backsliding policy in the situation where final effluent limitation guidelines are subsequently promulgated which are less stringent than those imposed in the previous permit. EPA suggested that the proposed changes would help to: "...avoid widespread challenges to second round permits, a situation which could force the Agency to divert resources from permit issuance proceedings to evidentiary hearings and further legal challenges." Conoco wishes to stress that in view of the proposed modifications, we cannot meet the presently proposed limits with respect to BOD,- and ammonia and the Agency's position will force Conoco to request an evidentiary hearing. The intent of these proposed rules was to "make the regulations more flexible and less burdensome for all permittees." In abandoning its "anti-backsliding" policy, EPA stressed that: "...in the application of nationally promulgated effluent limitations guidelines permittees should be given equal treatment, so that companies who have made good faith efforts to comply with previously imposed permit limitations will not be penalized nor placed at a disadvantage with respect to companies operating under subsequently issued, less stringent limitations. II. STORMWATER TOC CONCENTRATIONS We request that all stormwater outfalls (003, 004, and tank dikes) have a maximum TOC concentration of 50 mg/1. Data collected by the refinery over the past several years put the 50 mg/1 level in the 95% confidence range. This was demonstrated to and accepted by the State. Any lower level would create an unnecessary amount of TOC excursions. ^000^3 Mr. Mark Satterwhite Page 5 June 29, 1983 III. DISCHARGE POINTS On both the public notice and the fact sheet, it is stated that "The discharge from this existing facility is made into Bayou Verdine and Calcasieu River...". This should be rewritten to include Westlake Drainage Ditch. Outfall 003, the stormwater outfall for the east tank farm, discharges into this ditch. IV. NUMBER OF OUTFALLS 1. Comments from the State concerning stormwater run-off resulted in establishing a new outfall 004. This outfall will be at the west end of a railroad ditch that runs through the south part of the refinery. It will discharge into Bayou Verdine. Being a stormwater outfall, we request that the following ECC approved limits apply: -TOC - 50 mg/1 -Oil & Grease - 15 mg/1 -pH - 6-9 standard units. The stream will be sampled once a day when flowing, and flow rate will be estimated (same as 003). 2. The State is now requesting that all rainwater drained from tank dikes be analyzed and reported. The water will not be discharged unless it meets the stormwater limits stated above. The tank dikes that are regulated in this way are outlined in Attachment 1. MCD 000002224 V. DEFINITION OF OUTFALLS Outfall 001 - This is the refinery's main process water outfall. As shown on the application, there are many waste feed components and many forms of treatment. This outfall flows 24 hours per day and should be continuously monitored. Outfall 002 - By the fourth quarter of 1983, we plan to have installed and operating a new stormwater diversion pond. New pumps and a holding pond will decrease the frequency the firepond overflows. Only during a storm of maximum intensity will there be flow from 002. We still wish to treat 002 as a contaminated stormwater outfall as does the State. We request that permit limitations for 002 be included with those for 001 as a total limit. This is the current manner of hand-ling discharges from 002, and Mr. Mark Satterwhite Page 6 June 29, 1983 should be continued. Only after the new stormwater system is installed and tested will a permit modification to change this status be requested. Outfall 003 - This is an intermittently flowing stormwater outfal1. Through it flows water from certain tank dikes in the east tank farm. Outfall 004 - Monitoring of this flow into the west railroad ditch was requested by the State. Several tank dikes drain to this ditch, and there is some stormwater run-off from the process area entering the ditch. We would appreciate a response soon on these matters as the new units are due to start up shortly. A copy of the State Permit is attached. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jim Myers. His phone number is (318)491-5083. MES:kp Attachment cc: J. Dale Givens - DNR bcc: (DFM/PWL) JM (WJW/MRC) MES AJN K. C. Hunt, Lew Cresswell - Ponca Clyde Hampton - Denver File: 78.01 MCD 000002225 ATTACHMENT I STORM WATER DISCHARGES The refinery discharges storm water from 24 points around the plant (see Figure 1). Discharges to Old Spanish Trail (West to Bayou Verdine via Faubacher Ditch) Tanks 66, 67, 90, 91 T-194 T-193 T-71, 72, 73, 199, 201, 202, 354, 355 Discharges to Faubacher Ditch (South to Bayou Verdine) T-2001 T-2002 T-2003, 2005 - - T-2004 Discharges to South RR Ditch (Westward to Bayou Verdine) T-74 T-75 T-76 T-100 T-101 T-102 -- SPCC and emergency blowdown Discharges to South RR Ditch (Eastward to Calcasieu River) T-347 T-346 T-345 T-344, 342, 340 T-338 T-297 T-308 T-299 MCD 000002226 Discharges to North RR Ditch (Eastward to Calcasieu River) T343, 351, 370 ;