npdes permit no. tx0005886 fact sheetchanges from the permit previously issued on december 15, 2014,...

NPDES PERMIT NO. TX0005886

FACT SHEET

FOR THE DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

APPLICANT

ONEOK Hydrocarbons Southwest, L.L.C.

P.O. Box 550

Mont Belvieu, TX 77580

ISSUING OFFICE

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

1201 Elm Street

Suite 500

Dallas, Texas 75270

PREPARED BY

Quang Nguyen

Environmental Engineer

NPDES Permits & TMDL Branch (6WQ-P)

Water Division

VOICE: 214-665-7238

FAX: 214-665-2191

EMAIL: [email protected]

DATE PREPARED

October 24, 2019

PERMIT ACTION

Renewal of a permit previously issued on December 15, 2014, with an effective date of February 1,

2015, and an expiration date of January 31, 2020.

RECEIVING WATER – BASIN

Cedar Bayou – Trinity-San Jacinto Coastal Basin (Segment No. 0902)

PERMIT NO. TX0005886 FACT SHEET of 22

DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS

In the document that follows, various abbreviations are used. They are as follows:

BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

BOD5 Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise)

BPJ Best professional judgment

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic feet per second

COD Chemical oxygen demand

COE United States Corp of Engineers

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge monitoring report

ELG Effluent limitation guidelines

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

F&WS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

GPD Gallon per day

IP Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards

μg/l Micrograms per liter (one part per billion)

mg/l Milligrams per liter (one part per million)

MMCFD Million cubic feet per day

MGD Million gallons per day

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

MQL Minimum quantification level

O&G Oil and grease

RRC Railroad Commission of Texas

RP Reasonable potential

SIC Standard industrial classification

s.u. Standard units (for parameter pH)

TAC Texas Administrative Code

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TDS Total dissolved solids

TMDL Total maximum daily load

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TRC Total residual chlorine

TSS Total suspended solids

TSWQS Texas Surface Water Quality Standards

WET Whole effluent toxicity

WQMP Water Quality Management Plan

WQS Water Quality Standards


I. CHANGES FROM THE PREVIOUS PERMIT

Changes from the permit previously issued on December 15, 2014, with an effective date of February 1,

2015, and an expiration date of January 31, 2020, are as follow:

• Revised BOD, TSS and Aluminum mass limits have been established at Outfall 001.

• Revised Copper concentration and mass limits have been established at Outfall 001, and

monitoring frequency has been increased to 2/month from 1/month.

• TRC monitoring frequency has been increased to 1/week from 2/month.

• BOD, pH and TSS monitoring frequencies have been increased to 2/month from 1/month.

II. APPLICANT LOCATION and ACTIVITY

As described in the application, the facility is located at 9900 FM 1942, Mont Belvieu, TX 77580;

County of Chambers. Under the SIC code 1321, the applicant operates a natural gas liquids plant. The

facility processes and fractionates natural gas feedstock into ethane, butane, propane and natural

gasoline. Gulf Coast Fractionators supplies water for the facility. The supplied water is used for cooling,

equipment washdown and fire protection. Backwash water from the filter system is routed to settling

tanks to remove solids and then discharge through Outfall 001 (latitude 29o 50’ 55” and longitude 94o

56’ 48.52”) to Cedar Bayou above Tidal, Segment No. 0902 of the Trinity-San Jacinto River Basin.

Equipment washdown and blowdown from cooling towers and heat exchangers are also discharged to

this outfall. Chemicals including biocides, chlorine are added in the cooling towers; the chlorine is then

removed before discharged to the outfall. Undergrounded pipe conveys the effluent from the facility to

Cedar Bayou, at where end of the pipe is located.

Intermittent hydrostatic test water, stormwater runoff (MSGP permit #TXR05J330), and fire water are

discharged (estimated 0.097 MGD total, including 0.011 MGD of hydrostatic test water) through Outfall

002 (latitude 29o 51’ 22.99” and longitude 94o 54’ 34.64”) to an unnamed ditch thence to Cedar Bayou

above Tidal, Segment No. 0902 of the Trinity-San Jacinto River Basin. Description of Segment 0902 is

from a point 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) upstream of IH 10 in Chambers/Harris County to a point 7.4

kilometers (4.6 miles) upstream of FM 1960 in Liberty County.

III. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS

Submitted application in form 2C shows as follow:

Outfall 001 Outfall 002

Parameter Max. Daily Value (mg/l) Max. Daily Value (mg/l)

BOD 13 27.8

TSS 210 418

TRC 3.3 ND

Oil & Grease 1.6 2.140

COD 77 65.3

Color 10 PCU 5 PCU

TOC 43.8 19.1

Ammonia (as N) 0.0675 0.0675

Discharge Flow 0.5 MGD 1.18 MGD


pH range 6.3 – 8.28 s.u. 8.1 – 8.1 s.u.

Temperature (winter) 11 oC 11 oC

Temperature (summer) 33 oC 33 oC

Phosphorus (as P) 2.51 105

Nitrate-nitrite 4.6 535

Nitrogen, total organic (as N) 1.26 541

Antimony, Total 3.29 ug/L ND

Beryllium, Total 0.219 ug/L ND

Sulfate 1050 44.4

Sulfite ND 2

Sulfide (as S) 0.009 78.5

Surfactants 0.132 0.0357

Aluminum, Total 5.6 10.2

Barium, Total 0.327 0.112

Boron, Total 0.492 0.0569

Cobalt, Total 0.934 ug/L 3.52 ug/L

Iron, Total 0.163 7.63

Magnesium, Total 30.6 3.73

Manganese, Total 0.0507 ND

Bromide 0.101 0.101

Flouride 1.33 1.33

Arsenic 25.5 ug/L ND

Cadmium, Total 0.210 ug/L ND

Chromium, Total 6.4 ug/L ND

Copper, Total 50 ug/L 13.3 ug/L

Lead, Total 0.209 ug/L ND

Mercury, Total 0.0124 ug/L ND

Nickel, Total 11.7 ug/L ND

Selenium, Total 2.23 ug/L 3.5 ug/L

Silver, Total 0.216 ug/L ND

Thallium, Total 0.12 ug/L ND

Zinc, Total 18.1 ug/L ND

Cyanide, Total 9.39 ug/L ND

Phenols, Total 14.2 ug/L ND

Molybdenum, Total 12.9 ug/L 4.84 ug/L

Tin, Total 1.11 ug/L 0.382 ug/L

Titanium, Total 2.6 ug/L 84.7 ug/L

A summary of the pollutant data from DMRs (April 2015 - October 2019) show 2 (in 2018), 11 (in 2018

and 2019), 15 (in 2015, 2016, 2018 and 2019), 2 (in 2015 and 2019) and 2 (in 2015) exceedances of

permit limit for TRC, Copper, TSS, pH and BOD5, respectively.

IV. REGULATORY AUTHORITY/PERMIT ACTION

In November 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act establishing the NPDES

permit program to control water pollution. These amendments established technology-based or end-of-

pipe control mechanisms and an interim goal to achieve “water quality which provides for the protection

and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water”; more


commonly known as the “swimmable, fishable” goal. Further amendments in 1977 of the CWA gave

EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for

industry and established the basic structure for regulating pollutants discharges into the waters of the

United States. In addition, it made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point

source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions. Regulations governing

the EPA administered the NPDES permit program are generally found at 40 CFR §122 (program

requirements & permit conditions), §124 (procedures for decision making), §125 (technology-based

standards) and §136 (analytical procedures). Other parts of 40 CFR provide guidance for specific

activities and may be used in this document as required.

The application dated August 1, 2019 was submitted to EPA. It is proposed that the permit be reissued

for a 5-year term following regulations promulgated at 40 CFR §122.46(a).

V. DRAFT PERMIT RATIONALE AND PROPOSED PERMIT CONDITIONS

A. OVERVIEW of TECHNOLOGY-BASED VERSUS WATER QUALITY STANDARDS-BASED

EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS

Regulations contained in 40 CFR §122.44 NPDES permit limits are developed that meet the more

stringent of either technology-based effluent limitation guidelines, numerical and/or narrative water

quality standard-based effluent limits, or the previous permit.

Technology-based effluent limitations are established in the proposed draft permit for BTEX, BOD, TSS

and TOC. Water quality-based effluent limitations are established in the proposed draft permit for

monitoring of applicable WQ-based pollutants, benzene, TRC and pH.

B. TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS/CONDITIONS

1. General Comments

Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR §122.44 (a) require technology-based effluent limitations to be

placed in NPDES permits based on ELGs where applicable, on BPJ in the absence of guidelines, or on a

combination of the two. In the absence of promulgated guidelines for the discharge, permit conditions

may be established using BPJ pursuant to 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2). EPA establishes limitations based on the

following technology-based controls: BPT, BCT, and BAT. These levels of treatment are:

BPT - The first level of technology-based standards generally based on the average of the best existing

performance facilities within an industrial category or subcategory.

BCT - Technology-based standard for the discharge from existing industrial point sources of

conventional pollutants including BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and O&G.

BAT - The most appropriate means available on a national basis for controlling the direct discharge of

toxic and non-conventional pollutants to navigable waters. BAT effluent limits represent the best

existing performance of treatment technologies that are economically achievable within an industrial

point source category or subcategory.

2. Effluent Limitation


The limitations for TOC (Outfall 002), BOD5 and TSS concentrations based on the BPJ of the permit

writer and are consistent with natural gas industry are retained in the permit draft. Concentration limits

will be protective of the stream uses.

The facility stormwater discharges through Outfall 002. The facility shall continue conducting an annual

inspection of the facility to identify areas contributing to the storm water discharge and to identify

potential sources of pollution which may affect the quality of storm water discharges from the facility.

All spilled product and other spilled wastes are required to be cleaned up immediately and properly

disposed. The permit prohibits the use of any detergents, surfactants or other chemicals from being used

to clean up spilled product. Additionally, the permit requires all waste fuel, lubricants, coolants, solvents

or other fluids used in the repair or maintenance of vehicles or equipment be recycled or contained for

proper disposal. All diked areas surrounding storage tank(s) or stormwater collection basin(s) shall be

free of residual oil or other contaminants so as to prevent the accidental discharge of these materials in

the event of flooding, dike failure, or improper draining of the diked area. The permittee shall amend the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) whenever there is a change in the facility or change in

operation of the facility.

Regulations at 40 CFR §122.45(f)(1) require all pollutants limited in permits to have limits expressed in

terms of mass such as pounds per day if feasible. For determining mass limits, the maximum monthly

average effluent flow of the previous 2 years (0.246 MGD) was used to establish the mass load. Mass

limits are determined by the following mathematical relationship:

Loading in lbs/day = pollutant concentration in mg/l * 8.345 (lbs)(l)/(mg)(MG) * average flow in MGD

Daily average BOD loading = 20 mg/l * 8.345 (lbs)(l)/(mg)(MG) * 0.246 MGD = 41.06 lbs/day

Daily max. BOD loading = 30 mg/l * 8.345 (lbs)(l)/(mg)(MG) * 0.246 MGD = 61.59 lbs/day

Daily average TSS loading = 30 mg/l * 8.345 (lbs)(l)/(mg)(MG) * 0.246 MGD = 61.59 lbs/day

Daily max. TSS loading = 45 mg/l * 8.345 (lbs)(l)/(mg)(MG) * 0.246 MGD = 92.38 lbs/day

Mass limitation is not established at Outfall 002 because of intermittent nature of the discharge.

A summary of the technology-based limits for the facility:

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitation

lbs/day, unless noted mg/l, unless noted

Parameter Monthly Avg Daily Max Monthly Avg Daily Max

BOD 41.06 61.59 20 30

TSS 61.59 92.38 30 45

C. WATER QUALITY BASED LIMITATIONS

1. General Comments

Water quality based requirements are necessary where effluent limits more stringent than technology-

based limits are necessary to maintain or achieve federal or state water quality limits. Under Section


301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, discharges are subject to effluent limitations based on federal or state WQS.

Effluent limitations and/or conditions established in the draft permit are in compliance with applicable

State WQS and applicable State water quality management plans to assure that surface WQS of the

receiving waters are protected and maintained, or attained.

2. Implementation

The NPDES permits contain technology-based effluent limitations reflecting the best controls available.

Where these technology-based permit limits do not protect water quality or the designated uses,

additional water quality-based effluent limitations and/or conditions are included in the NPDES permits.

State narrative and numerical water quality standards are used in conjunction with EPA criteria and

other available toxicity information to determine the adequacy of technology-based permit limits and the

need for additional water quality-based controls.

3. State Water Quality Standards

The Clean Water Act in Section 301 (b) requires that effluent limitations for point sources include any

limitations necessary to meet water quality standards. Federal regulations found at 40 CFR 122.44(d)

state that if a discharge poses the reasonable potential to cause an in-stream excursion above a water

quality criterion, the permit must contain an effluent limit for that pollutant. If the discharge poses the

reasonable potential to cause an in-stream violation of narrative standards, the permit must contain

prohibitions to protect that standard. Additionally, the TWQS found at 30 TAC Chapter 307 states that

"surface waters will not be toxic to man from ingestion of water, consumption of aquatic organisms, or

contact with the skin, or to terrestrial or aquatic life." The methodology outlined in the "Procedures to

Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards" (IP) is designed to ensure compliance with 30

TAC Chapter 307. Specifically, the methodology is designed to ensure that no source will be allowed to

discharge any wastewater which: (1) results in instream aquatic toxicity; (2) causes a violation of an

applicable narrative or numerical state water quality standard; (3) results in the endangerment of a

drinking water supply; or (4) results in aquatic bioaccumulation which threatens human health.

The IP document is not a state water quality standard, but rather, a non-binding, non-regulatory guidance

document. See IP at page 2 stating that "this is a guidance document and should not be interpreted as a

replacement to the rules. The TWQS may be found in 30 TAC Sections (§§) 307.1-.10."). EPA does not

consider the IP to be a new or revised water quality standard and has never approved it as such. EPA did

comment on and conditionally “approve” the IP as part of the Continuing Planning Process (CPP)

required under 40 CFR §130.5(c) and the Memorandum of Agreement between TCEQ and EPA, but this

does not constitute approval of the IP as a water quality standard under CWA section 303(c). Therefore,

EPA is not bound by the IP in establishing limits in this permit – but rather, must ensure that the limits

are consistent with the EPA-approved state WQS. However, EPA has made an effort, where we believe

the IP procedures are consistent with all applicable State and Federal regulations, to use those

procedures.

The general criteria and numerical criteria which make up the stream standards are provided in the 2000

EPA-approved Texas Water Quality Standards, Texas Administrative Code (TAC), 30 TAC Sections

307.1 - 307.10, adopted June 30, 2010. The designated uses of the receiving water (Segment 0902) are

primary contact recreation, high aquatic life use and public water supply.

4. Reasonable Potential- Procedures


EPA develops draft permits to comply with State WQS, and for consistency, attempts to follow the IP

where appropriate. However, EPA is bound by the State’s WQS, not State guidance, including the IP, in

determining permit decisions. EPA performs its own technical and legal review for permit issuance, to

assure compliance with all applicable State and Federal requirements, including State WQS, and makes

its determination based on that review.

Waste load allocations (WLA’s) are calculated using estimated effluent dilutions, criteria outlined in the

TWQS, and partitioning coefficients for metals (when appropriate and designated in the implementation

procedures). The WLA is the end-of-pipe effluent concentrations that can be discharged and still meet

instream criteria after mixing with the receiving stream. From the WLA, a long term average (LTA) is

calculated, for both chronic and acute toxicity, using a log normal probability distribution, a given

coefficient of variation (0.6), and either a 90th or a 99th percentile confidence level. The 90th percentile

confidence level is for discharges to rivers, freshwater streams and narrow tidal rivers with upstream

flow data. The 99th percentile confidence level is for discharges to lakes, reservoirs, bays, estuaries,

wide tidal rivers, and narrow tidal rivers without upstream flow data. For facilities that discharge into

receiving streams that have human health standards, a separate LTA will be calculated. The

implementation procedures for determining the human health LTA use a 99th percentile confidence

level, along with a given coefficient of variation (0.6). The smaller LTA value between acute and

chronic condition is used to calculate the daily average (DLY AVG) and daily maximum (DLY MAX)

concentration limits as follow:

DLY AVG = 1.47 LTA and DLY MAX = 3.11 LTA

Procedures found in the IP for determining significant potential are to compare the reported analytical

data either from the DMR history and/or the application information, against percentages of the

calculated daily average water quality-based effluent limitation. If the average of the effluent data equals

or exceeds 70% but is less than 85% of the calculated daily average limit, monitoring for the toxic

pollutant will usually be included as a condition in the permit. If the average of the effluent data is equal

to or greater than 85% of the calculated daily average limit, the permit will generally contain effluent

limits for the toxic pollutant. The permit may specify a compliance period to achieve this limit if

necessary.

Procedures found in the IP require review of the immediate receiving stream and effected downstream

receiving waters. Discharges within three miles of perennial water or perennial pools with significant

aquatic life uses are designed to protect against chronic toxicity and to protect human health in those

waters.

5. Permit-Action - Water Quality-Based Limits

Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR §122.44(d) require limits in addition to, or more stringent than

effluent limitation guidelines (technology based). State WQS that are more stringent than effluent

limitation guidelines are as follows:

a. pH

Criteria for pH is between 6.5 and 9.0 s.u. for the water segment pursuant to 30 TAC 307.10.


b. Aesthetic parameters

Narrative criteria is surface waters must be essentially free of floating debris, visible foam and

maintained in an aesthetically attractive condition so that oil, grease, or related residue will not produce

a visible film or globules of grease on the surface or coat the banks or bottoms of the watercourse; or

cause toxicity to man, aquatic life, or terrestrial life pursuant to 30 TAC 307.4(b).

c. TRC

Limits in NPDES permits must be protective of WQS pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d). The established

limit for TRC is based on national criteria (see page 17 &18 of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for

Chlorine, 1984) and pursuant to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(v) is a chemical specific limit to support the narrative

toxicity Texas WQS at TAC 307.4(d). The TRC limit of 0.019 mg/L at both Outfalls 001 and 002 will

be retained in the draft permit. EPA has interpreted “No Measurable” TRC amount as “Non-Detect” of

TRC at the MQL of 0.033 mg/L or lower. Any TRC result that is less than the MQL can be reported as

zero.

d. Toxics

The CWA in Section 301 (b) requires that effluent limitations for point sources include any limitations

necessary to meet water quality standards. Federal regulations found at 40 CFR §122.44 (d) state that if

a discharge poses the reasonable potential to cause an in-stream excursion above a water quality criteria,

the permit must contain an effluent limit for that pollutant.

The critical low flow, site specific 7Q2 for the receiving stream is 1.858 cfs; the harmonic mean is 2.293

cfs. Outfall 001 discharges directly into Cedar Bayou, a perennial freshwater ditch, stream or river.

TCEQ’S TEXTOX Menu 3 is appropriate for evaluating this discharge.

The reasonable potential calculations were performed based on data obtained from the permit

application. The IP Segment (0902) specific values (i.e., pH, TSS, TDS, chloride, and sulphate) and

updated hardness value of 90 mg/L were also used in the menu to calculate reasonable potential. The

following results are pollutants exceeding the 85% of the calculated daily average effluent limitations

(see TEXTOX Menu 3 in Appendix 1 for detail):

Parameter 85% Calculated Daily

Avg. (ug/l)

Effluent data at Outfall 001 (ug/l)

Aluminum, total 961 5600

Copper, total 13.9 50

EPA will propose the monthly average limit of 57.6 ug/L and daily max limit of 122 ug/L for Copper in

the draft permit. The Aluminum daily maximum limit of 9.5 mg/L will be retained in the draft permit.

Mass limitations of these toxics are calculated using the manner as for BOD and TSS.

TDS is screened for Outfall 001 using method shown in Figure 11 on page 182 in the IP for perennial

stream as follow:

𝐶𝑐 ≥𝑄𝑠𝐶𝑎 + 𝑄𝑒𝐶𝑒

𝑄𝑒 + 𝑄𝑠 = 477 𝑚𝑔/𝑙


Where:

CC = segment TDS criterion (mg/l) = 700

Qs = harmonic mean flow (cfs) of the stream/river = 2.293

Ca = ambient TDS concentration (mg/l) = 373

Qe = effluent flow (cfs) = 0.381 (0.246 MGD)

Ce = effluent TDS concentration (mg/l) = 1100 (conservative value from 1100 and 1000)

Since Cc is greater than 477 mg/l; TDS monitoring and limitation are not required in the draft permit.

DMRs show there was no discharge at Outfall 002 in the previous permit term. The same parameters

will continually be monitored and limited in the draft permit at Outfall 002. The BTEX daily maximum

limit of 100µg/l will be retained in the draft permit at Outfall 002 since Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

and xylenes (BTEX) are among the hydrocarbons typically found in water contaminated by liquid or

gaseous petroleum hydrocarbons.

D. MONITORING FREQUENCY FOR PARAMETERS

Regulations require permits to establish monitoring requirements to yield data representative of the

monitored activity, 40 CFR §122.48(b), and to assure compliance with permit limitations, 40 CFR

§122.44(i)(1). The monitoring frequencies are based on BPJ, taking into account the nature of the

facility, the previous permit, and past compliance history. Composite sample type is appropriate for

continuous discharge at Outfall 001, except for TRC and pH, which has to be analyzed within 15

minutes after sample is collected.

Parameter Frequency at Outfall 001 Frequency at

Outfall 002*

Flow Continuous 1/event

pH 2/month (increased due to exceedances) 1/event

BOD 2/month (increased due to exceedances)

TSS 2/month (increased due to exceedances) 1/event

TRC 1/week (increased due to exceedances) 1/event

TOC 1/event

Benzene 1/event

BTEX 1/event

Toxics 1/month

Copper 2/month (increased due to exceedances)

Aluminum 1/month

* When discharge of hydrostatic test wastewater occurs.

F. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY

Biomonioring is the most direct measure of potential toxicity which incorporates both the effects of

synergism of effluent components and receiving stream water quality characteristics. Biomonitoring of

the effluent is, therefore, required as a condition of this permit to assess potential toxicity.

Outfall 001 directly discharges to Cedar Bayou, perennial freshwater stream. According to the IP the

permittee will conduct chronic testing using the same species in the previous permit. Because all the

required test results were passed in the previous permit term (Appendix 2), the proposed monitoring


frequency is the same as before, once every six months with no limitation. No WET testing is necessary

due to nature of discharge contents at Outfall 002. Critical dilution (CD) is calculated as follow:

𝐶𝐷 =𝑄𝑒

𝑄𝑒 + 7𝑄2 = 17 %

Where (data for Outfall 001):

7Q2 = critical low-flow (cfs) = 1.858

Qe = effluent flow (cfs) = 0.381

The proposed permit requires five (5) dilutions in addition to the control (0% effluent) to be used in the

toxicity tests based on a 0.75 dilution series. These additional effluent concentrations must be 7%, 10%,

13%, 17% and 23%. The low-flow effluent concentration (critical low-flow dilution) is defined as 17%

effluent. The permittee must limit and monitor discharge(s) as specified below:

Effluent Characteristic Discharge Limitations Monitoring Requirements

WET Testing (7-day Chronic Renewal)1 30-day Avg Min. 7-day Min. Frequency Type

Ceriodaphnia dubia Report Report Once/6 months 24-hr Composite

Pimephales promelas Report Report Once/6 months 24-hr Composite 1 Monitoring and reporting requirements begin on the effective date of this permit. See Part II of the permit, Whole Effluent

Toxicity Testing Requirements for additional WET monitoring and reporting conditions.

VI. TMDL REQUIREMENTS

The receiving stream, water segment 0902, is not listed in 2016 Texas 303(d) List, which EPA approved

on August 6, 2019. No additional requirements beyond the already proposed technology-based and/or

water-quality based requirements are needed in the proposed permit.

VII. ANTIDEGRADATION

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Surface Water Quality Standards,

Antidegradation, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 307, Rule §307.5 sets forth the requirements to protect

designated uses through implementation of the State WQS. The limitations and monitoring requirements

set forth in the proposed permit are developed from the State WQS and are protective of those

designated uses. Furthermore, the policy sets forth the intent to protect the existing quality of those

waters, whose quality exceeds their designated use. The permit requirements are protective of the

assimilative capacity of the receiving waters, which is protective of the designated uses of that water.

There are no increases of pollutants being discharged to the receiving waters authorized in the proposed

permit.

IX. ANTIBACKSLIDING

The proposed permit is consistent with the requirements and exemption to meet Antibacksliding

provisions of the Clean Water Act, Section 402(o) and 40 CFR Part 122.44(i)(B), which state in part that

interim or final effluent limitations must be as stringent as those in the previous permit, unless

information is available which was not available at the time of permit issuance. The proposed permit

maintains the Aluminum, TRC and pH concentration limits of the previous permit. The revised

Aluminum, BOD and TSS mass limits which were based on the maximum monthly average effluent


flow of the previous 2 years are more stringent than the previous permit. The Copper limits have been

revised based on updated hardness, critical (7Q2) and harmonic flows.

VIII. ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSIDERATIONS

According to the most recent county listing available at US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

Southwest Region 2 website, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main.cfm, there are eight

threatened (T)/endangered (E) species: Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) (T), Red knot (Calidris

canutus rufa) (T), West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) (T), Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys

imbricata) (E) , Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) (E), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle

(Lepidochelys kempii) (E), Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) (T), and Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta

caretta) (T) for Chambers County as of December 9, 2019. All species, except for Red knot and Logger

head sea turtle, were listed in the previous permit with determination of “no effect”.

The loggerhead is commonly found throughout the North Atlantic including the Gulf of Mexico, the

northern Caribbean, The Bahamas archipelago, and eastward to West Africa, the western Mediterranean,

and the west coast of Europe. The three basic ecosystems in which loggerheads live are the:

Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying) and embryonic

development and hatching occur. Neritic zone - the nearshore marine environment (from the surface to

the sea floor) where water depths do not exceed 200 meters. The neritic zone generally includes the

continental shelf, but in areas where the continental shelf is very narrow or nonexistent, the neritic zone

conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 200meters. And, oceanic zone - the

vast open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths are greater than 200

meters. The identified threats to the loggerhead include illegal harvest, beach activities (i.e., cleaning,

military exercises, recreational, constructions, etc.), turtle nest disturbance, fisheries activities, predation,

pollution (i.e., oil and lighting), stormwater Outfalls, beach erosion and accretion, climate change,

natural catastrophes, oil and gas activities. The proposed permit is consistent with the State WQS and

does not authorize activities that may cause destruction of the loggerhead habitat, and reissuance of the

permit will have no effect on this species.

Red Knot is a medium-sized shorebird and the largest of the "peeps" in North America, and one of the

most colorful. It makes one of the longest yearly migrations of any bird, traveling 15,000 km (9,300

mile) from its Arctic breeding grounds to Tierra del Fuego in southern South America. Their diet varies

according to season; arthropods and larvae are the preferred food items at the breeding grounds, while

various hard-shelled mollusks are consumed at other feeding sites at other times. The Red Knot nests on

the ground, near water, and usually inland. The nest is a shallow scrape lined with leaves, lichens and

moss. Males construct three to five nest scrapes in their territories prior to the arrival of the females. The

female lays three or more usually four eggs, apparently laid over the course of six days. Both parents

incubate the eggs, sharing the duties equally. The incubation period last around 22 days. The birds have

become threatened as a result of commercial harvesting of horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay which

began in the early 1990s. Delaware Bay is a critical stopover point during spring migration; the birds

refuel by eating the eggs laid by these crabs (with little else to eat in the Delaware Bay). Issuance of this

permit is found to have no impact on the habitat of this species, as none of the aforementioned listed

activities is authorized by this permitting action. There is also no designated critical habitat on the

property of the facility.

In accordance with requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, EPA has

reviewed this permit for its effect on listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main.cfm


habitat. After review, EPA has determined that the reissuance of this permit will have “no effect” on

listed threatened and endangered species nor will adversely modify designated critical habitat. EPA

makes this determination based on the following:

1. Submitted data shows no pollutants at levels which might affect species habitats. Issuance of this

permit is found to have no impact on the habitats of the species.

2. EPA has received no additional information since the previous permit issuance which would lead

to revision of its determinations.

3. The draft permit is consistent with the States WQS and does not increase pollutant loadings.

4. EPA determines that Items 1, thru 3 result in no change to the environmental baseline established

by the previous permit, therefore, EPA concludes that reissuance of this permit will have “no

effect” on listed species and designated critical habitat.

IX. HISTORICAL and ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION CONSIDERATIONS

The reissuance of the permit should have no impact on historical and/or archeological sites since no

construction activities are planned in the reissuance.

X. PERMIT REOPENER

The permit may be reopened and modified during the life of the permit if relevant portions of Texas

WQS are revised or remanded. In addition, the permit may be reopened and modified during the life of

the permit if relevant procedures implementing the WQS are either revised or promulgated. Should the

State adopt a new WQS, and/or develop a TMDL, this permit may be reopened to establish effluent

limitations for the parameter(s) to be consistent with that approved State standard and/or water quality

management plan, in accordance with 40 CFR §122.44(d). Modification of the permit is subject to the

provisions of 40 CFR §124.5.

XI. VARIANCE REQUESTS

None

XII. CERTIFICATION

This permit is in the process of certification by the State agency following regulations promulgated at 40

CFR 124.53. A draft permit and draft public notice will be sent to the District Engineer, Corps of

Engineers; to the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the National Marine

Fisheries Service prior to the publication of that notice.

XIII. FINAL DETERMINATION

The public notice describes the procedures for the formulation of final determinations.

XIV. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD


The following information was used to develop the proposed permit:

A. APPLICATION

NPDES Application for Permit to Discharge, Form 1 & 2C dated August 1, 1019.

B. State of Texas References

2016 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List, approved by EPA on August 6, 2019.

Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, 30 TAC Sections 307.1 - 307.10, effective June 30, 2010.

C. 40 CFR CITATIONS

Sections 122, 124, 125, 133, and 136

D. MISCELLANEOUS

NPDES Permit Writers’ Manual, September 2010.


Appendix 1

TEXTOX Menu 3


PERMIT INFORMATIONPermittee Name:TPDES Permit No.:Outfall No.:Prepared by:Date:

DISCHARGE INFORMATION

Receiving Waterbody:

Segment No.: 0902

TSS (mg/L): 3

pH (Standard Units): 7.1

Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3): 90

Chloride (mg/L): 83

Effluent Flow for Aquatic Life (MGD): 0.246

Critical Low Flow [7Q2] (cfs): 1.858

% Effluent for Chronic Aquatic Life (Mixing Zone): 17.00

% Effluent for Acute Aquatic Life (ZID): 45.04

Effluent Flow for Human Health (MGD): 0.246

Harmonic Mean Flow (cfs): 2.293

% Effluent for Human Health: 14.24

Human Health Criterion (select: PWS, FISH, or INC) PWS

Stream/River Metal

Intercept

(b)

Slope

(m)

Partition

Coefficient

(Kp)

Dissolved

Fraction

(Cd/Ct) Source

Water

Effect Ratio

(WER) Source

Aluminum N/A N/A N/A 1.00 Assumed 1.00 Assumed

Arsenic 5.68 -0.73 214635.47 0.608 1.00 Assumed

Cadmium 6.60 -1.13 1150410.88 0.225 1.00 Assumed

Chromium (total) 6.52 -0.93 1192002.68 0.219 1.00 Assumed

Chromium (trivalent) 6.52 -0.93 1192002.68 0.219 1.00 Assumed

Chromium (hexavalent) N/A N/A N/A 1.00 Assumed 1.00 Assumed

Copper 6.02 -0.74 464440.70 0.418 1.00 Assumed

Lead 6.45 -0.80 1170315.61 0.222 1.00 Assumed

Mercury N/A N/A N/A 1.00 Assumed 1.00 Assumed

Nickel 5.69 -0.57 261842.95 0.560 1.00 Assumed

Selenium N/A N/A N/A 1.00 Assumed 1.00 Assumed

Silver 6.38 -1.03 773686.66 0.301 1.00 Assumed

Zinc 6.10 -0.70 583465.42 0.364 1.00 Assumed

Parameter

FW Acute

Criterion

(µg/L)

FW

Chronic

Criterion

(µg/L)

WLAa

(µg/L)

WLAc

(µg/L)

LTAa

(µg/L)

LTAc

(µg/L)

Daily Avg.

(µg/L)

Daily Max.

(µg/L)

Aldrin 3.0 N/A 6.66 N/A 3.82 N/A 5.61 11.87

Aluminum 991 N/A 2200 N/A 1261 N/A 1853 3921

Arsenic 340 150 1241 1450 711 1117 1045 2212

Cadmium 7.7 0.229 76.6 5.99 43.9 4.61 6.77 14.33

Carbaryl 2.0 N/A 4.44 N/A 2.54 N/A 3.74 7.91

Chlordane 2.4 0.004 5.33 0.0235 3.05 0.0181 0.0266 0.0563

Chlorpyrifos 0.083 0.041 0.184 0.241 0.106 0.186 0.155 0.328

Chromium (trivalent) 523 68 5310 1830 3043 1409 2071 4382

Chromium (hexavalent) 15.7 10.6 34.9 62.3 20.0 48.0 29.4 62.1

Copper 12.9 8.7 68.3 121.8 39.2 93.8 57.6 122

Cyanide (free) 45.8 10.7 101.7 62.9 58.3 48.5 71.2 150.7

4,4'-DDT 1.1 0.001 2.44 0.0059 1.400 0.0045 0.0067 0.0141

Demeton N/A 0.1 N/A 0.588 N/A 0.453 0.666 1.408

Diazinon 0.17 0.17 0.377 1.000 0.216 0.770 0.318 0.673

Dicofol [Kelthane] 59.3 19.8 131.7 116.5 75.4 89.7 110.9 234.6

Dieldrin 0.24 0.002 0.533 0.0118 0.305 0.0091 0.0133 0.0282

Diuron 210 70 466 412 267 317 393 831

Endosulfan I (alpha ) 0.22 0.056 0.488 0.329 0.280 0.254 0.373 0.789

AQUATIC LIFE

CALCULATE DAILY AVERAGE AND DAILY MAXIMUM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS:

CALCULATE DISSOLVED FRACTION (AND ENTER WATER EFFECT RATIO IF APPLICABLE):

Cedar Bayou above Tidal

TX0005886001Quang Nguyen12/04/2019

OneOK Hydrocarbons Southwest

TEXTOX MENU #3 - PERENNIAL STREAM OR RIVER

The water quality-based effluent limitations developed below are calculated using:

Table 1, 2014 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (30 TAC 307) for Freshwater Aquatic LifeTable 2, 2018 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards for Human Health"Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards," TCEQ, June 2010


Endosulfan II (beta ) 0.22 0.056 0.488 0.329 0.280 0.254 0.373 0.789

Endosulfan sulfate 0.22 0.056 0.488 0.329 0.280 0.254 0.373 0.789

Endrin 0.086 0.002 0.191 0.0118 0.109 0.0091 0.0133 0.0282

Guthion [Azinphos Methyl] N/A 0.01 N/A 0.059 N/A 0.045 0.067 0.141

Heptachlor 0.52 0.004 1.15 0.0235 0.662 0.0181 0.0266 0.0563

Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma ) [Lindane] 1.126 0.08 2.50 0.471 1.433 0.362 0.533 1.127

Lead 58 2.24 577 59.5 330 45.8 67.4 143

Malathion N/A 0.01 N/A 0.059 N/A 0.045 0.067 0.141

Mercury 2.4 1.3 5.33 7.65 3.05 5.89 4.49 9.50

Methoxychlor N/A 0.03 N/A 0.176 N/A 0.136 0.200 0.423

Mirex N/A 0.001 N/A 0.0059 N/A 0.0045 0.0067 0.0141

Nickel 428 47.6 1698 500 973 385 565 1196

Nonylphenol 28 6.6 62.2 38.8 35.6 29.89 43.9 93.0

Parathion (ethyl) 0.065 0.013 0.144 0.076 0.083 0.059 0.087 0.183

Pentachlorophenol 9.6 7.4 21.4 43.5 12.3 33.5 18.0 38.2

Phenanthrene 30 30 66.6 176.4 38.2 135.9 56.1 118.7

Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 2.0 0.014 4.44 0.082 2.54 0.063 0.093 0.197

Selenium 20 5 44.4 29.41 25.4 22.64 33.3 70.4

Silver 0.8 N/A 41.15 N/A 23.58 N/A 34.66 73.3

Toxaphene 0.78 0.0002 1.732 0.00118 0.992 0.00091 0.00133 0.00282

Tributyltin [TBT] 0.13 0.024 0.289 0.141 0.165 0.109 0.160 0.338

2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 136 64 302 376 173.0 289.8 254 538

Zinc 107 108 654 1748 375 1346 551 1166

Parameter

Water and

Fish

Criterion

Fish Only

Criterion

(µg/L)

Incidental

Fish

Criterion

WLAh

(µg/L)

LTAh

(µg/L)

Daily Avg.

(µg/L)

Daily Max.

(µg/L)

Acrylonitrile 1.0 115 1150 7.02 6.53 9.60 20.32

Aldrin 1.146E-05 1.147E-05 1.147E-04 8.05E-05 7.49E-05 1.10E-04 2.33E-04

Anthracene 1109 1317 13170 7790 7245 10650 22531

Antimony 6 1071 10710 42.1 39.2 57.6 121.9

Arsenic 10 N/A N/A 115.5 107.4 157.9 334

Barium 2000 N/A N/A 14049 13065 19206 40634

Benzene 5 581 5810 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

Benzidine 0.0015 0.107 1.07 0.0105 0.0098 0.0144 0.0305

Benzo(a )anthracene 0.024 0.025 0.25 0.169 0.157 0.230 0.488

Benzo(a )pyrene 0.0025 0.0025 0.025 0.0176 0.0163 0.024 0.051

Bis(chloromethyl)ether 0.0024 0.2745 2.745 0.0169 0.0157 0.023 0.049

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0.60 42.83 428.3 4.21 3.92 5.76 12.19

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate] 6 7.55 75.5 42.1 39.2 57.6 121.9

Bromodichloromethane [Dichlorobromomethane] 10.2 275 2750 71.6 66.6 98.0 207

Bromoform [Tribromomethane] 66.9 1060 10600 470 437 642 1359

Cadmium 5 N/A N/A 156.3 145.4 213.7 452

Carbon Tetrachloride 4.5 46 460 31.6 29.4 43.2 91.4

Chlordane 0.0025 0.0025 0.025 0.0176 0.0163 0.024 0.051

Chlorobenzene 100 2737 27370 702 653 960 2032

Chlorodibromomethane [Dibromochloromethane] 7.5 183 1830 52.7 49.0 72.0 152.4

Chloroform [Trichloromethane] 70 7697 76970 492 457 672 1422

Chromium (hexavalent) 62 502 5020 436 405 595 1260

Chrysene 2.45 2.52 25.2 17.21 16.01 23.5 49.8

Cresols [Methylphenols] 1041 9301 93010 7312 6801 9997 21150

Cyanide (free) 200 N/A N/A 1405 1307 1921 4063

4,4'-DDD 0.002 0.002 0.02 0.0140 0.0131 0.0192 0.0406

4,4'-DDE 0.00013 0.00013 0.0013 0.00091 0.00085 0.00125 0.0026

4,4'-DDT 0.0004 0.0004 0.004 0.0028 0.0026 0.0038 0.0081

2,4'-D 70 N/A N/A 492 457 672 1422

Danitol [Fenpropathrin] 262 473 4730 1840 1712 2516 5323

1,2-Dibromoethane [Ethylene Dibromide] 0.17 4.24 42.4 1.194 1.111 1.633 3.45

m -Dichlorobenzene [1,3-Dichlorobenzene] 322 595 5950 2262 2104 3092 6542

o -Dichlorobenzene [1,2-Dichlorobenzene] 600 3299 32990 4215 3920 5762 12190

p -Dichlorobenzene [1,4-Dichlorobenzene] 75 N/A N/A 527 490 720 1524

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.79 2.24 22.4 5.55 5.16 7.59 16.05

1,2-Dichloroethane 5 364 3640 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

1,1-Dichloroethylene [1,1-Dichloroethene] 7 55114 551140 49.2 45.7 67.2 142.2

Dichloromethane [Methylene Chloride] 5 13333 133330 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

1,2-Dichloropropane 5 259 2590 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

1,3-Dichloropropene [1,3-Dichloropropylene] 2.8 119 1190 19.67 18.29 26.9 56.9

Dicofol [Kelthane] 0.30 0.30 3 2.11 1.960 2.88 6.10

Dieldrin 2.0E-05 2.0E-05 2.0E-04 1.40E-04 1.31E-04 1.92E-04 4.06E-04

HUMAN HEALTH

CALCULATE DAILY AVERAGE AND DAILY MAXIMUM EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS:


2,4-Dimethylphenol 444 8436 84360 3119 2901 4264 9021

Di-n -Butyl Phthalate 88.9 92.4 924 624 581 854 1806

Dioxins/Furans [TCDD Equivalents] 7.80E-08 7.97E-08 7.97E-07 5.48E-07 5.10E-07 7.49E-07 1.58E-06

Endrin 0.02 0.02 0.2 0.140 0.131 0.192 0.406

Epichlorohydrin 53.5 2013 20130 376 350 514 1087

Ethylbenzene 700 1867 18670 4917 4573 6722 14222

Ethylene Glycol 46744 1.68E+07 1.68E+08 328350 305366 448888 949688

Fluoride 4000 N/A N/A 28098 26131 38412 81267

Heptachlor 8.0E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.00056 0.00052 0.00077 0.00163

Heptachlor Epoxide 0.00029 0.00029 0.0029 0.0020 0.0019 0.0028 0.0059

Hexachlorobenzene 0.00068 0.00068 0.0068 0.0048 0.0044 0.0065 0.0138

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.21 0.22 2.2 1.475 1.372 2.017 4.27

Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha ) 0.0078 0.0084 0.084 0.055 0.051 0.075 0.158

Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta ) 0.15 0.26 2.6 1.054 0.980 1.440 3.05

Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma ) [Lindane] 0.2 0.341 3.41 1.405 1.307 1.921 4.06

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 10.7 11.6 116 75.2 69.9 102.8 217

Hexachloroethane 1.84 2.33 23.3 12.92 12.02 17.67 37.4

Hexachlorophene 2.05 2.90 29 14.40 13.39 19.69 41.6

4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol 1092 15982 159820 7671 7134 10487 22186

Lead 1.15 3.83 38.3 36.4 33.9 49.8 105.4

Mercury 0.0122 0.0122 0.122 0.086 0.080 0.117 0.248

Methoxychlor 2.92 3.0 30 20.5 19.08 28.0 59.3

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 13865 9.92E+05 9.92E+06 97394 90576 133147 281692

Methyl tert -butyl ether [MTBE] 15 10482 104820 105.4 98.0 144.0 305

Nickel 332 1140 11400 4164 3873 5693 12044

Nitrate-Nitrogen (as Total Nitrogen) 10000 N/A N/A 70244 65327 96031 203168

Nitrobenzene 45.7 1873 18730 321 299 439 928

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 0.0037 2.1 21 0.026 0.024 0.036 0.075

N-Nitroso-di-n -Butylamine 0.119 4.2 42 0.836 0.777 1.143 2.42

Pentachlorobenzene 0.348 0.355 3.55 2.44 2.27 3.34 7.07

Pentachlorophenol 0.22 0.29 2.9 1.545 1.437 2.11 4.47

Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 6.4E-04 6.4E-04 6.40E-03 0.0045 0.0042 0.0061 0.0130

Pyridine 23 947 9470 161.6 150.3 221 467

Selenium 50 N/A N/A 351 327 480 1016

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0.23 0.24 2.4 1.616 1.503 2.21 4.67

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1.64 26.35 263.5 11.52 10.71 15.75 33.3

Tetrachloroethylene [Tetrachloroethylene] 5 280 2800 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

Thallium 0.12 0.23 2.3 0.843 0.784 1.152 2.44

Toluene 1000 N/A N/A 7024 6533 9603 20317

Toxaphene 0.011 0.011 0.11 0.077 0.072 0.106 0.223

2,4,5-TP [Silvex] 50 369 3690 351 327 480 1016

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 784354 7843540 1405 1307 1921 4063

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 166 1660 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

Trichloroethylene [Trichloroethene] 5 71.9 719 35.1 32.7 48.0 101.6

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1039 1867 18670 7298 6788 9978 21109

TTHM [Sum of Total Trihalomethanes] 80 N/A N/A 562 523 768 1625

Vinyl Chloride 0.23 16.5 165 1.616 1.503 2.209 4.673

Aquatic Life

70% of

Daily Avg.

85% of

Daily Avg.

Parameter (µg/L) (µg/L)

Aldrin 3.93 4.77

Aluminum 1297 1575

Arsenic 732 889

Cadmium 4.74 5.76

Carbaryl 2.62 3.18

Chlordane 0.0186 0.0226

Chlorpyrifos 0.109 0.132

Chromium (trivalent) 1450 1760

Chromium (hexavalent) 20.6 25.0

Copper 40.3 48.9

Cyanide (free) 49.9 60.5

4,4'-DDT 0.0047 0.0057

Demeton 0.466 0.566

Diazinon 0.223 0.270

Dicofol [Kelthane] 77.6 94.3

Dieldrin 0.0093 0.0113

Diuron 275 334

Endosulfan I (alpha ) 0.261 0.317

CALCULATE 70% AND 85% OF DAILY AVERAGE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS:


Endosulfan II (beta ) 0.261 0.317

Endosulfan sulfate 0.261 0.317

Endrin 0.0093 0.0113

Guthion [Azinphos Methyl] 0.047 0.057

Heptachlor 0.0186 0.0226

Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma ) [Lindane] 0.373 0.453

Lead 47.2 57.3

Malathion 0.047 0.057

Mercury 3.14 3.82

Methoxychlor 0.140 0.170

Mirex 0.0047 0.0057

Nickel 396 481

Nonylphenol 30.76 37.3

Parathion (ethyl) 0.061 0.074

Pentachlorophenol 12.6 15.3

Phenanthrene 39.3 47.7

Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 0.065 0.079

Selenium 23.30 28.29

Silver 24.26 29.46

Toxaphene 0.00093 0.00113

Tributyltin [TBT] 0.112 0.136

2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 178.0 216

Zinc 386 469

Human Health

70% of

Daily Avg.

85% of

Daily Avg.

Parameter (µg/L) (µg/L)

Acrylonitrile 6.72 8.16

Aldrin 7.70E-05 9.35E-05

Anthracene 7455 9052

Antimony 40.3 49.0

Arsenic 110.5 134.2

Barium 13444 16325

Benzene 33.6 40.8

Benzidine 0.0101 0.0122

Benzo(a )anthracene 0.161 0.196

Benzo(a )pyrene 0.0168 0.0204

Bis(chloromethyl)ether 0.0161 0.0196

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 4.03 4.90

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate [Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate] 40.3 49.0

Bromodichloromethane [Dichlorobromomethane] 68.6 83.3

Bromoform [Tribromomethane] 450 546

Cadmium 149.6 181.7

Carbon Tetrachloride 30.2 36.7

Chlordane 0.0168 0.0204

Chlorobenzene 672 816

Chlorodibromomethane [Dibromochloromethane] 50.4 61.2

Chloroform [Trichloromethane] 471 571

Chromium (hexavalent) 417 506

Chrysene 16.47 20.00

Cresols [Methylphenols] 6998 8497

Cyanide (free) 1344 1633

4,4'-DDD 0.0134 0.0163

4,4'-DDE 0.00087 0.00106

4,4'-DDT 0.0027 0.0033

2,4'-D 471 571

Danitol [Fenpropathrin] 1761 2139

1,2-Dibromoethane [Ethylene Dibromide] 1.143 1.388

m -Dichlorobenzene [1,3-Dichlorobenzene] 2165 2628

o -Dichlorobenzene [1,2-Dichlorobenzene] 4033 4898

p -Dichlorobenzene [1,4-Dichlorobenzene] 504 612

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 5.31 6.45

1,2-Dichloroethane 33.6 40.8

1,1-Dichloroethylene [1,1-Dichloroethene] 47.1 57.1

Dichloromethane [Methylene Chloride] 33.6 40.8

1,2-Dichloropropane 33.6 40.8

1,3-Dichloropropene [1,3-Dichloropropylene] 18.82 22.9

Dicofol [Kelthane] 2.017 2.45

Dieldrin 1.34E-04 1.63E-04

2,4-Dimethylphenol 2985 3624

Di-n -Butyl Phthalate 598 726


Dioxins/Furans [TCDD Equivalents] 5.24E-07 6.37E-07

Endrin 0.134 0.163

Epichlorohydrin 360 437

Ethylbenzene 4706 5714

Ethylene Glycol 314221 381555

Fluoride 26889 32651

Heptachlor 0.00054 0.00065

Heptachlor Epoxide 0.00195 0.00237

Hexachlorobenzene 0.0046 0.0056

Hexachlorobutadiene 1.412 1.714

Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha ) 0.052 0.064

Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta ) 1.008 1.224

Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma ) [Lindane] 1.344 1.633

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 71.9 87.3

Hexachloroethane 12.37 15.02

Hexachlorophene 13.78 16.73

4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol 7341 8914

Lead 34.9 42.3

Mercury 0.082 0.100

Methoxychlor 19.63 23.8

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 93203 113175

Methyl tert -butyl ether [MTBE] 100.8 122.4

Nickel 3985 4839

Nitrate-Nitrogen (as Total Nitrogen) 67222 81626

Nitrobenzene 307 373

N-Nitrosodiethylamine 0.025 0.030

N-Nitroso-di-n -Butylamine 0.800 0.971

Pentachlorobenzene 2.34 2.84

Pentachlorophenol 1.479 1.796

Polychlorinated Biphenyls [PCBs] 0.0043 0.0052

Pyridine 154.6 187.7

Selenium 336 408

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 1.546 1.877

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 11.02 13.39

Tetrachloroethylene [Tetrachloroethylene] 33.6 40.8

Thallium 0.807 0.980

Toluene 6722 8163

Toxaphene 0.074 0.090

2,4,5-TP [Silvex] 336 408

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1344 1633

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 33.6 40.8

Trichloroethylene [Trichloroethene] 33.6 40.8

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 6984 8481

TTHM [Sum of Total Trihalomethanes] 538 653

Vinyl Chloride 1.546 1.877


Appendix 2

Facility Name

Outfall Number

42 %

*Critical Dilution in draft permit, do not use % sign.

Enter data in yellow shaded cells only. Fifty percent should be entered as 50, not 50%.

Test Data

INVERTEBRATE VERTEBRATE VERTEBRATE INVERTEBRATE

Date (mm/yyyy) Lethal NOEC Sublethal NOEC Lethal TU Sublethal TU Lethal NOEC Sublethal NOEC Lethal TU Sublethal TU

Dec-16 56 56 1.79 1.79 56 <18 1.79 #VALUE!

Jun-17 56 56 1.79 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

Dec-17 56 56 1.79 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

Jun-18 56 56 1.79 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

Dec-18 42 56 2.38 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

Jun-19 56 56 1.79 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

42 56 2.38 1.79 56 56 1.79 1.79

Count 6 6 6 5

Mean 1.885 1.786 1.786 #VALUE!

Std. Dev. 0.243 0.000 0.000 #VALUE!

CV 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

RPMF 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3

2.381 Reasonable Potential Acceptance Criteria

Vertebrate Lethal 2.100 No Reasonable Potential exists. Permit requires WET monitoring, but no WET limit.

Vertebrate Sublethal 1.575 No Reasonable Potential exists. Permit requires WET monitoring, but no WET limit.

Invertebrate Lethal 1.575 No Reasonable Potential exists. Permit requires WET monitoring, but no WET limit.

Invertebrate Sublethal 1.725 No Reasonable Potential exists. Permit requires WET monitoring, but no WET limit.

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Proposed Critical Dilution*

ONEOK Hydrocarbons Southwest

001TX0005886NPDES Permit Number

npdes permit no. tx0005886 fact sheetchanges from the permit previously issued on december 15, 2014,...

Documents