[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 75 (Monday, April 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 21719]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08984]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9925-41-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document announces the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Kerwin<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and please refer to the appropriate
EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 2260.05; Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for
Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Renewal); 5 CFR part 2634;
was approved with change on 2/25/2015; OMB Number 2090-0029; expires on
2/28/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 0559.12; Application for Reference and Equivalent
Method Determination (Renewal); 40 CFR parts 53.4, 53.14, 53.15,
53.9(f), (h), (i), and 53.16(a)-(d), (f); was approved without change
on 2/25/2015; OMB Number 2080-0005; expires on 2/28/2018.

Comment Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2347.01; Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements
(Proposed Rule); 40 CFR part 51; OMB filed comment on 2/12/2015.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-08984 Filed 4-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146

FROM:	Bob Lucas, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	August 16, 2007

SUBJECT:	Wastewater Impact Analysis

I.	Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the potential impacts of
wastewater treatment system emissions from enhanced biological treatment
systems.

II.	Background

Section 112 (f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) directs the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess source categories
regulated under Section 112(d) of the CAA and determine whether any
human health or environmental risks remain from the continued emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) following implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  The CAA further states
that if the MACT standards do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risk to
the most exposed individual to less than one in one million,  EPA must
set additional standards to protect human health and the environment, in
accordance with the interpretation set forth in the Benzene NESHAP.
Additionally, the EPA is required to review these technology-based
standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes and control technologies)” no
less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6).  The
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC) was promulgated over 8 years
ago and is now being reviewed.

The standards for wastewater in the Refinery MACT 1 rule reference the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (BWON) of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart FF.
One of the primary control options allowed under BWON is suppression
controls until treatment in an enhanced biological treatment unit (EBU).
 Subpart FF as defines EBU as any unit that “… is a suspended-growth
process that generates biomass, uses recycled biomass, and periodically
removes biomass from the process.”  Although some parameters ranges
for EBU are provided in the general description of an EBU, operation
within these parameter values are not specifically required by the rule.
 As such, the level of performance for different EBU may be vastly
different.

Since the development of BWON and the Refinery MACT 1, EPA developed
testing procedures to better characterize the performance of EBU; these
testing procedures are provided in  40 CFR Part 63 Appendix C:
Determination of the Fraction Biodegraded (Fbio) in a Biological
Treatment Unit.  For most highly volatile organic compounds, 1 – Fbio
represents the fraction of the mass feed to the EBU that is emitted into
the air.   Therefore, requiring EBU to meet a minimum Fbio will directly
impact the emissions performance of the unit.

III.	Emission Assessment

The actual emissions from the EBU are difficult to directly measure.  In
reviewing data from the 22 Facility Study, many refiners assume the
emissions from their EBU are negligible.  However, if the EBU is not
well-mixed or has low biomass concentrations, the emissions from the EBU
can be significant.  The wastewater benzene load for each petroleum
refinery was estimated using the wastewater production factors and
benzene concentrations presented in EPA, 1998.  These wastewater
production factors are provided in Table 1.  The production factor and
concentrations in Table 1 were combined with facility-specific,
process-specific production capacities reported by EIA (2006) to
calculate a total benzene load and a total organic HAP load to the
wastewater treatment system.   The facility-specific benzene and organic
HAP loads are presented in Attachment 1.  It should be noted that the
total benzene load was calculated including all wastewaters; a small
fraction of this loading would not be included in a refinery’s total
annual benzene (TAB) calculation.  Wastewater streams with
concentrations less than 10 ppmw are exempt from the BWON rules
requirements and these streams are not included in a facility’s TAB.
TABs were also projected for each refinery by not including wastewater
streams with average benzene concentrations of less than 10 ppmw.  The
projected TABs are also provided in Attachment 1.

Table 1.  Model Process Unit Characteristics for Petroleum Refinery
Wastewater

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Process Unit	Average Flow Factora (gal/bbl)b
Average Benzene Concentrationc (ppmw)d	Average Organic HAP Concentration
(ppmw)

Crude distillation	2.9	21	140

Alkylation unit	6	3	6.9

Catalytic reforming	1.5	106	238

Hydrocracking unit	2.6	14	72

Hydrotreating/hydrorefining	2.6	6.3	32

Catalytic cracking	2.4	13	165

Thermal cracking/coking	5.9	40	75

Thermal cracking/visbreaking	7.1	40	75

Hydrogen plant	80e	62	278

Asphalt plant	8.6	40	75

Product blending	2.9	24	1,810

Sulfur plant	9.7f	0.8	3.4

Vacuum distillation	3	12	53

Full range distillation	4.5	12	65

Isomerization	1.5	33	117

Polymerization	3.5	0.01	0.04

MEK dewaxing units	0.011	0.1	27

Lube oil/specialty processing unit	2.5	40	75

Tank drawdown	0.02	188	840

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Source:  U.S. EPA (1998)

a All flow factors were derived from Section 114 questionnaire responses

b gal/bbl = gallons of wastewater per barrel of capacity at a given
process unit

c Average concentration in the wastewater

d ppmw = parts per million by weight

e This flow factor is given in gal/MM ft3 of gas production

f This flow factor is given in gal/ton of sulfur

Based on the benzene loads calculated for this analysis, wastewater
loads of benzene can range from 1 to 224 tons per year (tpy); the
average benzene load was 46 tpy and the median benzene load was 28 tpy.
For many refineries, this benzene load is treated using the EBU
provisions in the BWON rule.

Nationwide, the total organic HAP load to wastewater treatment systems
is estimated to be 89,252 tpy, and the total benzene load is estimated
to be 6,922 tpy (or 7.8 percent of the total HAP load).  A significant
portion of the HAP and benzene wastewater load is expected to be
recovered and recycled in the oil-water separator.  We assumed that 50
percent of the benzene load is recovered in the oil-water separator.  Of
the remaining 50 percent benzene load, we assumed that 20 percent would
be treated using stream strippers at 99 percent removal efficiencies.
Therefore, we anticipate that 2,769 tpy (i.e., 40 percent of 6,922 tpy)
of benzene will be treated using EBU.  In a preliminary analysis of EBU,
we estimated that the average EBU treatment efficiency would be 92
percent (Allen, 2001).  However, in this analysis, the operating
parameters were limited to the “typical ranges” indicated in BWON.
As stated previously, operation within these parameter values are not
specifically required by the rule.  Therefore, some operations may fall
outside these ranges.  Additionally, only one model treatment plant that
utilized submerged aeration was modeled.  Many refineries use surface
aeration and may have significantly higher emissions than the model
plant used for this preliminary analysis.

We assumed that 50 percent of the EBU had a performance of greater than
90 percent; we assumed the average performance of these EBU to be 92
percent (i.e., 8 percent emissions).  We assumed the average performance
of the remaining EBU to average 80 percent (i.e., 20 percent emissions).
 Based on these assumptions, the baseline emissions are projected to be
388 tpy [i.e., 2,769×(0.5×0.08 + 0.5×0.20)].  By altering the
operating characteristics of the unit (e.g., changing mixing
characteristics, adding submerged aeration, increasing biomass recycle
to increase the biomass concentration in the unit, ), all of the units
not originally achieving a 90 percent treatment efficiency are assumed
to meet exactly the 90 percent Fbio requirement.  Therefore, the
emissions are reduced to 249 tpy [i.e., 2,769×(0.5×0.08 + 0.5×0.10)]
after achieving an Fbio of 90 percent for all of these units.
Therefore, a total benzene emission reduction of 139 tpy is estimated
from the baseline.  Using the 7.8 percent benzene to HAP ratio
determined previously, we estimate that the performance improvements of
EBUs will also achieve a total organic HAP emission reduction of 1,782
tpy (i.e., 139/0.078).

V.	Cost Assessment

The cost of performing an Fbio test is expected to be $25,000 per
refinery.  These one-time costs were averaged over 5 years, so that the
annual cost of the performance evaluation was $5,000/yr.  Once the
performance evaluation is completed, refineries are expected to develop
operating limits for the minimum mixed liquor suspended solids (MLVSS)
concentration and the maximum food to microorganism ratio, which must be
determined on a weekly basis.  Although owners and operators of EBU are
expected to routinely conduct these analyses, we estimated that an
additional cost of $5,000/yr would be incurred for these analyses and
the associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements.  Therefore,
refineries using EBU for treatment of affected wastewater streams would
incur, on average, a cost of $10,000/yr over the first 5 years from the
initial compliance data.

Only refineries with total annual benzene (TAB) quantities exceeding 10
Mg/yr are subject to the BWON requirements.  Using the benzene
wastewater loading rates predicted using the methods reported in EPA
1998, we estimate that 113 refineries are potentially subject to an EBU
performance evaluation.  Therefore, that total nationwide annual cost of
the EBU performance evaluation and ongoing compliance monitoring is
estimated to by $1.13-million per year.

VI.	References

Allen, C.  2001.  Memorandum to Elaine Manning, W&CPG.  “Evaluation of
air emissions from enhanced biodegradation units.  March 8, 2001.

EIA (Energy Information Agency).  2006.  Refinery Capacity Report 2006.
Prepared by the Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC. June
15.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  1998.  Locating and
Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Benzene.  EPA-454/R-98-011.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).  2002.  Industrial Waste Air
Model Technical Background Document.  EPA-530-R-02-010.  Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/industd/iwair.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/industd/iwair.htm

ATTACHMENT 1

Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Load Estimates

Table A-1.  Facility-specific Estimates of Benzene and Organic HAP Load
to Wastewater

Facility No.	FacName	City	State	Refinery Through-put Capacity (bbl/cd)
Total Benzene load to WWTS, tons/yr	Organic HAP load to WWTS, tons/yr
Esti-mated TAB, Mg/yr

37	Valero Energy	Delaware City	DE	181,500 	 74.7 	 956.9 	 63.4

37.5	Citgo Petroleum	Savannah	GA	28,000 	 16.1 	 72.0 	 14.6

87	Hess Corporation	Port Reading	NJ	58,500 	 6.8 	 230.8 	 5.6

87.3	Chevron USA	Perth Amboy	NJ	80,000 	 31.7 	 283.4 	 28.8

87.6	Citgo Asphalt Refining Co.	Paulsboro	NJ	32,000 	 31.3 	 80.2 	 28.4

88	Sunoco	Westville	NJ	145,000 	 42.7 	 734.5 	 35.2

89	ConocoPhillips	Linden	NJ	238,000 	 74.1 	 1,280.0 	 62.2

90	Valero Energy Corp.	Paulsboro	NJ	160,000 	 61.6 	 740.0 	 52.3

105	Sunoco, Inc.	Marcus Hook	PA	175,000 	 46.1 	 893.2 	 38.2

106	Sunoco, Inc.	Philadelphia	PA	335,000 	 99.6 	 1,746.9 	 83.3

107	ConocoPhillips	Trainer / Marcus Hook	PA	185,000 	 52.9 	 960.3
44.6

140	Giant Refining	Yorktown	VA	58,600 	 23.3 	 303.8 	 20.3

104	American Refining Group	Bradford	PA	10,000 	 2.4 	 36.4 	 2.1

108	United Refining Co.	Warren	PA	65,000 	 27.8 	 276.6 	 23.6

147	Ergon-West Virginia Inc.	Newell (Congo)	WV	20,000 	 5.6 	 77.7 	 4.9

41	PDV Midwest Refining	Lemont	IL	167,000 	 65.1 	 853.5 	 55.1

42	ExxonMobil Corp.	Joliet	IL	238,500 	 95.9 	 1,262.2 	 80.4

43	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Robinson	IL	192,000 	 73.8 	 1,067.1 	 61.7

46	ConocoPhillips	Wood River	IL	306,000 	 127.5 	 1,500.7 	 110.4

47	BP	Whiting	IN	410,000 	 170.8 	 2,002.9 	 143.8

48	Countrymark Cooperative	Mt. Vernon	IN	23,000 	 8.2 	 119.1 	 6.7

53	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Catlettsburg	KY	222,000 	 89.2 	 1,140.4
73.6

54	Somerset Refinery Inc.	Somerset	KY	 5,500 	 1.2 	 28.3 	 1.1

75	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Detroit	MI	100,000 	 38.6 	 476.6 	 32.8

95	BP PLC	Toledo	OH	131,000 	 62.9 	 718.8 	 54.4

96	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Canton	OH	73,000 	 28.0 	 367.0 	 23.8

97	Valero Energy	Lima	OH	146,900 	 61.8 	 807.3 	 52.2

98	Sunoco, Inc.	Toledo	OH	160,000 	 51.0 	 863.7 	 43.4

109	Valero Energy	Memphis	TN	180,000 	 45.3 	 967.7 	 37.2

76	Flint Hills Resourses 	Rosemount	MN	279,300 	 136.1 	 1,355.6 	 114.0

77	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	St. Paul Park	MN	70,000 	 28.8 	 352.0 	 23.6

94	Tesoro	Mandan	ND	58,000 	 14.6 	 307.1 	 12.4

148	Murphy Oil USA Inc.	Superior	WI	34,300 	 13.4 	 160.9 	 11.4

50	Coffeyville Refining	Coffeyville	KS	112,000 	 35.2 	 548.6 	 29.6

51	National Cooperative Refinery Association	McPherson	KS	81,200 	 32.8
 417.0 	 26.6

52	Frontier Oil Corp.	El Dorado	KS	106,000 	 40.4 	 546.1 	 32.6

99	ConocoPhillips	Ponca City	OK	194,000 	 69.5 	 1,017.8 	 57.1

100	Wynnewood Refining Co.	Wynnewood	OK	54,000 	 20.7 	 266.3 	 18.1

101	Sinclair Oil Corp.	Tulsa	OK	70,300 	 27.7 	 326.0 	 23.1

102	Sunoco, Inc.	Tulsa	OK	85,000 	 27.3 	 387.4 	 23.5

103	Valero Energy	Ardmore	OK	83,640 	 31.9 	 403.6 	 26.7

110	AGE Refining & Manufacturing	San Antonio	TX	12,200 	 2.1 	 59.5
1.9

111	Alon USA Energy Inc.	Big Spring	TX	67,000 	 29.3 	 348.6 	 25.1

114	Western Refining	El Paso	TX	116,000 	 33.9 	 594.0 	 28.9

121	Delek Refining Ltd	Tyler	TX	58,000 	 18.4 	 308.3 	 15.8

125	ConocoPhillips	Borger	TX	146,000 	 40.5 	 795.8 	 31.5

130	Valero Energy	Three Rivers	TX	90,000 	 39.8 	 472.0 	 34.1

131	Valero Energy	Sunray	TX	158,327 	 61.8 	 842.1 	 53.8

112	Total SA	Port Arthur	TX	232,000 	 75.4 	 1,102.3 	 64.2

113	BP	Texas City	TX	437,000 	 191.9 	 2,166.2 	 159.0

115	Citgo	Corpus Christi	TX	156,000 	 75.0 	 735.1 	 63.4

117	Pasadena Refining Systems	Pasadena	TX	100,000 	 32.0 	 506.3 	 27.7

118	ExxonMobil Oil Corp	Baytown	TX	562,500 	 224.3 	 2,824.1 	 185.5

119	ExxonMobil Oil Corp	Beaumont	TX	348,500 	 139.7 	 1,737.8 	 116.7

120	Flint Hills Resources	Corpus Christi	TX	288,126 	 101.7 	 1,344.5
85.7

122	Lyondell-Citgo Refining Co.	Houston	TX	270,200 	 116.0 	 1,299.6
97.3

123	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Texas City	TX	72,000 	 18.3 	 353.9 	 16.3

124	Motiva Enterprises	Port Arthur	TX	285,000 	 97.4 	 1,307.5 	 82.7

126	ConocoPhillips	Sweeny	TX	247,000 	 100.3 	 1,203.6 	 84.0

127	Valero Energy Corp.	Port Arthur	TX	260,000 	 113.0 	 1,269.8 	 94.6

128	Shell Oil - Deer Park	Deer Park	TX	333,700 	 127.6 	 1,620.7 	 106.4

129	Trigeant Ltd.	Corpus Christi	TX	26,100 	 10.8 	 67.2 	 9.8

129.5	South Hampton Resources	Silsbee	TX	 3,600 	 1.4 	 18.7 	 1.0

132	Valero Energy	Corpus Christi	TX	142,000 	 96.0 	 652.4 	 78.9

133	Valero Energy	Houston	TX	83,000 	 34.0 	 432.0 	 29.5

134	Valero Energy	Texas City	TX	213,750 	 96.4 	 1,097.6 	 80.3

1	Gulf Atlantic Operations 	Mobile Bay	AL	16,700 	 10.3 	 55.7 	 9.3

3	Shell Chemical LP	Saraland	AL	80,000 	 20.6 	 379.0 	 17.4

55	Pelican Refining Co. 	Lake Charles	LA	13,500 	 1.6 	 54.5 	 1.5

56	Calcasieu Refining Co.	Lake Charles	LA	30,000 	 5.0 	 133.7 	 4.3

61	Citgo Petroleum Corp.	Lake Charles	LA	429,500 	 169.4 	 2,052.2
144.9

62	ConocoPhillips	Westlake	LA	239,400 	 94.2 	 1,075.8 	 79.8

63	ExxonMobil Corp.	Baton Rouge	LA	501,000 	 178.6 	 2,440.1 	 150.5

64	ExxonMobil Corp.	Chalmette	LA	188,160 	 75.2 	 921.6 	 62.4

65	Marathon Petroleum Co. 	Garyville	LA	245,000 	 123.3 	 1,232.1
100.6

66	Motiva Enterprises	Convent	LA	235,000 	 69.0 	 1,200.0 	 56.0

67	Motiva Enterprises	Norco	LA	226,500 	 76.4 	 1,159.0 	 65.1

68	Murphy Oil USA Inc.	Meraux	LA	120,000 	 53.4 	 574.0 	 46.0

69	Valero Energy	Norco	LA	185,003 	 76.1 	 905.6 	 64.0

71	Placid Refining Inc.	Port Allen	LA	56,000 	 18.2 	 281.6 	 15.8

72	Shell Chemical Co.	St. Rose	LA	55,000 	 10.0 	 248.6 	 9.1

73	ConocoPhillips	Belle Chasse	LA	247,000 	 78.5 	 1,187.0 	 67.5

74	Valero Energy	Krotz Springs	LA	80,000 	 20.3 	 393.2 	 17.5

78	Chevron USA Inc.	Pascagoula	MS	330,000 	 165.0 	 1,551.3 	 142.6

1.5	Goodway Refining 	Atmore	AL	 4,100 	 0.7 	 15.2 	 0.6

2	Hunt Refining Co.	Tuscaloosa	AL	34,500 	 20.9 	 115.1 	 18.2

11	Cross Oil & Refining Co.	Smackover	AR	 7,200 	 2.7 	 11.8 	 2.3

12	Lion Oil Co.	El Dorado	AR	70,000 	 28.5 	 275.0 	 23.5

57	Calumet Lubricants Co.	Cotton Valley	LA	13,020 	 2.1 	 47.8 	 1.8

58	Calumet Lubricants Co.	Princeton	LA	 8,300 	 3.6 	 12.5 	 3.1

70	Calumet Lubricants	Shreveport	LA	42,000 	 18.4 	 139.8 	 15.6

79	Ergon Refining Inc.	Vicksburg	MS	23,000 	 10.8 	 42.8 	 9.5

80	Hunt Southland Refining	Lumberton	MS	- 	(facility is currently idled)

81	Hunt Southland Refining	Sandersville	MS	11,000 	 5.0 	 32.1 	 4.6

91	Giant Refining Co.	Bloomfield	NM	16,800 	 4.3 	 94.6 	 3.8

92	Giant Refining Co.	Gallup	NM	20,800 	 6.2 	 120.5 	 5.1

93	Navajo Refining Co.	Artesia + Lovington	NM	75,000 	 24.2 	 407.9
19.9

35	Suncor Energy	Commerce City	CO	62,000 	 21.8 	 285.1 	 18.9

36	Suncor Energy	Denver	CO	32,000 	 9.0 	 164.6 	 7.9

82	Cenex Harvest States	Laurel	MT	55,000 	 26.4 	 238.2 	 22.7

83	ConocoPhillips	Billings	MT	58,000 	 24.7 	 303.8 	 20.5

84	ExxonMobil Corp.	Billings	MT	60,000 	 27.8 	 271.9 	 23.7

85	Montana Refining Co.	Great Falls	MT	 8,200 	 4.0 	 31.6 	 3.4

135	Tesoro	Salt Lake City	UT	58,000 	 14.2 	 293.1 	 12.2

136	Chevron USA	Salt Lake City	UT	45,000 	 15.4 	 232.0 	 13.1

137	Silver Eagle Refining Inc.	Woods Cross	UT	10,250 	 3.3 	 46.7 	 2.9

138	Big West Oil Co.	Salt Lake City	UT	29,400 	 8.0 	 150.7 	 6.5

139	Holly Corp.	Woods Cross	UT	24,700 	 10.7 	 127.9 	 9.1

149	Frontier Oil & Refining Co.	Cheyenne	WY	47,000 	 22.6 	 203.0 	 19.5

150	Little America Refining Co.	Evansville (Casper)	WY	24,500 	 7.5
120.5 	 6.5

150.5	Silver Eagle Refining Inc.	Evanston	WY	 3,000 	 1.2 	 15.8 	 0.9

151	Sinclair Oil Corp.	Sinclair	WY	66,000 	 22.4 	 323.0 	 19.2

152	Wyoming Refining Co.	Newcastle	WY	12,500 	 3.3 	 64.4 	 2.8

4	BP	Prudhoe Bay	AK	12,500 	 2.1 	 58.9 	 1.9

5	ConocoPhillips Alaska	Kuparuk	AK	14,000 	 2.4 	 66.0 	 2.1

6	Petro Star Inc.	North Pole	AK	17,000 	 2.7 	 79.2 	 2.5

7	Petro Star Inc.	Valdez	AK	48,000 	 7.7 	 223.3 	 7.0

8	Tesoro Petroleum Corp.	Kenai	AK	72,000 	 18.7 	 351.8 	 16.3

9	Flint Hills Resources	North Pole	AK	210,000 	 36.7 	 970.1 	 33.3

14	BP	Carson	CA	260,000 	 97.0 	 1,367.8 	 82.9

15	Chevron USA Inc.	El Segundo	CA	260,000 	 100.2 	 1,343.3 	 82.6

16	Chevron USA Inc.	Richmond	CA	242,901 	 125.9 	 1,325.4 	 104.3

17	Big West of CA	Bakersfield	CA	66,000 	 26.5 	 328.5 	 23.3

18	Shell Oil Products US	Martinez	CA	155,600 	 74.2 	 809.0 	 62.3

19	Shell Oil Products US	Wilmington	CA	98,500 	 50.9 	 541.7 	 40.7

19.5	Edgington Oil Co.	Long Beach	CA	26,000 	 14.4 	 109.0 	 13.1

20	ExxonMobil Corp.	Torrance	CA	149,500 	 64.6 	 792.6 	 54.4

22	Greka Energy	Santa Maria	CA	 9,500 	 4.9 	 29.9 	 4.4

24	Valero Energy	Wilmington	CA	 6,200 	 2.9 	 20.2 	 2.6

25	Kern Oil & Refining Co.	Bakersfield	CA	26,000 	 5.3 	 124.4 	 4.5

26	Paramount Petroleum	Paramount	CA	50,000 	 20.2 	 202.8 	 17.7

27	San Joaquin Refining Co.	Bakersfield	CA	15,000 	 11.6 	 58.2 	 10.4

28	Ten By Inc.	Oxnard	CA	 2,800 	 1.3 	 10.8 	 1.2

29	ConocoPhillips	LA - Carson/ Wilmington	CA	139,000 	 63.8 	 726.2
52.9

30.1	ConocoPhillips	SF - Rodeo	CA	76,000 	 37.4 	 404.6 	 31.5

30.2	ConocoPhillips	Arroyo Grande (Santa Maria)	CA	44,200 	 17.1 	 208.1
	 15.5

31	Tesoro	Golden Eagle	CA	166,000 	 72.5 	 909.0 	 61.2

32	Valero Energy	Wilmington	CA	80,887 	 35.7 	 424.7 	 28.6

33	Valero Energy	Benicia	CA	144,000 	 63.1 	 766.3 	 52.9

34	Lunday-Thagard Co.	South Gate	CA	 8,500 	 4.6 	 27.9 	 4.2

39	Chevron USA Inc.	Honolulu (Barber's Point)	HI	54,000 	 19.0 	 232.3
16.8

40	Tesoro Hawaii Petrol.	Kapolei	HI	93,500 	 27.7 	 465.6 	 24.9

86	Foreland Refining Co.	Tonopah/Eagle Springs	NV	 2,000 	 3.4 	 9.3
3.1

103.5	Chevron USA	Portland	OR	 9,000 	 4.4 	 20.3 	 4.0

141	BP	Ferndale	WA	225,000 	 86.6 	 1,154.4 	 75.9

142	Shell Oil Products US	Anacortes	WA	145,000 	 49.5 	 742.9 	 41.6

144	Tesoro	Anacortes	WA	120,000 	 50.6 	 634.0 	 43.8

145	ConocoPhillips	Ferndale	WA	96,000 	 26.7 	 502.0 	 21.8

146	US Oil & Refining Co.	Tacoma	WA	37,850 	 13.0 	 163.7 	 11.2

153	Hovensa LLC	Kingshill (St. Croix)	V.Isl	495,000 	 188.4 	 2,528.4
158.2

155	Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc.	Yabucoa	P.Rico	77,900 	 21.0 	 391.4
18.6

Totals	 6,922 	89,252 	 5,843

Technical Memorandum – Wastewater Impacts Analysis

August 16, 2007

Page   PAGE  4

 PAGE

Technical Memorandum

A-  PAGE  4

A-  PAGE  7