FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0002232 LAFARGE NORTH ...

FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0002232 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.

January 1, 2011

PURPOSE of this Fact Sheet This fact sheet explains and documents the decisions the Department of Ecology (Ecology) made in drafting the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Lafarge North America, Inc. Seattle facility (Lafarge). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the NPDES permitting program as a tool to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” EPA delegated to Ecology the power and duty to write, issue, and enforce NPDES permits within Washington State. Both state and federal laws require any industrial facility to obtain a permit before discharging waste or chemicals to a water body. An NPDES permit limits the types and amounts of pollutants the facility may discharge. Those limits are based either on (1) the pollution control or wastewater treatment technology available to the industry, or on (2) the receiving water’s customary beneficial uses. This fact sheet complies with Section 173-220-060 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), which requires Ecology to prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet for public evaluation before issuing an NPDES permit. PUBLIC ROLE in the Permit Ecology makes the draft permit and fact sheet available for public review and comment at least thirty (30) days before issuing the final permit to the facility operator (WAC 173-220-050). Copies of the fact sheet and draft permit for Lafarge, NPDES permit WA0002232, were available for public review and comment from October 14, 2010, until the close of business November 15, 2010. For more details on preparing and filing comments about these documents, please see Appendix A - Public Involvement Information. Before publishing the draft NPDES permit and fact sheet, Lafarge reviewed it for factual accuracy. Ecology corrected any errors or omissions about the facility’s location, product type or production rate, discharges or receiving water, or its history. After the public comment period closes, Ecology will summarize substantive comments and our responses to them. Ecology will include our summary and responses to comments to this fact sheet as Appendix D - Response to Comments, and publish it when issuing the final NPDES permit. Ecology will not revise the rest of the fact sheet, but the full document will become part of the legal history contained in the facility’s permit file. Ed Abbasi, Lafarge’s NPDES permit manager at Ecology’s Northwest Regional Office, prepared the permit and this fact sheet.

FACT SHEET FOR NPDES WA0002232 of 44 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.

SUMMARY

Lafarge operates a cement manufacturing plant that discharges treated stormwater to the Duwamish East Waterway. Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on June 30, 2006. The recent economic downturn has resulted in lower production needs and periods of plant shutdown when production is not required (PNR). Consequently, Lafarge has not been able to store and consume the historic stormwater volumes in the cement production process, which the previous permit was based on. As a result, Lafarge installed a new electrocoagulation (EC) stormwater treatment system in late 2009 to provide stormwater treatment when needed and as related to the more frequent plant shutdowns.

Ecology issued an Agreed Order, a First Amendment to Agreed Order, and a Follow-Up Order related to a June 2009 notice of violation. These orders required Lafarge to complete an engineering report to determine appropriate long-term stormwater storage and treatment needs. This report was completed and submitted to Ecology.

The previous permit required general compliance with the Water Quality Criteria 173-201A WAC and narrative criteria rather than numeric effluent limits. The proposed permit maintains similar limits for turbidity, oil and grease, and pH, and will set water quality-based effluent limits for other pollutants once adequate sampling information indicates reasonable potential to violate water quality criteria.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................5

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................................6 A. Facility Description ..................................................................................................9

Water Supply and Management…………………………………………............. 10 Stormwater Drainage……………………………………………………………. 10 History....................................................................................................................11 Industrial Process………………………………………………………………... 12 Stormwater Treatment………………………………………………………….. 13 Stormwater Monitoring and Reporting…………………………………………. 13 Permit Status ..........................................................................................................14 Summary of Compliance With Previous Permit Issued June 30, 2006 .................14 Stormwater Characterization……………………………………………………. 15 Description of the Receiving Water .......................................................................15 SEPA Compliance .................................................................................................16

III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS ..............................................................................16 A. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................17 B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits ........................................................................17 C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits .......................................................17

Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Recreation ..................18 Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health ........................................18 Narrative Criteria ...................................................................................................18 Antidegradation ......................................................................................................18 Mixing Zones .........................................................................................................19

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria ............................................20 E. Evaluation of Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits for Numeric

Criteria ...................................................................................................................22 F. Human Health ........................................................................................................23 G. Sediment Quality ...................................................................................................23 H. Ground Water Quality Limits ................................................................................24

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................24 A. Lab Accreditation ...................................................................................................24

V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS .....................................................................................25 A. Reporting and Record Keeping ..............................................................................25 B. Non-Routine and Unanticipated Discharges ..........................................................25 C. Spill Plan ................................................................................................................25 D. Solid Waste Control Plan .......................................................................................25 E. Treatment System Operating Plan .........................................................................25 F. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ...................................................................26

Best Management Practices (BMPs) .....................................................................26 Ecology-Approved Stormwater Management Manuals .........................................26 Operational Source Control BMPs ........................................................................27


Structural Source Control BMPs ...........................................................................27 Treatment BMPs ....................................................................................................27 Volume/Flow Control BMPs .................................................................................28

G. General Conditions ................................................................................................28

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES .............................................................................28 A. Permit Modifications .............................................................................................28 B. Proposed Permit Issuance ......................................................................................28

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES............................................................28

APPENDIX A—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION...................................................30

APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................31

APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS ......................................................................35

APPENDIX D—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..........................................................................36


I. INTRODUCTION

The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later amendments in 1977, 1981, and 1987) established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United States. One mechanism for achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), administered by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA authorized the state of Washington to manage the NPDES permit program in our state. Our state legislature accepted the delegation and assigned the power and duty for conducting NPDES permitting and enforcement to Ecology. The legislature defined Ecology's authority and obligations for the wastewater discharge permit program in 90.48 RCW (Revised Code of Washington).

Ecology adopted rules describing how it exercises its authority:

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

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

• Sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC)

• Submission of Plans and Reports for Construction of Wastewater Facilities (Chapter 173-240 WAC)

These rules require any industrial facility operator to obtain an NPDES permit before discharging wastewater or stormwater associated with industrial activities to state waters. They also help define the basis for limits on each discharge and for performance requirements imposed by the permit.

Under the NPDES permit program and in response to a complete and accepted permit application, Ecology must prepare a draft permit and accompanying fact sheet, and make them available for public review before final issuance. Ecology must also publish an announcement (public notice) telling people where they can read the draft permit, and where to send their comments, during a period of thirty (30) days (WAC 173-220-050) (See Appendix A – Public Involvement Information for more detail about the public notice and comment procedures). After the public comment period ends, Ecology may make changes to the draft NPDES permit in response to comments. Ecology will summarize the responses to comments and any changes to the permit in Appendix D. This fact sheet is based on the previous permit and the most current facility SWPPP dated June 15, 2010, and Engineering Report dated June 15, 2010.


II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Table 1. General Facility Information

Applicant Lafarge North America, Inc. Facility Name and Address Lafarge North America, Inc.

5400 W. Marginal Way SW Seattle, WA 98106

Type of Facility Cement Manufacturing SIC Code 3241 Discharge Location Waterbody Name: Duwamish River

Outfall 008 Latitude: 47º 33' 08" N Longitude: 122º 20' 32" W


Figure 1. Facility Vicinity Map


Figure 2. Facility Drainage Map


A. Facility Description

The Lafarge Seattle cement plant is located at 5400 West Marginal Way SW, in Seattle, Washington. The facility is approximately 19.4 acres in area and about 96 percent of this area is covered with pavement, buildings, or other structures. The facility is bordered to the west by West Marginal Way SW and Burlington Northern Railroad and Chemithon Corporation, to the south by Alaska Marine Lines, and to the east and north by the Duwamish River. A vicinity map is provided as Figure 1.

The Lafarge Seattle plant is unique among local cement manufacturing facilities because it uses a wet kiln process with much of the water supplied by stormwater runoff captured from the facility site. For nearly two decades, much of the facility’s runoff has been used to manufacture cement, beginning with initial modifications introduced by the prior owner in 1995 and several enhancements made by Lafarge since then. The stormwater capture system has enabled the 19-acre facility to recycle the vast majority of stormwater since 1999, resulting in a significant reduction in stormwater discharges to the Duwamish River. Stormwater is discharged only when the capture system capacity is exceeded, and when that occurs the discharges are treated by filtration and pH control.

As additional environmental benefits, the facility's Alternate Raw Materials and Alternate Fuels (ARM/AF) Program converts a variety of recyclable materials, such as fly ash, granulated blast furnace slag, spent alumina catalyst and contaminated soils into cement, and it uses used oil and tire-derived fuel as alternate fuel sources. Through these operations and the stormwater usage, the facility provides a significant benefit to the local and regional environment. However, the recent economic downturn has decreased cement demand. Consequently, the corresponding reduced demand for captured stormwater has necessarily resulted in stormwater discharges during prolonged shutdown periods referred to as production not required (PNR). Therefore, Lafarge has submitted an engineering report to evaluate alternatives for providing an appropriate updated level of stormwater treatment.

Since at least 1996, the cement manufacturing facility has recycled stormwater. The facility integrated its existing stormwater recycling program as part of Seattle Public Utilities Water Smart Technology Program in 2001. Under routine operating conditions, stormwater is captured and reused as make-up water in the cement manufacturing process. Consequently, stormwater discharge has been infrequent and limited to periods where runoff volumes exceed storage and usage needs, such as during periods of scheduled maintenance. Beginning in 2009, changing economic conditions have resulted in more frequent plant shutdowns for PNR. The PNR shutdowns have made complete stormwater recycling at historical levels an unsustainable practice. Consequently, the periodic discharge of excess stormwater is now necessary.

Water Supply and Management

The wet kiln process requires large volumes of water for making slurry for the kiln and significant amounts of cooling water are also required. To supply much of this water, the Lafarge facility operates and maintains a system for capturing and storing much of the site's stormwater runoff. Under normal operating conditions, the vast majority of the site's


stormwater is consumed in the cement manufacturing process. Stormwater usage in the manufacturing process reduces the amount of water purchased from SPU and helps reduce the impact on the public sewer and wastewater treatment systems and the Duwamish River.

Normal operating conditions occur when the cement kiln is running and water supply needs for this wet process are being met by potable (City) water and available stormwater inventory in the collection and storage system. Cement production requires approximately 188,000 gpd during normal operating conditions (Vasey, 1996).

The kiln is shut down periodically for scheduled maintenance, process upsets and emergency repairs, power interruptions, and PNR. Shutdowns for process upsets/emergencies and power issues typically last for a few hours but can extend up to a few days (for example, sulfur ring removal from kiln). Scheduled maintenance and PNR shutdowns can range from several days to a month or more.

Since mid-2006 (the current permit was effective July 1, 2006), shutdown periods for scheduled maintenance [winter turnaround (WTA) and fall turnaround (FTA)] have typically encompassed periods of up to 40 days and have occurred once or twice annually. Shutdowns for PNR first occurred late 2006 into early 2007, once in 2008, and then more frequently in 2009 [April-June (37 days), August-September (29 days), and October-November (34 days)]. In 2010, PNR shutdowns occurred in January-February (44 days) and April (18 days).

When the kiln is shut down, the water needs decrease dramatically; however, some level of water demand exists for the cooling tower. Consequently, the stormwater management system must be monitored carefully for inventory control so as to provide storage of runoff.

Stormwater Drainage

The entire site is paved with concrete except for a small open gravel area just north of the main entry gate along the railroad and curbed landscaped areas south and west of the entry gate and under the limestone and gypsum storage piles. There are no significant soil erosion areas on-site. A facility vicinity plan is included as Figure 1. Figure 2 depicts the on-site stormwater drainage basins and the general direction of stormwater flows within each drainage basin.

The proposed NPDES permit allows stormwater discharge to the Duwamish River via outfall 8, which drains the majority of the facility. Process wastewater and non-contact cooling water are prohibited from discharge, and are collected and used in the cement manufacturing process.

Stormwater from the majority of the facility is pumped via three lift stations to the stormwater detention vault for consumption in the cement manufacturing process when the kiln is running. The current system has the capability to handle flows up to the 10-yr, 24-hour rainfall event (2.9 inches). Historically, when system capabilities are exceeded, outfall 008 is the primary discharge point to the Duwamish River. Former outfalls 001 and 004 and current 008 are equipped with data collection and control systems for water level flow rate, and total volume pumped. See Section 3.2 for a more detailed description of the stormwater system. Appendix A contains the updated Stormwater O&M Manual.


History Lafarge plant, located on west Marginal Way SW in Seattle (Figure 1), began production in 1967 as Ideal Basic Industries Inc. On March 7, 1990, Holnam Inc. acquired Ideal Basic Industries Inc. Ecology first issued an NPDES permit to the facility in June 1978 for discharge of non-contact cooling water. Ecology integrated stormwater discharge requirements into the NPDES permit renewal in November 1994. Further upgrades were made following the issuance of the last permit dated June 16, 1997. Ecology modified the permit on October 16, 1998, to reflect a change in the name to Lafarge North America, Inc. Lafarge’s predecessor built a stormwater collection, storage, and recycling system based on an engineering report approved by Ecology in 1999. The system allows the plant to reuse most of the stormwater generated on-site and significantly reduces the plant’s use of fresh water from the city of Seattle. Lafarge has limited the number of discharges to 10 for the last 5 years.

Since the 1996 engineering report and 1999 approval of it by Ecology, Lafarge revisited its water usage calculations in the 2010 engineering report as shown below:

Parameter Annual Total Daily Average

50-year Average Annual Rainfall Average Annual Stormwater Volume Average Annual Runoff Volume

38.18 inches 20.1 M. Gallons 18.8 M. Gallons

n.a. 67,142 Gallons 62,669 Gallons

2009 Process Water Use 52.3 M. Gallons 174,174 Gallons

The Lafarge Seattle plant has undergone many changes over the years, resulting in significant environmental benefits. These changes and improvements related to stormwater include the following items:

• Pump stations were added to capture stormwater runoff from basins 1, 8, and 10 and route it into the process water system for use in cement manufacturing (prior to 1999).

• The clay soaking pond was decommissioned in 1999 and retrofitted for use as an aboveground stormwater detention vault.

• Sandblast grit, used as an alternate raw material for cement manufacturing, was

terminated in June 2009.

• Outfalls 005 and 006 were abandoned and capped in 1997, and drainage was re-routed to the outfall 008 lift station.

• Pumping lift station (LS) for basin 4 was installed for recycling stormwater.

• The storage capacity of the stormwater vault was approximately doubled.


• Pumps and piping to route stormwater from the vault to the kiln feed and Tank 4 were installed.

• Semi-automatic and remote control system for pumps was installed.

• While rarely needed due to infrequent discharges, a stormwater treatment system was

installed, providing pH adjustment, mechanical screening, and cartridge filtration.

• A pump station was added to the stormwater vault for routing excess water inventory to the King County sewer (subject to permit limitations).

• Per Ecology request in Follow-Up Order 7193, the following modifications have been

made since the last SWPPP revision:

Connection of the truck wash to King County sewer (April 5, 2010).

Backup pump for LS 8 and power redundancy.

Telemetry system with alarms and control for LS 1, 4, and 8.

Flow monitoring equipment and telemetry (outfalls 001, 004, and 008).

Waterfront crane vessel conveyor off-load apron.

Industrial Process The Lafarge Seattle plant manufactures portland cement and other cementitious products using a single wet-process kiln. The plant has been operating continuously since 1967. Lafarge purchased the plant from its previous owner (Holnam, now Holcim) in 1998. Lafarge does not operate a batch concrete operation at the facility. It operates a truck wash facility near the plant entrance for trucks departing after bulk cement truck loading. Wash water from the truck wash is discharged to the King County/Metro sanitary sewer system according to permit requirements. As a wet process cement facility, manufacturing consists of three primary steps. The first is preparation of raw slurry, which involves proportioning, grinding, and water mixing of raw materials. Raw materials include limestone, sand, shale, iron-bearing materials, soils, and other alternate raw materials containing calcium, silica, iron, or alumina. No material regulated as a state dangerous waste under Chapter 173-303 WAC or under the federal Resource Recovery and Control Act (RCRA) or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulations is accepted as a raw material or a fuel (Lafarge, 2008). Water sources for cement manufacturing are stormwater and potable water purchased from Seattle Public Utilities (SPU). The second step of the process is feeding the slurry through the kiln to sinter the slurry into clinker. The kiln is fired by several types of fuel, including petroleum coke, coal, tire-derived fuel, natural gas, and used oil fuels to achieve a process temperature of 2500°F.


Clinker is transported via covered conveyor systems to clinker silos, and then the finish mills located inside the mill building. In the third step, clinker, in combination with gypsum and granulated blast furnace slag, is transported from their respective storage silos to the finish mills, where it is ground along with a small amount of liquid grinding aid into a fine powdery substance which is the final cement product. The final cement product is pneumatically conveyed to two sets of bulk storage silos and a storage warehouse. The facility has several designated loading and unloading areas. Raw materials are delivered to the facility via railcar, barge, and truck. A waterfront crane located on the east wharf unloads the barges and transfers materials to a holding area or to the raw materials conveyor. The final cement product is offloaded from the silos for rail or truck shipping or is packaged in bulk or consumer-sized bags for transport via truck. Limestone, gypsum, shale, slag, alumina, sand, and soil are stored outdoors in large bunkers until they are incorporated for use in the cement manufacturing process. A combination of all-weather enclosures, kiln roof cover, and pile covering are used for coal/coke and contaminated soils. One 140,000-gallon aboveground storage tank holds used oil fuel for the kiln.

Stormwater Treatment The pilot treatment system consists of an EC unit with four cells, three 10,000-gallon settling tanks, three media filters, and a pH adjustment system. The system will replace the existing pH adjustment, mechanical screening, and cartridge filtration systems, and will be located downstream of tank 4. Treated stormwater will be discharged to the waterway via existing outfall 008. The final electrocoagulation treatment system will provide performance that is equivalent or better than the proposed pilot system.

Stormwater Monitoring and Reporting Lafarge collects and analyzes stormwater samples during a discharge event and submits quarterly DMRs to Ecology per NPDES Permit Conditions S2 and S3. Samples are also collected from the stormwater vault and truck wash discharge points to the sanitary sewer per the requirements of the King County Industrial Wastewater Permit (King County 2007, 2010). Monthly and quarterly reports are submitted to King County listing the metered volumes and analytical results per the permit’s requirements. A monthly discharge report is also submitted to SPU for billing purposes. The Environmental Department is responsible for sampling and monitoring these activities per the written procedures filed in the facility’s Environmental Management System (EMS). Copies of stormwater sampling data are included in files by calendar year kept by the Environmental Department. Monitoring procedures are outlined in the SWPPP Appendix A.


Permit Status

Lafarge submitted an application for permit modification on October 16, 2009, and submitted an application for permit renewal on March 10, 2010. Ecology accepted the application for renewal as complete on March 24, 2010.

Ecology issued the previous permit for this facility on June 30, 2006. The previous permit required Lafarge to comply with water quality criteria, 173-201A WAC, without specifying numerical effluent limits.

Summary of Compliance With Previous Permit Issued June 30, 2006

Ecology staff conducted two non-sampling compliance inspections since issuance of the NPDES permit in June 2006. With few exceptions, Lafarge for-the-most-part appeared to have complied with the permit conditions. During a joint inspection conducted by Ecology and EPA in June 2009, the inspectors noted a few maintenance-related problems. In response, Lafarge was issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) in September 2009 for the following violations:

• Stormwater discharges below the 10-year, 24-hour design storm. • Discharges of process wastewater. • Discharge of polluting matter into waters of the state. • Failure to provide proper operation and maintenance for all systems of treatment and

control. • Failure to provide site map and accurate depiction of the stormwater drainage on-site

as required by the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. • Failure to provide adequate cover and secondary containment for the large red tank of

Chemical Grinding Aid. • Failure to implement source control BMPs.

In addition, a Follow-up Order and an Agreed Order were issued in November 2009. The Follow-up Order required Lafarge to correct the violations noted in the NOV. The Agreed Order listed actions Lafarge agreed to take to allow the discharge of stormwater above and beyond the permit discharge limits during shutdown periods after providing necessary treatment for turbidity and pH. Actions include, but are not limited to, proper covering and storage of contaminated piles of fine granular solids, employing good housekeeping techniques, sweeping schedule, monitoring of stormwater discharges, and complying with all other provisions of the permit. Ecology assessed facility compliance based on its review of the facility’s discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), non-compliance notification reports, and inspections.


Stormwater Characterization

The concentration of pollutants in the facility’s stormwater discharge was reported in the NPDES application and in discharge monitoring reports. The following tabulated data also includes Ecology inspection monitoring results. The tabulated data represents the quality of the effluent discharged. Table 2 summarizes stormwater data:

Table 2: Wastewater Characterization

Prior to 2009, Lafarge stormwater discharges were infrequent. Table 2 summarizes characteristics of stormwater as indicated in discharge monitoring reports between November 2009 and April 2010.

Parameter Concentration

Turbidity 1.2 – 180 NTU Oil and Grease <5 mg/l Copper, total 3 to 75 µg/L Lead, total <1 to 5 µg/L Zinc, total <1 to 58 µg/L Total Suspended Solids <2 to 53 mg/l pH 6.8 to 9.1 Standards Units

Alkalinity or high pH originates from the lime in cement. Oil and grease may originate from the petroleum-contaminated soils, and turbidity and total suspended solids are related to the fine materials stored and moved throughout the site.

Description of the Receiving Water

The facility discharges to the Duwamish River, at approximately River Mile 1.7, which has aquatic life designated use of (salmonid) rearing and migration only. Ecology considers this area of the Duwamish Waterway as marine water, as opposed to freshwater. Ecology made that decision based on WAC 173-201A-260 (3)(e)(ii), which describes the differentiation between fresh and marine waters. Under Table 602, the Duwamish from the mouth to river mile 11 is assigned freshwater designated uses for aquatic life as rearing/migration only, for recreation as secondary contact, along with a variety of water supply and miscellaneous. The secondary contact criteria for freshwater is based on fecal coliform criteria (WAC 173-201A - Table 200(2)(b). However, when different criteria for the same use occurs in brackish areas, WAC-173-201A-260 (3)(e)(ii) determines whether the marine or freshwater criteria applies. Table 602 would apply if salinity data showed the saltwater wedge did not extend to the discharge point. The Duwamish River flows into Elliott Bay, a marine waterbody and primary contact water (see WAC 173-201A 612, Table 612, Elliott Bay). Since Elliott Bay influences the salinity of the Duwamish Waterway, the marine criteria apply.


The Duwamish River is included on the 1996 EPA 303(d) list for exceeding dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal coliform water quality standards. The 303(d) list also reports that sediments exceed the sediment quality standards for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and sediment bioassay. Suspended solids, oil and grease, copper, lead, zinc, pH, and turbidity are the primary pollutants of concern in the Lafarge discharge. The Duwamish River has numerous historic industrial facilities lining both banks from the mouth to beyond river mile 7. Other nearby point source outfalls include the Duwamish Shipyard, Seattle Iron and Metal, and several boatyard facilities. Significant nearby nonpoint sources of pollutants include municipal stormwater discharges including bridge runoff.

SEPA Compliance

Regulation exempts reissuance or modification of any wastewater discharge permit from the SEPA process as long as the permit contains conditions that are no less stringent than state rules and regulations. The exemption applies only to existing discharges, not to new discharges.

III. PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS

Federal and state regulations require that effluent limits in an NPDES permit must be either technology- or water quality-based.

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

• Performance-based limits based on treated samples from the installed system (AKART).

• Water quality-based limits are calculated so that the effluent will comply with the surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), ground water standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), sediment quality standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC), or the National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36).

• Ecology must apply the most stringent of these limits to each parameter of concern. These limits are described below.

The limits in this permit reflect information received in the application and from supporting reports (engineering, hydrogeology, etc.). Ecology evaluated the permit application and determined the limits needed to comply with the rules adopted by the state of Washington. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all reported pollutants. Some pollutants are not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation.


Nor does Ecology usually develop permit limits for pollutants that were not reported in the permit application but that may be present in the discharge. The permit does not authorize discharge of the non-reported pollutants. During the five-year permit term, the facility’s effluent discharge conditions may change from those conditions reported in the permit application. The facility must notify Ecology, as described in 40 CFR 122.42(a), if significant changes occur in any constituent. Industries may be in violation of their permit until Ecology modifies the permit to reflect additional discharge of pollutants.

A. Design Criteria

The system is designed to contain, store, and recycle the stormwater for the entire facility up to the 10-year, 10-day duration storm event with no discharge of stormwater to the Duwamish River when Lafarge operates the kiln. During shutdown, the design criteria are based on the engineering report approved by Ecology in August 2010.

Table 3: Design Criteria

Parameter Design Quantity Units Peak Average

Stormwater Volume gal/year -- 7,500,000 Influent Turbidity NTU 500 250 Influent Total Suspended Solids mg/L 250 120 Treatment Flow Rate gpm 200 150

B. Technology-Based Effluent Limits

Chapter 173-201A-160(4)(c) requires any discharger to evaluate the possibility of achieving water quality criteria via non-construction changes (for example, facility operation, pollution prevention). The proposed permit requires Lafarge to continue to follow and improve, as necessary, best management practices (BMPs) and its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Ecology considers stormwater BMPs as recommended by the Western Washington Stormwater Manual to be technology-based effluent limits.

C. Surface Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits

The Washington State surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) were designed to protect existing water quality and preserve the beneficial uses of Washington's surface waters. Waste discharge permits must include conditions that prevent the discharge from causing or contributing exceedance of established surface water quality standards (WAC 173-201A-510). Water quality-based effluent limits may be based on an individual waste load allocation or on a waste load allocation developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study (TMDL).


Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life and Recreation

Numerical water quality criteria are published in the water quality standards for surface waters (Chapter 173-201A WAC). They specify the maximum levels of pollutants and water quality constituents in allowed in receiving water intended to protect aquatic life and recreation in and on the water. Ecology uses numerical criteria along with chemical and physical data for the wastewater and receiving water to derive the effluent limits in the discharge permit. When surface water quality-based limits are more stringent or potentially more stringent than technology-based limits, the discharge must meet the water quality-based limits.

Numerical Criteria for the Protection of Human Health

The U.S. EPA has published 91 numeric water quality criteria for the protection of human health that are applicable to dischargers in Washington State (40 CFR 131.36). These criteria are designed to protect humans from exposure to pollutants linked to cancer and other diseases, based on consuming fish and shellfish and drinking contaminated surface waters. The water quality standards also include radionuclide criteria to protect humans from the effects of radioactive substances.

Narrative Criteria

Narrative water quality criteria (for example, WAC 173-201A-240(1), 2006) limit the toxic, radioactive, or other deleterious material concentrations that the facility may discharge to levels below those which have the potential to:

• Adversely affect designated water uses.

• Cause acute or chronic toxicity to biota.

• Impair aesthetic values.

• Adversely affect human health.

Narrative criteria protect the specific designated uses of all fresh waters (WAC 173-201A-200, 2006) and of all marine waters (WAC 173-201A-210, 2006) in the state of Washington.

Antidegradation

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

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

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

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


• Ensure that all human activities likely to contribute to a lowering of water quality, at a minimum, apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART).

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

Tier I ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected and applies to all waters and all sources of pollutions. Tier II ensures that waters of a higher quality than the criteria assigned are not degraded unless such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Tier II applies only to a specific list of polluting activities. Tier III prevents the degradation of waters formally listed as "outstanding resource waters," and applies to all sources of pollution.

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

• The facility is planning a new or expanded action.

• Ecology regulates or authorizes the action.

• The action has the potential to cause measurable degradation to existing water quality at the edge of a chronic mixing zone.

This facility must meet Tier I requirements.

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

Ecology’s analysis described in this section of the fact sheet demonstrates that the existing and designated uses of the receiving water will be protected under the conditions of the proposed permit.

Mixing Zones

A mixing zone is the defined area in the receiving water surrounding the discharge port(s), where wastewater mixes with receiving water. Within mixing zones the pollutant concentrations may exceed water quality numeric criteria, so long as the diluting wastewater does not interfere with designated uses of the receiving water body (for example, recreation, water supply, and aquatic life and wildlife habitat, etc.). The pollutant concentrations outside of the mixing zones must meet water quality numeric criteria.

State and federal rules allow mixing zones because the concentrations and effects of most pollutants diminish rapidly after discharge, due to dilution. Ecology defines mixing zone sizes to limit the amount of time any exposure to the end-of-pipe discharge could harm water quality, plants, or fish.


The state’s water quality standards allow Ecology to authorize mixing zones for the facility’s permitted stormwater discharges only if those discharges already receive all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART). Mixing zones typically require compliance with water quality criteria within a specified distance from the point of discharge. Ecology uses modeling to estimate the amount of mixing within the mixing zone and determine the potential for violating the water quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone and derive any necessary effluent limits. Steady-state models are the most frequently used tools for conducting mixing zone analyses. Ecology chooses values for each effluent and for receiving water variables that correspond to the time period when the most critical condition is likely to occur (see Ecology’s Permit Writer’s Manual). Each critical condition parameter (by itself) has a low probability of occurrence, and the resulting dilution factor is conservative. The term “reasonable worst-case” applies to these values. The mixing zone analysis produces a numerical value called a dilution factor (DF). A dilution factor represents the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. For example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water comprises 90% of the total volume at the boundary of the mixing zone. Ecology uses dilution factors with the water quality criteria to calculate reasonable potentials and effluent limits. Water quality standards include both aquatic life-based criteria and human health-based criteria. The former are applied at both the acute and chronic mixing zone boundaries; the latter are applied only at the chronic boundary. The concentration of pollutants at the boundaries of any of these mixing zones may not exceed the numerical criteria for that zone. Each aquatic life acute criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to that concentration for more than one hour and more often than one exposure in three years. Each aquatic life chronic criterion is based on the assumption that organisms are not exposed to that concentration for more than four consecutive days and more often than once in three years. The proposed permit does not authorize a mixing zone around the point of discharge. Lafarge can request Ecology to authorize a mixing zone after it prepares a mixing zone study report for Ecology review and approval after complete installation of AKART. The AKART Engineering Report was submitted to Ecology for review and approval in June 2010. The report was reviewed and approved by Ecology in August 2010. The proposed permit requires an Engineering Report Addendum to evaluate operating conditions of the final electrocoagulation system proposed in June 2010 engineering report. Lafarge may, at its option, may submit a mixing zone plan of study and apply for a mixing zone after Ecology review and approval of the engineering report addendum.

D. Designated Uses and Surface Water Quality Criteria

Applicable designated uses and surface water quality criteria are defined in Chapter 173-201A WAC. In addition, the U.S. EPA set human health criteria for toxic pollutants (40 CFR 131.36). Criteria applicable to this facility’s discharge are summarized below in Table 4.


• Aquatic life uses are designated using the following general categories. All indigenous fish and non-fish aquatic species must be protected in waters of the state.

(a) Extraordinary quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(b) Excellent quality salmonid and other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(c) Good quality salmonid migration and rearing; other fish migration, rearing, and spawning; clam, oyster, and mussel rearing and spawning; crustaceans and other shellfish (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, scallops, etc.) rearing and spawning.

(d) Fair quality salmonid and other fish migration.

The Aquatic Life Uses for this receiving water are identified below.

Table 4. Aquatic Life Uses & Associated Criteria

Excellent Quality Temperature Criteria – Highest 1D MAX 16°C (60.8°F) Dissolved Oxygen Criteria – Lowest 1-Day Minimum

6.0 mg/L

Turbidity Criteria • 5 NTU over background when the background is 50 NTU or less; or

• A 10 percent increase in turbidity when the background turbidity is more than 50 NTU.

pH Criteria pH must be within the range of 7.0 to 8.5 with a human-caused variation within the above range of less than 0.5 units.

• To protect shellfish harvesting, fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 colonies/100 mL, and not have more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 43 colonies/100 mL.

• The recreational uses are primary contact recreation and secondary contact recreation.

The recreational uses for this receiving water are identified below.

Table 5. Recreational Uses

Recreational Use Criteria Primary Contact Recreation

Fecal coliform organism levels must not exceed a geometric mean value of 14 colonies/100 mL, with not more than 10 percent of all samples (or any single sample when less than ten sample points exist) obtained for calculating the geometric mean value exceeding 43 colonies /100 mL.


• The miscellaneous marine water uses are wildlife habitat, harvesting, commerce and navigation, boating, and aesthetics.

Applicable criteria are defined in Chapter 173-201A WAC for aquatic biota. In addition, U.S. EPA has promulgated human health criteria for toxic pollutants (EPA 1992). Additional surface water criteria for the toxics of concern for this discharge are summarized below:

Table 6. Surface Water Criteria for Pollutants of Concern

Parameter Criteria Copper 4.8 µg/l Lead 210 µg/l Zinc 90 µg/l

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

Pollutants in an effluent may affect the aquatic environment near the point of discharge (near-field) or at a considerable distance from the point of discharge (far-field). Toxic pollutants, for example, are near-field pollutants—their adverse effects diminish rapidly with mixing in the receiving water. Conversely, a pollutant such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) is a far-field pollutant whose adverse effect occurs away from the discharge even after dilution has occurred. Thus, the method of calculating surface water quality-based effluent limits varies with the point at which the pollutant has its maximum effect.

Pollutant concentrations in the proposed discharge are unlikely to exceed water quality criteria using approved AKART. However, if the proposed discharge exceeds water quality criteria despite using AKART, mixing zone will be assigned. Temperature—Lafarge discharges treated stormwater from Outfalls 001, 004, and 008 to surface receiving waters. Ecology has determined that stormwater discharges do not contribute to exceedances of temperature. Since high temperatures in the receiving water are a summer phenomenon and storm events are limited during this period, very little potential exists for stormwater to contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. Storm events that occur during the summer are more likely to reduce ambient temperature than to raise it. Therefore, the proposed permit does not require temperature sampling or impose temperature limits for stormwater discharges. In the future, Ecology may elect to develop procedures and guidance for regulating the effects of stormwater to comply with temperature water quality criteria.

To ensure compliance with Chapter 173-201A WAC and to protect aquatic organisms, the discharge temperature must not exceed a one-day maximum of 16°C. Turbidity – The maximum effluent limit of 25 NTU is based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) of the permit writer. The Industrial Stormwater General Permit contains similar Turbidity limits of 25 NTU that appears protective. Ecology evaluated the impact of turbidity based on the range of possible turbidity in the effluent and turbidity of the receiving water. The permit requires turbidity monitoring to insure compliance with the Turbidity limit.


pH—pH extremes are toxic to fish. The data demonstrate that the activities at the site could generate high pH measurements in the discharge on occasion if the treatment system fails. The facility must monitor and treat all discharges for pH.

Compliance with the technology-based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water quality standards of surface waters because of the high buffering capacity of marine water.

Toxic Pollutants—Federal regulations (40 CFR 122.44) require NPDES permits to contain effluent limits for toxic chemicals in an effluent whenever there is a reasonable potential for those chemicals to exceed the surface water quality criteria. This process occurs concurrently with the derivation of technology-based effluent limits. Facilities with technology-based effluent limits defined in regulation are not exempted from meeting the surface water quality standards or from having surface water quality-based effluent limits.

The following toxic pollutants are present in the discharge: copper, zinc, and potentially lead. Ecology will conduct a reasonable potential analysis on these parameters to determine whether they would require effluent limits in this permit after the facility has installed an approved treatment system and has collected adequate monitoring data.

The proposed permit contains monitoring requirements for copper, zinc, and lead. No valid ambient background data and effluent were available for copper, zinc, and lead.

F. Human Health

Washington’s water quality standards include 91 numeric human health-based criteria that Ecology must consider when writing NPDES permits. These criteria were established in 1992 by the U.S. EPA in its National Toxics Rule (40 CFR 131.36). The National Toxics Rule allows states to use mixing zones to evaluate whether discharges comply with human health criteria.

Ecology determined the applicant's discharge is undergoing technology-based upgrades established in the proposed permit and thus should show it complies with human health-based criteria after it completes the upgrades and/or show it does not contain chemicals of concern based on data gathered under the proposed permit and for the engineering report. Ecology will re-evaluate the discharge for impacts to human health at the next permit reissuance.

G. Sediment Quality

The aquatic sediment standards (WAC 173-204) protect aquatic biota and human health. Under these standards Ecology may require a facility to evaluate the potential for its discharge to cause a violation of sediment standards (WAC 173-204-400). You can obtain additional information about sediments at the Aquatic Lands Cleanup Unit website. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/smu/sediment.html Existing sediment data near Lafarge’s east dock indicate that sediment concentrations of PCBs, arsenic, mercury, and zinc exceed the Washington Sediment Management Standards (SMS), but that data was obtained from sediment cores 7 to 8.3 feet in depth. Additional


surface sediment monitoring is not needed to further determine existing concentrations prior to an increase in stormwater discharge due to facility process changes. Ecology does not require additional sediment monitoring requirements, unless Permittee begins dredging the sediment in the vicinity of the facility. In that case, Ecology requires surface sediment samples collected after dredging, to determine a baseline of sediment concentration. The LDW has confirmed sediment contamination near this site for arsenic, mercury, PAH, PCB, and phthalates. The Permittee must sample the storm drain solids for contaminants of concern one time during the permit cycle at this site to provide an integrated measure of what types of materials are present on the site. The storm drain solids should be tested at a minimum of four sites, including the sumps for outfalls 1, 4, 8, and the dock area trench drain or catch basin. These data will not be used for compliance, but for information about the types of materials present on the site, and possibly rule out Lafarge as a contributor to the sediment contamination in the waterway. The Permittee shall test the stormwater discharge effluent two times (once in a summer/early fall storm, once in a winter storm) for the contaminants of concern in this waterway: phthalates, PCB, PAH compounds, and the 13 priority pollutant metals except for copper, lead, and zinc that are being tested on a twice-per-month basis. This is to verify the effectiveness of the treatment system at removing contaminants of concern for sediment.

H. Ground Water Quality Limits

The ground water quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) protect beneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued by Ecology must not allow violations of those standards (WAC 173-200-100).

Lafarge does not discharge wastewater to ground and therefore Ecology imposed no permit limits to protect ground water.

IV. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

Ecology requires monitoring, recording, and reporting (WAC 173-220-210 and 40 CFR 122.41) to verify that the treatment process is functioning correctly and that the discharge complies with the permit’s effluent limits.

The monitoring schedule is detailed in the proposed permit under Condition S.2. Specified monitoring frequencies take into account the quantity and variability of the discharge, the treatment method, past compliance, significance of pollutants, and cost of monitoring.

A. Lab Accreditation

Ecology requires that facilities must use a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories, to prepare all monitoring data (with the exception of certain parameters).


V. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. Reporting and Record Keeping

Ecology based permit condition S3 on our authority to specify any appropriate reporting and record keeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-220-210).

B. Non-Routine and Unanticipated Discharges

Occasionally this facility may generate wastewater which was not characterized in the permit application because it is not a routine discharge and was not anticipated at the time of application. These wastes typically consist of waters used to pressure-test storage tanks or fire water systems or of leaks from drinking water systems.

The permit authorizes non-routine and unanticipated discharges under certain conditions. The facility must characterize these waste waters for pollutants and examine the opportunities for reuse. Depending on the nature and extent of pollutants in this wastewater and on any opportunities for reuse, Ecology may:

• Authorize the facility to discharge the wastewater.

• Require the facility to treat the wastewater.

• Require the facility to reuse the wastewater.

C. Spill Plan

This facility stores a quantity of chemicals on-site that have the potential to cause water pollution if accidentally released. Ecology can require a facility to develop best management plans to prevent this accidental release [Section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) and RCW 90.48.080].

Lafarge developed a plan for preventing the accidental release of pollutants to state waters and for minimizing damages if such a spill occurs. The proposed permit requires the facility to update this plan and submit it to Ecology.

D. Solid Waste Control Plan

Lafarge could cause pollution of the waters of the state through inappropriate disposal of solid waste or through the release of leachate from solid waste.

This proposed permit requires this facility to update the approved Solid Waste Control Plan designed to prevent solid waste from causing pollution of waters of the state. The updated plan must be submitted to Ecology for approval (RCW 90.48.080).

E. Treatment System Operating Plan

Ecology requires industries to take all reasonable steps to properly operate and maintain their stormwater treatment system in accordance with state and federal regulations [40 CFR 122.41(e) and WAC 173-220-150 (1)(g)]. The facility will prepare and submit an


Operation and Maintenance Manual as required by state regulation for the construction of stormwater treatment facilities (WAC 173-240-150). Implementation of the procedures in the Treatment System Operating Plan ensures the facility’s compliance with the terms and limits in the permit.

F. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

In accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(k) and 40 CFR 122.44 (s), the proposed permit includes requirements for the development and implementation of a SWPPP along with BMPs to minimize or prevent the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. BMPs constitute Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) and Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) for stormwater discharges. Lafarge has already developed and updated a SWPPP and implemented adequate BMPs in order to meet the requirements of “all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment” (AKART). A SWPPP requires a facility to implement actions necessary to manage stormwater to comply with the state’s requirement under Chapter 90.48 RCW to protect the beneficial uses of waters of the state.

The SWPPP must identify potential sources of stormwater contamination from industrial activities and identify how Lafarge will manage those sources of contamination to prevent or minimize contamination of stormwater. Lafarge must continuously review and revise the SWPPP as necessary to assure that stormwater discharges do not degrade water quality. It must retain the SWPPP on-site or within reasonable access to the site and available for review by Ecology.

Within 18 month after issuance of the new permit, if as a result SWPPP need be updated, Lafarge shall update the SWPPP, implement all changes, and resubmit final copy of SWPPP to Ecology within 18 month from the date of issuance of the permit.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs are the actions identified in the SWPPP to manage, prevent contamination of, and treat stormwater. BMPs include schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural, and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs also include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices used to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage. Lafarge must ensure that its SWPPP includes the operational and structural source control BMPs listed as “applicable” in Ecology’s stormwater management manuals. Many of these “applicable” BMPs are sector-specific or activity-specific, and are not required at facilities engaged in other industrial sectors or activities.

Ecology-Approved Stormwater Management Manuals

• Consistent with RCW 90.48.555 (5) and (6), the proposed permit requires the facility to implement BMPs contained in the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005 edition), or any revisions thereof, or practices that are demonstrably equivalent to practices contained in stormwater technical manuals


approved by Ecology. This should ensure that BMPs will prevent violations of state water quality standards, and satisfy the state AKART requirements and the federal technology-based treatment requirements under 40 CFR Part 125.3. The SWPPP must document that the BMPs selected provide an equivalent level of pollution prevention, compared to the applicable stormwater management manuals, including the technical basis for the selection for all stormwater BMPs (scientific, technical studies, and/or modeling) which support the performance claims for the BMPs selected.

• An assessment of how the BMPs will satisfy AKART requirements and the applicable technology-based treatment requirements under 40 CFR Part 125.3.

Operational Source Control BMPs

Operational source control BMPs include a schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, employee training, good housekeeping, and other managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. These activities do not require construction of pollution-control devices but are very important components of a successful SWPPP. Employee training, for instance, is critical to achieving timely and consistent spill response. Pollution prevention is likely to fail if the employees do not understand the importance and objectives of BMPs. Prohibitions might include eliminating outdoor repair work on equipment and certainly would include the elimination of intentional draining of crankcase oil on the ground. Good housekeeping and maintenance schedules help prevent incidents that could result in the release of pollutants. Operational BMPs represent a cost-effective way to control pollutants and protect the environment. The SWPPP must identify all the operational BMPs and how and where they are implemented. For example, the SWPPP must identify what training will consist of, when training will take place, and who is responsible to assure that employee training happens.

Structural Source Control BMPs

Structural source control BMPs include physical, structural, or mechanical devices or facilities intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. Examples of source control BMPs include erosion control practices, maintenance of stormwater facilities (for example, cleaning out sediment traps), construction of roofs over storage and working areas, and direction of equipment wash water and similar discharges to the sanitary sewer or a dead end sump. Structural source control BMPs likely include a capital investment but are cost effective compared to cleaning up pollutants after they have entered stormwater.

Treatment BMPs Operational and structural source control BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. However, even with an aggressive and successful program, stormwater may still require treatment to achieve compliance with water quality standards. Treatment BMPs remove pollutants from stormwater. Examples of treatment BMPs are detention ponds, oil/water separators, biofiltration, and constructed wetlands.


Volume/Flow Control BMPs

Ecology recognizes the need to include specific BMP requirements to control the quantity of stormwater runoff to protect beneficial water uses, including fish habitat. Lafarge should also review the requirements of Volume 1 (Minimum Technical Requirements) and Chapter 3 of Volume 3 in the Western Washington SWMM. Although not required to implement these BMPs, controlling rate and volume of stormwater discharge maintains the health of the watershed. Existing facilities should identify control measures that they can implement over time to reduce the impact of uncontrolled release of stormwater.

G. General Conditions

Ecology bases the standardized General Conditions on state and federal law and regulations. They are included in all individual industrial NPDES permits issued by Ecology.

VI. PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES

A. Permit Modifications

Ecology may modify this permit to impose numerical limits, if necessary, to comply with water quality standards for surface waters, with sediment quality standards, or with water quality standards for ground waters, after obtaining new information from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, outfall studies, and effluent mixing studies.

Ecology may also modify this permit to comply with new or amended state or federal regulations.

B. Proposed Permit Issuance

This proposed permit includes all statutory requirements for Ecology to authorize a wastewater discharge. The permit includes limits and conditions to protect human health and aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the state of Washington. Ecology proposes to issue this permit for a term of five (5) years.

VII. REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001.

1988. Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State Modeling. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water. EPA/600/6-85/002a.

1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C.


Tsivoglou, E.C., and J.R. Wallace.

1972. Characterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity. EPA-R3-72-012. (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.)

Washington State Department of Ecology.

1994. Permit Writer’s Manual. Publication Number 92-109.


2007. Focus Sheet on Solid Waste Control Plan, Developing a Solid Waste Control Plan for Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permittees. Publication Number 07-10-024.


Laws and Regulations (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/index.html)

Permit and Wastewater Related Information (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/wastewater/index.html)

Wright, R.M., and A.J. McDonnell.

1979. In-stream Deoxygenation Rate Prediction. Journal Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE. 105(EE2). (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.)

June 15, 2010, Lafarge Engineering Report.

June 15, 2010, Lafarge Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.


APPENDIX A—PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

Ecology proposes to reissue a permit to Lafarge North America, Inc. The permit prescribes operating conditions and wastewater discharge limits. This fact sheet describes the facility and Ecology’s reasons for requiring permit conditions.

Ecology placed a Public Notice of Application on March 29, 2010, and April 5, 2010, in The Seattle Times to inform the public about the submitted application and to invite comment on the reissuance of this permit.

Ecology placed a Public Notice of Draft on October 14, 2010, in The Seattle Times to inform the public and to invite comment on the proposed reissuance of this National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit as drafted.

The notice –

• Told where copies of the draft permit and fact sheet were available for public evaluation (a local public library, the closest regional or field office, posted on our website).

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

• Asked people to tell us how well the proposed permit would protect the receiving water.

• Invited people to suggest fairer conditions, limits, and requirements for the permit.

• Invited comments on Ecology’s determination of compliance with antidegradation rules.

• Urged people to submit their comments, in writing, before the end of the comment period.

• Told how to request a public hearing about the proposed NPDES Permit.

• Explained the next step(s) in the permitting process.

Ecology has published a document entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Effective Public Commenting which is available on our website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0307023.html.

You may obtain further information from Ecology by telephone at 425-649-7201, or by writing to the permit writer at the address listed below:

Water Quality Permit Coordinator Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 3190 160th Avenue SE Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

The primary author of this permit and fact sheet is Ed Abbasi.


APPENDIX B—GLOSSARY

1-DMax or 1-day maximum temperature—The highest water temperature reached on any given day. This measure can be obtained using calibrated maximum/minimum thermometers or continuous monitoring probes having sampling intervals of thirty minutes or less.

7-DADMax or 7-day average of the daily maximum temperatures—The arithmetic average of seven consecutive measures of daily maximum temperatures. The 7-DADMax for any individual day is calculated by averaging that day's daily maximum temperature with the daily maximum temperatures of the three days prior and the three days after that date.

Acute Toxicity—The lethal effect of a compound on an organism that occurs in a short period of time, usually 48 to 96 hours.

AKART—The acronym for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control and treatment.” AKART is a technology-based approach to limiting pollutants from wastewater discharges which requires an engineering judgment and an economic judgment. AKART must be applied to all wastes and contaminants prior to entry into waters of the state in accordance with RCW 90.48.010 and 520, WAC 173-200-030(2)(c)(ii), and WAC 173-216-110(1)(a).

Ambient Water Quality—The existing environmental condition of the water in a receiving water body.

Ammonia—Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater.

Annual Average Design Flow (AADF)—The average of the daily flow volumes anticipated to occur over a calendar year.

Average Monthly Discharge Limit—The average of the measured values obtained over a calendar month's time.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)—Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs.

BOD5—Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. The BOD5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in receiving waters after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the federal Clean Water Act.

Bypass—The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.


Chlorine—Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is also extremely toxic to aquatic life.

Chronic Toxicity—The effect of a compound on an organism over a relatively long time, often 1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or combination of compounds.

Clean Water Act (CWA)—The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq.

Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling—A site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations.

Compliance Inspection - With Sampling—A site visit for the purpose of determining the compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes and regulations. In addition, it include, as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the 85 percent removal requirement. Ecology may conduct additional sampling.

Composite Sample—A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "time-composite" (collected at constant time intervals) or "flow-proportional" (collected either as a constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time interval between the aliquots).

Construction Activity—Clearing, grading, excavation, and any other activity which disturbs the surface of the land. Such activities may include road building; construction of residential houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings; and demolition activity.

Continuous Monitoring—Uninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit.

Critical Condition—The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus, its ability to dilute effluent is reduced.

Detection Limit—See Method Detection Level.

Dilution Factor (DF)—A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent fraction, for example, a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving water 90%.

Engineering Report—A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report must contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130.


Fecal Coliform Bacteria—Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the presence of animal feces.

Grab Sample—A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short a period of time as is feasible.

Industrial Wastewater—Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business; from the development of any natural resource; or from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities.

Major Facility—A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.

Maximum Daily Discharge Limit—The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day.

Maximum Day Design Flow (MDDF)—The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a one-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Maximum Month Design Flow (MMDF)—The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a continuous 30-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Maximum Week Design Flow (MWDF)—The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a continuous 7-day period, expressed as a daily average.

Method Detection Level (MDL)—The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the pollutant concentration is above zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the pollutant.

Minor Facility—A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact.

Mixing Zone—An area that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (Chapter 173-201A WAC).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)—The NPDES (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act) is the federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable waters of the United States. Many states, including the state of Washington, have been delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both state and federal laws.

pH—The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. It is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life.


Peak Hour Design Flow (PHDF)—The largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a one-hour period, expressed as a daily or hourly average.

Peak Instantaneous Design Flow (PIDF)—The maximum anticipated instantaneous flow.

Quantitation Level (QL)—The smallest detectable concentration of analyte greater than the Detection Limit (DL) where the accuracy (precision & bias) achieves the objectives of the intended purpose. This may also be called Minimum Level or Reporting Level.

Reasonable Potential—A reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation, or loss of sensitive and/or important habitat.

Responsible Corporate Officer—A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22).

Technology-based Effluent Limit—A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment method to reduce the pollutant.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an effluent. Large quantities of TSS discharged to receiving waters may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.

Solid Waste—All putrescible and non-putrescible solid and semisolid wastes including, but not limited to, garbage, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, swill, sewage sludge, demolition and construction wastes, abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, contaminated soils and contaminated dredged material, and recyclable materials.

State Waters—Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.

Stormwater—That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility.

Upset—An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limits because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the facility. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

Water Quality-based Effluent Limit—A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality criterion after it is discharged into receiving waters.


APPENDIX C—TECHNICAL CALCULATIONS

Several of the Excel® spreadsheet tools used to evaluate a discharger’s ability to meet Washington State water quality standards can be found on Ecology’s homepage at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/pwspread/pwspread.html.


APPENDIX D—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS


Response to Lafarge: Outfall #001 & 002: This permit prohibits any discharges from outfall 001 & outfall 004. The limits will be applied to outfall 008 only. Sections S.1A, S2.A and TSS Limits: Concerning TSS limit, I agree with you. The final permit will require Lafarge to sample for TSS at the final effluent sampling location. The sampling location for the final effluent will be at location after final treatment prior to discharge to the receiving water. Also, the word “wastewater” will be replaced with “stormwater.” We deleted the reference to “shutdown periods.” Concerning oil and grease, the discharge shall not cause any visible sheen in the receiving water. However, the final effluent must also sample for oil and grease to ensure this claim. We deleted background sampling of the receiving water for turbidity, hardness and the relevant footnote. Concerning turbidity, please note that the turbidity limit as specified in Section S1.A is based on the permit writer’s best professional judgment. It is not water quality‐based or technology‐based. The final turbidity limit will be established after the initial sampling period. We believe electrocoagulation is capable of meeting of turbidity of less than 10 NTU if installed and managed properly. Sections S.1A and S2.A will be modified to reflect these changes. Section S2.D, Laboratory Accreditation: I agree with your comment. The permit will be modified to reflect this change. Engineering Report Addendum, Section S9: I agree to extend the submittal date for this report for another 6 months.

Effluent Mixing Report, Section S10.B: I agree to extend the submittal date for this report for another 6 months to correspond with Section S9.

Sediment Sampling, Section S.11: Ash Grove discharges to City of Seattle Storm Sewer and requirements are different. I disagree with you.

Other comments on Permit and Fact Sheet: I reviewed your editorial and informational comments you had redlined on the permit and fact sheet, and I incorporated them to the extent possible. In addition, I rewrote and simplify the sediment section of the permit and fact sheet to incorporate concerns and comments expressed informally by Lafarge.

Response to Jim Mothersbough and Dale Nelson: The engineering report must meet requirements of the WAC 173‐240, that states in part: "The engineering report shall be sufficiently complete so that plans and specifications can be developed from it without substantial changes." The engineering report was prepared by Aquarius Environmental, LLC and was approved by Ecology in 2010. Lafarge is obligated to prepare the plan and specs in accordance with the approved engineering report with no


substantial changes. Lafarge is not obligated to use the same vendor that was named in the engineering report but it must use the same technology. The outcome under no circumstances shall be less than what is expected of the originally approved engineering report. The originally approved report identified Water Tectonic WaveIonics electrocoagulation (EC) system, which has a proven record of meeting turbidity of less than 10 NTU and occasionally 5 NTU consistently for treatment of construction‐related runoffs. It also has received General Use Level Designation (GLUD) for it from the Department of Ecology for treatment of construction‐related runoffs. We believe the expected effluent resulting from this EC technology, that has passed the Department of Ecology rigours TAPE evaluation and has met the toxicity criteria, is an appropriate technology to be used on this site. The draft permit, as a result of the original submittal and because of this prior knowledge, was drafted with certain requirements appropriate for that originally approved system. For example, since the proposed technology as approved has already passed the toxicity criteria during TAPE evaluation, the proposed NPDES did not consider toxicity requirements accordingly. However, it does not mean other EC systems are not capable of providing similar results. In our opinion, since there is no such established prior knowledge for OilTrap Technology EC system, using it instead of Water Tectonic WaveIonics EC system may trigger extra sampling and toxicity requirements with the permit. Response to Karen Walter – Muckleshoot Indian Tribe: pH Limits: Please note that in marine water, because of the high buffering capacity of it, compliance with the technology‐based limits of 6.0 to 9.0 will assure compliance with the water quality standards of surface waters. Water Quality‐Based Limits for Copper, Lead, and Zinc: During the course of this permit, we will eventually set water quality‐based effluent limits for Copper, Lead, and Zinc after installation of the state of the art electrocoagulation treatment system and after the initial sampling periods. Mixing Study: When and if Ecology decides to incorporate any mixing zone into this permit, or make any substantial changes to it, it will public notice the permit to notify the community of these changes.

FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0002232 LAFARGE NORTH ...

Documents

Transcript of FACT SHEET FOR NPDES PERMIT WA0002232 LAFARGE NORTH ...