This Document Gives Pertinent Information Concerning the Reissuance of the Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit Listed Below

This document gives pertinent information concerning the reissuance of the Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit listed below. This permit is being processed as a Minor, Industrial permit. The discharge results from the operation of a bulk petroleum fuel storage and distribution center. For purposes of this permitting action, the discharge will be designated as stormwater only as any hydrostatic testing component, which is regulated under the VPDES General Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests, would be infrequent and as such, not considered a significant component of the discharge. This permit action consists of updating applicable limitations and monitoring requirements based on the current Virginia Water Quality Standards (effective October 18, 2019) and updating permit language as appropriate. The effluent limitations, stormwater provisions, monitoring requirements, and special conditions contained in this permit will maintain the Water Quality Standards (WQS) of 9VAC25-260-00 et seq.

1. Facility Name and Mailing Fairfax Terminal Complex SIC Code: 5171 – Petroleum Bulk Address: 9601 Colonial Avenue Stations and Terminals Fairfax, VA 22031 NAICS Code: 424710 – Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals Facility Location: 9601 Colonial Avenue County : Fairfax Fairfax, VA 22031 Telephone Facility Contact Name: Mr. Mike Younce (703) 503-3687 Number: Facility E-mail Address: [email protected]

Expiration Date of 2. Permit No.: VA0001872 November 30, 2020 Previous Permit: Other VPDES Permits associated with this facility: None Other Permits associated with this facility: None E2/E3/E4 Status: Not Applicable

3. Owner Name: Joint Basin Corporation Telephone Owner Contact/Title: Mr. Mike Younce / President (703) 503-3687 Number: Owner E-mail Address: [email protected]

4. Application Complete Date: May 14, 2020 Permit Drafted By: Susan Mackert Date Drafted: July 15, 2020 Draft Permit Reviewed By: Alison Thompson Date Reviewed: August 3, 2020 WPM Review By: Bryant Thomas Date Reviewed: August 31, 2020 Public Comment Period : Start Date: October 16, 2020 End Date: November 16, 2020

5. Receiving Waters Information: Receiving Stream Name : Daniels Run, UT Stream Code: 1-XIV Drainage Area at Outfall: <5 square miles River Mile: 0.18 Stream Basin: Potomac River Subbasin: Potomac River Section: 7 Stream Class: III Special Standards: b Waterbody ID: VAN-A15R / PL30

Critical Flows: Critical flows are not applicable for discharges comprised entirely of stormwater.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 2 of 19

6. Statutory or Regulatory Basis for Special Conditions and Monitoring: X State Water Control Law EPA Guidelines X Clean Water Act X Water Quality Standards X VPDES Permit Regulation X Other: 9VAC25-120* / 9VAC25-151** X EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulation *9VAC25 -120 – VPDES General Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests **9VAC25-151 – VPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity

7. Permit Characterization:

X Private Possible Interstate Effect X Benchmark Monitoring Required

Public X Water Quality Limited X Whole Effluent Toxicity Program Required

State X Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) X e-DMR Participant

8. Industrial Process Description:

The Joint Basin Corporation consists of four companies that operate petroleum product distribution terminals on Colonial Avenue in Fairfax, Virginia. The four companies which comprise the Joint Basin Corporation are Buckeye Terminals, LLC, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and TransMontaigne, Incorporated. The terminals receive product from the Colonial Pipeline which is then stored in numerous above ground storage tanks (ASTs) located within the diked areas of the four properties. Final product is distributed by tanker truck and via the Colonial Pipeline.

Outfall 001 (Stormwater Impoundment Basin) The construction of a stormwater impoundment basin was originally requested by the City of Fairfax as a required safety objective for the terminal complex. The stormwater impoundment basin, which was completed in 1969, was designed to capture stormwater runoff from the terminal complex that would otherwise drain directly into Daniels Run. Under normal conditions, the stormwater impoundment basin discharges via a concrete weir to an unnamed tributary to Daniels Run. The permit application further divides stormwater flow to the stormwater impoundment basin in to two major groups: terminal sources and non-terminal sources.

 Terminal sources include stormwater flow from each of the four terminals. Each terminal is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the equipment and best management practices on their respective properties. A summary of structural and non-structural stormwater control measures is found as Attachment 1. An additional terminal source includes stormwater runoff from Colonial Avenue which flows in to the stormwater impoundment basin after passing through culverts along Colonial Avenue and through the western portion of the Citgo property.

 Non-terminal sources include stormwater runoff from a residential area south and west of the terminal complex, the Army Navy Country Club golf course, Pickett Road and several commercial businesses located east of Pickett Road.

Internal Outfall 101

Internal Outfall 101 receives stormwater flow from an oil-water separator associated with the Buckeye terminal. This outfall discharges to the stormwater impoundment basin with ultimate discharge via Outfall 001.

Internal Outfall 102

Internal Outfall 102 receives stormwater flow from an oil-water separator associated with the TransMontaigne terminal. This outfall discharges to the stormwater impoundment basin with ultimate discharge via Outfall 001.

Hydrostatic Testing Discharges from hydrostatic testing within the terminal complex are covered under the VPDES General Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (9VAC25-120 et seq.) and would be discharged via Outfall 001. As previously noted, such discharges would be infrequent and as such, not considered a significant component of the overall discharge from Outfall 001.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 3 of 19

TABLE 1 Outfall Descriptions Outfall Outfall Discharge Sources Treatment Average Flow Latitude and Number Longitude* Industrial 38 51′ 02.22″ N 001 Settling 0.087 MGD Wastewater/Stormwater** 77 16′ 41.81″ W Industrial 38 50′ 51.20″ N 101 Oil-Water Separator See Attachment 2 Wastewater/Stormwater 77 16′ 44.92″ W Industrial 38 51′ 01.05″ N 102 Oil-Water Separator See Attachment 2 Wastewater/Stormwater 77 16′ 29.10″ W * A component of the reissuance process involves a review of outfall coordinates and receiving streams by DEQ planning staff. The coordinates in Table 1 above have been updated to reflect those determined during DEQ’s review and may differ from those found within the permit application. ** While hydrostatic testing discharges are covered under a separate permit, the discharge from Outfall 001 may at times contain hydrostatic test water as a component. See Attachment 2 for flow schematics and outfall locations. See Attachment 3 for the NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet. See Attachment 4 for topographic maps.

9. Discharges and Monitoring Stations in HUC Waterbody PL30:

TABLE 2 Discharges and Monitoring Stations (PL30) Individual VPDES Discharge Permits Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VA0001945 Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals LLC – Newington Accotink Creek, UT* VA0001988 Kinder Morgan Southeast Terminals LLC – Newington 2 Accotink Creek, UT VA0002283 Motiva Enterprises LLC – Fairfax Crook Branch Accotink Bay, UT Accotink Creek, UT Gunston Cove VA0092771 U.S. Army – Fort Belvoir Gunston Cove, UT Mason Run Mason Run, UT Industrial Stormwater General Permits Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VAR051042 SICPA Securink Corporation Accotink Creek, UT VAR051047 Fairfax Connector – Huntington Bus Maintenance Long Branch, UT VAR051066 U.S. Postal Service – Merrifield Vehicle Maintenance Long Branch, UT VAR051565 Rolling Frito Lay Sales LP – South Potomac DC Long Branch, UT VAR051770 Fairfax County – Jermantown Maintenance Facility Accotink Creek, UT VAR051771 Fairfax County – Newington Maintenance Facility Long Branch / Long Branch, UT VAR051772 Fairfax County – DVS – Alban Maintenance Facility Field Lark Branch, UT VAR051795 HD Supply Construction Supply WC0206 Accotink Creek, UT VAR051863 United Parcel Service – VASPN Accotink Creek, UT VAR052188 Milestone Metals Long Branch, UT VAR052223 Newington Solid Waste Vehicle Facility Long Branch, UT VAR052366 Ready Refresh by Nestle – Lorton Branch Accotink Creek, UT VAR052388 Cinder Bed Road Bus Division Long Branch, UT

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 4 of 19

TABLE 2 (Continued) Discharges and Monitoring Stations (PL30) Cooling Water Discharge General Permit Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VAG250158 SICPA Securink Corporation Accotink Creek, UT Domestic Sewage General Permits Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VAG406519 Margaret Bardwell Residence Accotink Creek, UT VAG406613 Don and Mary Springer Residence Long Branch Vehicle Wash and Laundry General Permits Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VAG750226 Enterprise Rent A Car – 3055 Nutley Street Accotink Creek, UT VAG750255 Enterprise Rent A Car – 6701 Loisdale Road Long Branch, UT VAG750260 Majestic Limo Service Accotink Creek, UT VAG750238 Ravensworth Collision Center Accotink Creek, UT Petroleum Discharge General Permits VAG830536 Heritage Mall Citgo Accotink Creek, UT VAG830540 U.S. Army – Fort Belvoir Building 324 Fort Belvoir MS4** to Gunston Cove, UT Concrete Products General Permits Permit No. Facility Name Receiving Stream VAG110046 Virginia Concrete Company, Inc. – Newington Plant 1 Accotink Creek, UT Virginia Concrete Company, Inc. – Mid Atlantic Materials VAG110069 Accotink Creek, UT Newington VAG110355 Superior Concrete Materials, Inc. Accotink Creek, UT Monitoring Stations Type Station ID Location Biological 1aACO014.57 Route 620 (downstream) Ambient 1aACO021.28 Route 237 (downstream)

*UT – Unnamed Tributary **MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System There are no public water supply intakes located within a five mile radius of this facility’s outfalls.

10. Material Storage:

A current list of materials stored on site was provided by the facility as part of the permit application package. This information is found as Attachment 5.

11. Site Inspection:

A facility technical inspection was completed by DEQ water compliance staff on May 23, 2018. A copy of the inspection report is found as Attachment 6.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 5 of 19

12. Receiving Stream Water Quality and Water Quality Standards:

a. Ambient Water Quality Data

This facility discharges to an unnamed tributary to Daniels Run that has been neither monitored nor assessed. Daniels Run has not been monitored by DEQ; it has been assessed with an observed effect for benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment based on citizen monitoring. Accotink Creek is located approximately 0.80 miles downstream from Outfall 001; DEQ ambient water quality monitoring station 1aACO021.28 is located at Route 237, approximately 1.1 miles downstream from Outfall 001. The following is the water quality summary for this segment of Accotink Creek, as taken from the 2018 Integrated Report:

Class III, Section 9, special standards – b

DEQ monitoring stations located in this segment of Accotink Creek:  ambient water quality monitoring station 1aACO021.28 at Route 237

Biological monitoring (based on DEQ station 1aACO014.57 at Route 620, located in the downstream segment) finds a benthic macroinvertebrate impairment, resulting in an impaired classification for the aquatic life use. The Accotink Creek chloride and sediment TMDLs for the Upper Accotink watershed have been completed and approved. There are insufficient data to determine use support for the wildlife use. Previous E. coli monitoring at USGS monitoring station 01653900 at Pickett Street found a bacterial impairment, resulting in an impaired classification for the recreation use; this impairment is nested within the downstream Accotink Creek bacteria TMDL. The fish consumption use was not assessed.

b. 303(d) Listed Stream Segments and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

TABLE 3 Impairment and TMDL Information – Downstream (VA 2020 Draft* Integrated Report)

Year Distance Waterbody First TMDL Impaired Use Cause From WLA‡ Basis for WLA Name Listed as completed Outfall Impaired Upper Accotink Recreation E. coli 2002 ------Bacteria 5/31/2002

0.8 mile Accotink TSS concentration Accotink Benthic Creek Sediment: 60 mg/L Creek Macro- 2010 Sediment 9.14 tons/year --- Aquatic Life invertebrates & 0.100 MGD Accotink Creek Chloride: aggregated industrial Chloride stormwater WLA† Chloride 2016 3.8 miles 05/23/2018± Wildlife PCBs in Fish No ------Lake Fish Tissue 2010 9.1 miles Accotink Consumption Mercury in No ------Fish Tissue This facility is accounted for in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL NPDES Aquatic Life / Chesapeake Accotink Dissolved Permit Inventory and is part of an Open Water 2014 19.9 miles Bay TMDL Bay Oxygen aggregated WLA for total nitrogen, Aquatic Life 12/29/2010 total phosphorus, and total suspended solids (Appendix Q). Pohick Bay Aquatic Life pH 2012 22.3 miles No ------VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 6 of 19

* Virginia’s 2020 Integrated Report is currently in draft format. The public comment period, including EPA’s initial review, is complete. Submittal to EPA for final approval is planned for autumn 2020.

‡ Wasteload Allocation

± The Accotink Creek Sediment and Accotink Creek Chloride TMDLs apply to the benthic macroinvertebrate impairment; the Accotink Creek Chloride TMDL applies to the chloride impairment (for both the aquatic life and wildlife uses).

† This facility is included in an aggregated WLA for chlorides for the Upper Accotink Creek Watershed. A stakeholder group has convened to develop a Salt Management Strategy (SaMS) to proactively address salt loads through outreach and implementation of best management practices while protecting public safety. Additional information about the strategy can be found at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/SaMS.aspx

Significant portions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are listed as impaired on Virginia’s 303(d) list of impaired waters for not meeting the aquatic life use support goal, and the draft 2020 Virginia Water Quality Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report indicates that much of the mainstem Bay does not fully support this use support goal under Virginia’s Water Quality Assessment guidelines. Nutrient enrichment is cited as one of the primary causes of impairment. EPA approved the Bay TMDL on December 29, 2010. It was based, in part, on the Watershed Implementation Plans developed by the Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia.

The Chesapeake Bay TMDL addresses all segments of the Bay and its tidal tributaries that are on the impaired waters list. As with all TMDLs, a maximum aggregate watershed pollutant loading necessary to achieve the Chesapeake Bay’s water quality standards has been identified. This aggregate watershed loading is divided among the Bay states and their major tributary basins, as well as by major source categories [wastewater, urban stormwater, onsite/septic systems, agriculture, air deposition]. In response, nutrient monitoring was implemented for this facility during the 2015 – 2020 permit term. See Section 15.a.3 of the Fact Sheet for additional discussion regarding this monitoring.

The full planning statement is found as Attachment 7.

c. Receiving Stream Water Quality Criteria

Part IX of 9VAC25-260 (360-550) designates classes and special standards applicable to defined Virginia river basins and sections. The receiving stream, an unnamed tributary to Daniels Run, is located within Section 7 of the Potomac River Basin, and classified as a Class III water.

At all times, Class III waters must achieve a dissolved oxygen (D.O.) of 4.0 mg/L or greater, a daily average D.O. of 5.0 mg/L or greater, a temperature that does not exceed 32°C, and maintain a pH of 6.0-9.0 standard units (S.U.).

Attachment 8 details other water quality criteria applicable to the receiving stream.

pH and Temperature for Ammonia Criteria

Ammonia: The fresh water, aquatic life Water Quality Criteria for ammonia is dependent on the instream and/or discharge temperature and pH. The 90th percentile temperature and pH values are used because they best represent the critical design conditions of the receiving stream.

For discharges such as stormwater, critical flows are not applicable. However, ambient data collected during 2019 was available from DEQ monitoring station 1aACO021.28. As such, the ambient data was evaluated and the 90% pH value was determined to be 6.9 S.U., the 10% pH value to be 6.7 S.U., and the 90% temperature to be 22oC. Discharge data from the 2015 – 2020 permit cycle was also used to establish the ammonia water quality standard. With this reissuance staff re- evaluated pH data and determined the 90% pH value to be 7.6 S.U. and the 10% pH value to be 6.4 S.U. Because the facility is not required to monitor temperature, a default temperature value of 25oC was used. The ammonia water quality standards calculations shown in Attachment 8 are based on these 2019 instream values and the results from the 2020 evaluation of the facility’s discharge data.

Due to the nature of the industrial discharge governed by this permit, ammonia, as N, is generally not a parameter of concern and it is staff’s professional judgement that there is no reasonable potential to exceed the ammonia criteria. As such, ammonia limit and benchmark evaluation is not warranted.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 7 of 19

Metals Criteria: The Water Quality Criteria for some metals are dependent on the receiving stream’s hardness (expressed as mg/L calcium carbonate) as well as the total hardness of the final discharge. As noted above, critical flows are not applicable for discharges such as stormwater. Because staff utilized available ambient data to determine the ammonia criteria, a default instream hardness concentration of 50 mg/L CaCO3 was applied as hardness data was not available from DEQ monitoring station 1aACO021.28. Staff guidance suggests using this default hardness value for streams east of the Blue Ridge. Discharge data for the facility is available from the 2015 – 2020 permit cycle and the average hardness was determined to be 37 mg/L CaCO3. The hardness-dependent metals criteria in Attachment 8 are based on these values.

d. Receiving Stream Special Standards

The State Water Control Board's Water Quality Standards, River Basin Section Tables (9VAC25-260-360, 370 and 380) designates the river basins, sections, classes, and special standards for surface waters of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The receiving stream, an unnamed tributary to Daniels Run, is located within Section 7 of the Potomac River Basin. This section has been designated with a special standard of “b”.

Special Standard “b” (Potomac Embayment Standards) established effluent standards for all sewage plants discharging into Potomac River embayments and for expansions of existing plants discharging into non-tidal tributaries of these embayments. 9VAC25-415, Policy for the Potomac Embayments controls point source discharges of conventional pollutants into the Virginia embayment waters of the Potomac River, and their tributaries, from the fall line at Chain Bridge in Arlington County to the Route 301 Bridge in King George County. The Potomac Embayment Standards are not applied to this industrial discharge since the discharge does not contain the pollutants of concern in appreciable amounts.

13. Antidegradation (9VAC25-260-30):

All state surface waters are provided one of three levels of antidegradation protection. For Tier 1 or existing use protection, existing uses of the water body and the water quality to protect these uses must be maintained. Tier 2 water bodies have water quality that is better than the water quality standards. Significant lowering of the water quality of Tier 2 waters is not allowed without an evaluation of the economic and social impacts. Tier 3 water bodies are exceptional waters and are so designated by regulatory amendment. The antidegradation policy prohibits new or expanded discharges into exceptional waters.

The receiving stream has been classified as Tier I because of the highly developed receiving stream watershed in Fairfax County (Accotink Creek) and the District of Columbia metropolitan area (Potomac River), and the water quality impairments noted for Accotink Creek. The proposed stormwater monitoring and special conditions will result in attaining and/or maintaining all water quality criteria which apply to the receiving stream as it pertains to this discharge, including narrative criteria, and provide for the protection and maintenance of all existing beneficial uses.

14. Benchmark Concentration Development:

As previously mentioned, for purposes of this permitting action, the discharge from Outfall 001 is designated as stormwater only. VA-DEQ Guidance Memo 96-001 recommends that water quality-based limits not be placed on stormwater outfalls at this time because the methodology for developing limits and the proper method of sampling is still a concern and under review/reevaluation by EPA. Exceptions would be where a VPDES permit for a stormwater discharge has been issued that includes limitations (backsliding must be considered before these limitations can be modified) or certain activities or processes where limits have been demonstrated to be appropriate and achievable. In lieu of limitations, pollutants are assessed against screening thresholds, expressed as benchmark concentrations. For those toxic pollutants (i.e., ammonia and/or metals) where any one reported concentration is equal to or exceeds the acute criteria shown in Attachment 8, benchmark concentrations have been determined.

This permit establishes both effluent limitations and benchmark concentration performance levels. The effluent limitations have been previously established and demonstrated to be achievable. The effluent limits contained in the permit may be either technology-based, reflecting the treatment capability of the settling basin and/or upstream oil-water separators, or water quality- based. The benchmark concentrations are generally water quality-based performance levels and have been established as described below. The technology based and water quality based effluent limits and/or benchmarks are discussed in more detail below.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 8 of 19

Benchmarks are pollutant concentrations in stormwater that if exceeded, represent the potential to cause or contribute to water quality impairments. Benchmark concentrations represent a target concentration for a facility to achieve through pollution prevention measures. The results of benchmark monitoring are primarily for the permittee to use to determine the overall effectiveness of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in controlling the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters. Benchmark concentration values included in this permit are not effluent limitations. An exceedance of a benchmark concentration does not constitute a violation of the permit and does not indicate that a violation of a water quality standard has occurred; however, it does signal that modifications to the SWPPP may be necessary.

Stormwater discharges are considered short term and intermittent as the duration of discharge is not expected to occur for four or more consecutive days (96 hours). As such, the primary concern would be acute water quality impacts. Therefore, it is believed that acute water quality criteria are appropriate to derive the screening thresholds.

Screening thresholds are established at two times the acute water quality criterion established in the Virginia Water Quality Standards (9VAC25-260 et seq.). There are two primary reasons the benchmark concentrations are established at two times the criterion. First, the acute criteria is established at one-half of the final acute value (FAV) for a specific toxic pollutant. The FAV is determined from exposure of the specific toxicant to a variety of aquatic species, and is based on the level of a chemical or mixture of chemicals that does not allow the mortality, or other specified response, of aquatic organisms. These criteria represent maximum pollutant concentration values, which when exceeded, would cause acute effects on aquatic life in a short time period. Therefore, the acute criterion contained in the WQS incorporates a conservative measure of applying one half of the concentration determined to cause toxicity. Second, if it is raining a sufficient amount to generate a discharge of stormwater, it is assumed that there is some level of dilution available in the receiving stream. In recognition of the FAV and the dilution caused by the rainfall, benchmark concentrations are calculated by multiplying the acute Water Quality Criteria by two (2).

The recommended pollutant action level, referred to as a benchmark concentration in this permitting action, considers the WQS derived value described above. Table 4 below presents this analysis and the recommended benchmark concentration incorporated into this permitting action.

TABLE 4 Benchmark Concentration Derivation Parameter 2x Acute Recommended Benchmark Comparative Value Concentration Dissolved Zinc 100 µg/L 100 µg/L

15. Data Review:

9VAC25-31-220.D requires limits be imposed where a discharge has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an in-stream excursion of water quality criteria. Those parameters with WLAs that are near effluent concentrations are evaluated for limits. As noted above in Section 15, VA-DEQ Guidance Memo 96-001 recommends that water quality-based limits not be placed on stormwater outfalls at this time because the methodology for developing limits and the proper method of sampling is still a concern and under review/reevaluation by EPA. Exceptions would be where a VPDES permit for a stormwater discharge has been issued that includes limitations (backsliding must be considered before these limitations can be modified).

Data obtained from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) submissions from this permit cycle (2015 – 2020) and the permit application have been reviewed. The following pollutant required evaluation: Zinc.

The VPDES Permit Regulation at 9VAC25-31-230.D requires that monthly and weekly average limitations be imposed for continuous discharges from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) and monthly average and daily maximum limitations be imposed for all other continuous non-POTW discharges. Because stormwater discharges are considered short term and intermittent (i.e., not continuous), it is staff’s professional judgement that reporting of a daily maximum concentration is appropriate.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 9 of 19

a. Outfall 001 (Joint Basin)

1. Toxic Pollutants:

Copper: A benchmark concentration is not warranted as none of the reported data (Attachment 9) were above the acute criteria of 5.3 µg/L. However, copper is noted as being present in the discharge from Outfall 001. Of the nine samples collected during the permit term, six were reported in detectable concentrations. As such, it is staff’s professional judgement that monitoring for copper be carried forward with this reissuance. The established semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance.

As noted in Guidance Memo 93-015 (Preparing VPDES Permits Based on the Water Quality Standards for Toxics), data should exist in the form that the Water Quality Standards are expressed in to determine if a water quality based limit is needed. While limitations have not been developed, monitoring in the form of dissolved copper shall be carried forward. Dissolved data will allow for a more direct comparison against the WQS.

Lead: A benchmark concentration is not warranted as none of the reported data (Attachment 9) were above the acute criteria of 31 µg/L. Of the nine samples collected during the permit term, two results were reported in detectable concentrations. As such, it is staff’s professional judgement that monitoring for lead be removed with this reissuance.

Nickel: A benchmark concentration is not warranted as none of the reported data (Attachment 9) were above the acute criteria of 79 µg/L. Of the nine samples collected during the permit term, two results were reported in detectable concentrations. As such, it is staff’s professional judgement that monitoring for nickel be removed with this reissuance.

Zinc: A benchmark concentration is warranted as data (Attachment 9) were reported above the acute criteria of 50 µg/L. In accordance with the discussion above in Section 14, a benchmark concentration of 100 µg/L has been derived from two times (2x) the calculated acute criteria (Attachment 8). The established semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance.

As noted in Guidance Memo 93-015 (Preparing VPDES Permits Based on the Water Quality Standards for Toxics), data should exist in the form that the Water Quality Standards are expressed in to determine if a water quality based limit is needed. While limitations have not been developed, staff proposes that with this reissuance monitoring in the form of dissolved zinc be carried forward. Dissolved data will allow for a more direct comparison against the WQS.

Naphthalene: Naphthalene is a component of gasoline and non-gasoline petroleum products, but its relative concentration is higher in products such as diesel and kerosene than in gasoline (Thomas & Delfino, 1991). The existing limit in this permit is a water quality based limit that is to be applied at sites where contamination could possibly occur from diesel or other fuels that are not classified as gasoline. The limitation is derived from the VPDES General Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests (Petroleum GP).

During development of the 2013 Petroleum GP, DEQ staff reviewed DMR data from permittees with naphthalene limitations. This review indicated that treatment systems being used by permittees typically reduce naphthalene concentrations in the effluent to below quantifiable levels. Based on this review, it was staff’s professional judgement that the most stringent limitation of 8.9 µg/L was both achievable and more protective and should therefore be applied. This limitation was carried forward in the 2018 Petroleum GP.

Given no changes were made to the limitation in the 2018 Petroleum GP, it is staff’s professional judgement that the existing limit of 8.9 µg/L be carried forward with this reissuance. A review of data from the 2015 – 2020 permit cycle (Attachment 9) indicates that the limit has been consistently met by the permittee. Of the nine samples collected during the permit term, three were reported in detectable concentrations, but below the permit limit. The semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 10 of 19

Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbezene, Total Xylenes (BTEX): BTEX is used as an indicator of the compounds most likely found within gasoline. Based on the Petroleum GP, the analysis of BTEX is required for the discharge of water contaminated with gasoline.

During development of the 2013 Petroleum GP, DEQ staff reviewed DMR data from permittees with naphthalene limitations. This review indicated that treatment systems being used by permittees typically reduce naphthalene concentrations in the effluent to below quantifiable levels. Based on this review, it was staff’s professional judgement that the most stringent limitations were both achievable and more protective and should therefore be applied. These limitations were carried forward in the 2018 Petroleum GP.

Given no changes were made to the limitations in the 2018 Petroleum GP, it is staff’s professional judgement that the existing limits shown below in Table 5 be carried forward with this reissuance. A review of data from the 2015 – 2020 permit cycle (Attachment 9) indicates that the limit has been consistently met by the permittee. Table 5 also highlights the number of samples collected during the permit term that were reported in detectable concentrations, but below the respective permit limit. The semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward.

TABLE 5 – BTEX Limitations

Parameter Proposed Limitation Number of Detectable Samples

Benzene 12 µg/L 6 of 9 Toluene 43 µg/L 2 of 9 Ethylbenzene 4.3 µg/L 1 of 9 Total Xylenes 33 µg/L 4 of 9

Methyl-Tert-Butyl-Ether (MTBE): Methyl-tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) is a common additive in "reformulated" automotive gasolines. This oxygenate is supposed to reduce winter-time carbon monoxide levels in U.S. cities and it is also believed to be effective in reducing ozone and other toxics in the air year-round. If MTBE is used, it can be present in gasoline at up to 15% of the volume of the fuel. MTBE is an extremely hydrophilic compound. Unlike most petroleum products, it readily dissolves in water. The presence of MTBE in gasoline can increase the solubility of the fuel mixture in groundwater.

Based on the 2013 VPDES Petroleum GP, an aquatic toxicity based limitation of 440 µg/L was included in the 2015 – 2020 permit. A review of data from the 2015 – 2020 permit cycle (Attachment 9) indicates that the limit has been consistently met by the permittee. However, the nine samples collected during the permit term were all reported in detectable concentrations.

With this reissuance the permittee has requested the removal of MTBE monitoring as the additive has not been utilized by any of the terminals associated with Fairfax Terminal since 2008. Given MTBE is still detected in the discharge years after its usage stopped, staff believes that continued monitoring for MTBE is warranted. As such, monitoring for MTBE shall remain in the permit for the 2020 – 2025 permit cycle. With respect to the current limitation of 440 µg/L, staff has no basis to backslide and the existing limit of 440 µg/L shall be carried forward with this reissuance. The MTBE limit remains consistent with that in the 2018 Petroleum GP. The semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward.

2. Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

Total Hardness: The Water Quality Criteria for some metals are dependent on the hardness of the discharge (expressed as mg/L calcium carbonate). Because staff has proposed continued monitoring for dissolved copper and dissolved zinc, it is staff’s professional judgement that hardness monitoring be carried forward with this reissuance. The established semi-annual monitoring frequency (1/6M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance. Samples for hardness, dissolved copper, and dissolved zinc shall continue to be collected concurrently.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 11 of 19

Total Suspended Solids (TSS): A benthic Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was approved by the U.S. EPA on May 23, 2018, for Accotink Creek. Although stormwater runoff from the facility does not discharge directly to Accotink Creek, the TMDL took in to account all upstream point source discharges. Joint Basin was assigned a WLA of 9.14 tons/year of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) assuming a concentration of total suspended sediment, serving as a surrogate of sediment, of 60 mg/L.

The existing TSS limit of 60 mg/L shall be carried forward with this permit reissuance. The limit is included to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the stormwater basin and subsequently, compliance with the WLA. The established monitoring frequency of once per month (1/M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH): The TPH limit of 15 mg/L shall be carried forward with this permit reissuance. The limit is based on the ability of simple oil-water separator technology to recover free product from water. Discharges without a visible sheen are generally expected to meet this limitation. The limit is also consistent with the requirements of the 2018 Petroleum GP. The established monitoring frequency of once per month (1/M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance. pH: Limitations for pH were previously established and are set at the water quality criteria. The minimum limit of 6.0 S.U. and the maximum limit of 9.0 S. U. shall be carried forward with this reissuance. The established monitoring frequency of once per month (1/M) shall also be carried forward with this reissuance. Chloride: Snow and ice management, including the storage and application of de-icing and anti-icing salts, presents a potential for the contamination of stormwater quality. A chloride TMDL was approved by the U.S. EPA on May 23, 2018, for the Accotink Creek watershed. Although stormwater runoff from the facility does not discharge directly to Accotink Creek, Joint Basin was included in an aggregate industrial stormwater WLA for chlorides for the Upper Accotink Creek watershed. In support of the chloride TMDL, a chloride monitoring frequency of once per quarter (1/3M) shall be implemented with this reissuance. The results of the chloride monitoring shall be evaluated upon the next renewal of this VPDES permit to consider whether additional measures are needed to ensure the discharge is consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the TMDL.

Specific Conductance: Specific conductance serves as a surrogate for potential stressors associated with snow and ice management, including the stockpiling of salt. In support of the chloride TMDL for Accotink Creek mentioned above, a specific conductance monitoring frequency of once per quarter (1/3M) shall be implemented with this reissuance.

3. Nutrients

EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL (approved December 29, 2010) included wasteload allocations for VPDES permitted industrial stormwater facilities as part of the regulated stormwater aggregate load. EPA used data submitted by Virginia with the Phase I Chesapeake Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), including the number of industrial stormwater permits per county and the number of urban acres regulated by industrial stormwater permits, as part of their development of the aggregate load. Aggregate loads for industrial stormwater facilities were appropriate because actual facility loading data were not available to develop individual facility wasteload allocations. Virginia estimated the loadings from industrial stormwater facilities using actual and estimated facility acreage information, and Total Phosphorus (TP), Total Nitrogen (TN), and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loading values from the Northern Virginia Planning District Commission (NVPDC) Guidebook for Screening Urban Nonpoint Pollution Management Strategies, prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (November, 1979).

To better characterize the stormwater discharge in support of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and to determine if the discharge from the facility contained significant pollutants that contribute to the local downstream impairment, monitoring for Nitrate + Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus was implemented with the last reissuance.

In accordance with permit requirements, the facility completed the required monitoring during the permit cycle. The calculated facility loading values for TN, TP, and TSS were less than the corresponding loading values within the permit demonstrating that reductions are not necessary under the Chesapeake Bay Program (Attachment 10). The downstream TMDL did not identify nutrients as the most probable stressor to the local benthic impairments in Accotink Creek. Further monitoring for Nitrate + Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus is not requested at this time.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 12 of 19

b. Outfall 101 (Buckeye Oil-Water Separator)

1. Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

c. Outfall 102 (TransMontaigne Oil-Water Separator)

1. Conventional and Non-Conventional Pollutants:

d. Monitoring Summary:

Limitations and monitoring requirements are presented in the following tables.

 Limits were established for pH, Total Suspended Solids, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Napthalene, MTBE, and BTEX.

 pH limitations are set at the water quality criteria.

 The limits for Total Suspended Solids are based on professional judgement and are consistent with the Accotink Creek sediment TMDL.

 The limits for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons are based on the ability of simple oil-water separator technology to recover free product from water and professional judgement and are consistent with those found within the 2018 VPDES General Permit for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Groundwater Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests.

 Monitoring was established for Flow, Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Zinc, Total Hardness, Chloride, Specific Conductance, and Chronic Toxicity.

 Sample type and frequency are in accordance with the recommendations in the VPDES Permit Manual.

16. Antibacksliding:

All limits in this permit are at least as stringent as those previously established. Backsliding does not apply to this reissuance.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 13 of 19

17a. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements: Outfall 001 – Retention Pond (Industrial Stormwater) Average Flow: Variable based on the storm event.

Effective Dates: During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the expiration date.

MONITORING BASIS FOR DISCHARGE MONITORING PARAMETER MONITORING/ REQUIREMENTS LIMIT Monthly Average Daily Maximum Minimum Maximum Benchmark Frequency Sample Type Concentration Flow (MGD) NA NL NA NA NA NA 1/M Estimate pH 2 NA NA 6.0 S.U. 9.0 S.U. NA 1/M Grab Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 1,5 NA 60 mg/L NA NA NA 1/M Grab Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)(a) 1,3 NA 15 mg/L NA NA NA 1/M Grab Copper, Dissolved(b) 1,2,4 NA NL (µg/L) NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Zinc, Dissolved(b) 1,2,4 NA NL (µg/L) NA NA 100 µg/L 1/6M Grab (b) Hardness, Total (as CaCO3) 1 NA NL (mg/L) NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Naphthalene 1,3 NA 8.9 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Benzene 1,3 NA 12 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Toluene 1,3 NA 43 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Ethylbenzene 1,3 NA 4.3 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Total Xylenes 1,3 NA 33 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab MTBE 1,3 NA 440 µg/L NA NA NA 1/6M Grab Chloride(c) 1,6 NA NL (mg/L) NA NA NA 1/3M Grab Specific Conductance(c) 1,6 NA NL (µS/cm) NA NA NA 1/3M Grab

Chronic Toxicity – P. promelas 1 NA NL (TUc) NA NA NA 1/YR Composite

Chronic Toxicity – C. dubia 1 NA NL (TUc) NA NA NA 1/YR Composite

1. Professional Judgement NA = Not applicable. 1/M = Once every month. 2. Water Quality Standards NL = No limit; monitor and report. 1/3M = Once every three months. 3. 9VAC25-120 S.U. = Standard units. 1/6M = Once every six months. 4. Guidance Memo 93-015 1/YR = Once every year. 5. Accotink Creek Benthic TMDL 6. Accotink Creek Chloride TMDL / DEQ Salt Management Strategy (SaMS)

1/3M = The quarterly monitoring periods shall be January 1 – March 31, April 1 – June 30, July 1 – September 30, and October 1 – December 31. The DMR shall be submitted no later than the 10th day of the month following the monitoring period (April 10, July 10, October 10 and January 10, respectively). 1/6M = The semi-annual monitoring period shall be January 1 – June 30 and July 1 - December 31. The DMR shall be submitted no later than the 10th day of the month following the monitoring period (July 10 and January 10, respectively). 1/YR = The annual monitoring period shall be January 1 - December 31. The DMR shall be submitted no later than the 10th day of the month following the monitoring period (January 10). Grab = An individual sample collected over a period of time not to exceed 15-minutes. Estimate = Reported flow is to be based on the technical evaluation of the sources contributing to the discharge. Composite = Composite samples shall be representative of the facility's controlled discharge event. Composite samples shall be collected either manually or automatically during the discharge event over a time period not to exceed 24-hours. Discrete or continuous sampling methods may be employed at the discretion of the permittee. If discrete sampling is utilized, sample collection may be flow proportioned by either varying the time interval between each sample aliquot or the volume of each sample aliquot.

9VAC25-120 = General VPDES Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Ground Water Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests. Guidance 93-015 = Preparing VPDES Permits Based on the Water Quality Standards for Toxics. SaMS = A stakeholder-driven process to proactively address salt loads through outreach and implementation of best management practices while protecting public safety.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 14 of 19

17a. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements: Outfall 001 – Retention Pond (Industrial Stormwater) (Continued) Average Flow: Variable based on the storm event.

Effective Dates: During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the expiration date.

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Requirements: a. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) is the sum of individual gasoline range organics and diesel range organics or TPH-GRO and TPH-DRO to be measured by EPA SW 846 Method 8015 for gasoline and diesel range organics, or by EPA SW 846 Methods 8260 Extended and 8270 Extended.

Metals and Total Hardness Requirements: b. Samples for metals and hardness shall be collected concurrently.

Chloride and Specific Conductance Requirements: c. Samples for chloride and specific conductance shall be collected concurrently.

17b. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements: Outfall 101 – Buckeye Oil-Water Separator Average Flow: Variable based on the storm event.

Effective Dates: During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the expiration date.

1. Professional Judgement NA = Not applicable. 1/3M = Once every three months. 2. 9VAC25-120 NL = No limit; monitor and report.

9VAC25-120 = General VPDES Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Ground Water Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 15 of 19

17c. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements: Outfall 102 – TransMontaigne Oil-Water Separator Average Flow: Variable based on the storm event.

Effective Dates: During the period beginning with the permit's effective date and lasting until the expiration date.

1. Professional Judgement NA = Not applicable. 1/3M = Once every three months. 2. 9VAC-25-120 NL = No limit; monitor and report.

9VAC25-120 = General VPDES Permit Regulation for Discharges from Petroleum Contaminated Sites, Ground Water Remediation, and Hydrostatic Tests.

18. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):

Lake Accotink, which is located approximately 9.1 miles downstream from Outfall 001, is listed with a PCB impairment. In support of the PCB TMDL development, the facility completed ultra-low PCB testing utilizing EPA Method 1668 during the 2015 – 2020 permit term. In accordance with permit requirements, the facility provided one sample resulting from a stormwater discharge to DEQ during the permit cycle.

DEQ utilized the blank correction procedures set forth in Guidance Memorandum 14-2004, “Procedures for reviewing and deriving total PCB concentrations from samples analyzed using low-level PCB method 1668 to be used in the development and implementation of TMDLs,” to obtain the concentration for the sample. The adjusted Total PCB value for the facility was determined to be 159.88 pg/L.

The Aquatic Criterion for PCBs is 14,000 pg/L and the Human Health Criterion is 640 pg/L. Given the calculated Total PCB value of the sample is below the Human Health Criterion, it is staff’s professional judgement that the facility does not need to develop a Pollutant Minimization Plan (PMP) during the next permit term and no further PCB monitoring is requested at this time.

19. Other Permit Requirements:

a. Permit Section Part I.B of the permit contains quantification levels and compliance reporting instructions. 9VAC25-31-190.L.4.c. requires an arithmetic mean for measurement averaging and 9VAC25-31-220.D requires limits be imposed where a discharge has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an in-stream excursion of water quality criteria. Specific analytical methodologies for toxics are listed in this permit section as well as quantification levels (QLs) necessary to demonstrate compliance with applicable permit limitations or for use in future evaluations to determine if the pollutant has reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation. Required averaging methodologies are also specified.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 16 of 19 b. Permit Section Part I.C details the requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Program. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) refers to the aggregate toxic effect to aquatic organisms from all pollutants present within a facility’s stormwater runoff. This program is one approach to comply with the Clean Water Act’s prohibition of the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. WET testing allows for the measurement of the stormwater’s potential effects on specific test organism’s ability to survive, grow and reproduce.

The VPDES Permit Regulation at 9VAC25-31-220.D.1.a-d requires implementations of best management practices (BMPs) to control or abate the discharge of pollutants to provide for and ensure compliance with all applicable requirements of the State Water Control Law and the Clean Water Act. BMPs must control all pollutants or pollutant parameters which the Board determines are or may be discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any Virginia water quality standard, including narrative criteria. The determination whether a discharge causes or contributes to an instream excursion above a narrative or numeric criteria shall utilize procedures which account for existing controls on sources of pollution, variability of the pollutant, species sensitivity and dilution of the stormwater in the receiving stream (9VAC25-31-220.D.1.b). If it is determined that a reasonable potential exists to cause or contribute to an instream excursion of narrative criterion of the water quality standard, the permittee must review and revise, as warranted, implemented practices for the control of potential toxicity.

A WET Program is imposed for industrial facilities based on the facility’s Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, instream waste concentration (IWC) and/or those required by the Board based on effluent variability, compliance history, existing treatment processes and/or the receiving stream characteristics. Bulk petroleum storage facilities may contain a variety of pollutants that may be present in toxic amounts. It is unfeasible to identify all potential toxic pollutants by individual chemical methods. Utilizing an integrated approach consisting of both biological and chemical methods to address potential toxic pollutants ensures that the receiving waters are protected at all times.

As referenced above, reasonable potential determinations must take into account the variability of the pollutant or pollutant parameter in the stormwater runoff, sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing and, as appropriate, the dilution within the receiving stream. This warrants a sampling regime that rotates throughout a given calendar year; a quarterly schedule in order to obtain potential seasonal deviations. This methodology coincides with the VPDES Permit Regulation requirements that facilities submit representative data that reflects the seasonal variation in the discharge with each permit application (9VAC25-31-100.K.4.g.). Therefore, it is staff’s professional judgement that a WET testing protocol be proposed with this permit action that requires a rotating, quarterly testing regime for each annual monitoring requirement. The requirements and schedules as set forth within Part I.C. of the permit will ensure that the stormwater discharge is monitored for whole effluent toxicity and demonstrates potential seasonal variations.

See Attachment 11 for a summary of the past test results. Attachment 12 details the statistical evaluation of the previous WET results indicating that a limit is not warranted. It should be noted that the results in September 2016 statistically triggered the need for limits; however, the results were the upper range of the calculated permissible compliance endpoint. In addition, February 2016 results did indicate possible toxicity to P. promelas. The test results were due to possible pathogens present in the discharge and later testing using UV radiation verified this to be the case. It is staff’s professional judgement that no limit be imposed, as the results during the last permit term do not indicate toxicity issues to be present. The facility will be required to continue annual WET monitoring during this term since this is a bulk terminal and the discharge has the potential to be toxic if best management practices are not maintained. If results indicate possible toxicity issues, the permit may be modified to incorporate either WET limits or specific pollutant limits to address any toxicity issue. Attachment 13 documents the calculated compliance endpoints that will be carried forward with this reissuance. c. Permit Section Part II. Required by VPDES Regulation 9VAC25-31-190, Part II of the permit contains standard conditions that appear in all VPDES Permits. In general, these standard conditions address the responsibilities of the permittee, reporting requirements, testing procedures and records retention. d. Permit Section Part III details the requirements of Industrial Stormwater Management. Industrial stormwater discharges may contain pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality. Stormwater discharges which are discharged through a conveyance or outfall are considered point sources and require coverage by a VPDES permit. The primary method to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges from an industrial facility is through the use of best management practices (BMPs). Stormwater Management Plan requirements are derived from the VPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity, 9VAC25-151 et seq.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 17 of 19

20. Other Special Conditions:

a. O&M Manual Requirement. Required by Code of Virginia §62.1-44.19; VPDES Permit Regulation, 9VAC25-31-190.E and 40 CFR 122.41(e). The permittee shall maintain a current Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual. The permittee shall operate the facility in accordance with the O&M Manual and shall make the O&M Manual available to Department personnel for review upon request. Any changes in the practices and procedures followed by the permittee shall be documented in the O&M Manual within 90 days of the effective date of the changes. Non-compliance with the O&M Manual shall be deemed a violation of the permit.

b. Notification Levels. Required by VPDES Permit Regulation 9VAC-31-200A for all manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvacultural discharges. The permittee shall notify the Department as soon as they know or have reason to believe: 1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in this permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) One hundred micrograms per liter; (b) Two hundred micrograms per liter for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one milligram per liter for antimony; (c) Five times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or (d) The level established by the Board.

2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a nonroutine or infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in this permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following notification levels: (a) Five hundred micrograms per liter; (b) One milligram per liter for antimony; (c) Ten times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit application; or (d) The level established by the Board.

c. Materials Handling/Storage. 9VAC25-31-50 A prohibits the discharge of any wastes into State waters unless authorized by permit. Code of Virginia §62.1-44.16 and §62.1-44.17 authorize the Board to regulate the discharge of industrial waste or other waste.

d. Oil Storage Ground Water Monitoring Reopener. As this facility currently manages ground water in accordance with 9VAC25-90-10 et seq., Oil Discharge Contingency Plans (ODCP) and Administration Fees for Approval, this permit does not presently impose ground water monitoring requirements. However, this permit may be modified or alternately revoked and reissued to include ground water monitoring not required by the ODCP regulation.

e. No Discharge of Detergents, Surfactants, or Solvents to the Oil/Water Separators. This special condition is necessary to ensure that the oil/water separators’ performance is not impacted by compounds designed to emulsify oil. Detergents, surfactants, and some other solvents will prohibit oil recovery by physical means.

f. TMDL Reopener. This special condition is to allow the permit to reopened if necessary to bring it in compliance with any applicable TMDL that may be developed and approved for the receiving stream.

21. Changes to the Permit from the Previously Issued Permit:

a. Special Conditions:

 The Whole Effluent Toxicity Identification special condition was removed with this reissuance as sampling during the 2015 – 2020 permit term did not identify toxicity issues.  The PCB sampling special condition was removed with this reissuance as sampling was completed during the 2015 – 2020 permit term.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 18 of 19

b. Monitoring Requirements:

 The maximum limits for TSS, TPH, Naphthalene, MTBE, and BTEX have been revised from maximum limits to daily maximum limits to be consistent with reporting of stormwater discharges in accordance with 9VAC25-31-230.D.  For purposes of this permit, action levels are referred to as benchmark concentrations to provide consistency with language found within the general industrial stormwater permit regulation.  A benchmark concentration for dissolved zinc has been implemented with this reissuance.  Monitoring for dissolved lead and dissolved nickel has been removed with this reissuance.  Monitoring for chloride and specific conductance has been added with this reissuance.  A condition has been added that chloride and specific conductance sampling be conducted concurrently.  Nutrient monitoring (Nitrate + Nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus) has been removed with this reissuance as it was completed during the 2015 – 2020 permit term.  Whole Effluent Toxicity monitoring was reduced from quarterly to annually.  The maximum reporting requirement for Whole Effluent Toxicity has been revised to a minimum reporting requirement in accordance with current agency practice.

c. Other:  Part III of the permit has been updated to reflect the requirements of the 2019 – 2024 VPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity.  The NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet shows a score change from 73 to 70. The change does not impact the facility’s designation as an industrial minor. The change is based on the following: - A change to the Factor 6 score based on the facility’s discharge being in a non-coastal county, some part of which is in an estuary drainage area, discharging into fresh non-tidal waters.

22. Variances/Alternate Limits or Conditions: None

23. Public Notice Information: First Public Notice Date: October 15, 2020 Second Public Notice Date: October 22, 2020

In accordance with Chapter 552 of the 2018 Acts of Assembly, the VPDES permit regulation 9VAC25-31-290 has been revised to allow, if the permittee so elects, an abbreviated public notice procedure for industrial minors in which an abbreviated notice is published in the newspaper with a link to the full notice on the department's website. With this issuance, the permittee elected to use the abbreviated procedure. All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected, and copied by contacting the: DEQ Northern Regional Office, 13901 Crown Court, Woodbridge, VA 22193, Telephone No. (703) 583-3853, [email protected]. See Attachment 14 and Attachment 15 for copies of the abbreviated and full public notice documents, respectively.

Persons may comment in writing or by email to the DEQ on the proposed permit action, and may request a public hearing, during the comment period. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer and of all persons represented by the commenter/requester, and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The DEQ may decide to hold a public hearing, including another comment period, if public response is significant and there are substantial, disputed issues relevant to the permit. Requests for public hearings shall state 1) the reason why a hearing is requested; 2) a brief, informal statement regarding the nature and extent of the interest of the requester or of those represented by the requester, including how and to what extent such interest would be directly and adversely affected by the permit; and 3) specific references, where possible, to terms and conditions of the permit with suggested revisions. Following the comment period, the Board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit action. This determination will become effective, unless the DEQ grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. The public may request an electronic copy of the draft permit and fact sheet or review the draft permit and application at the DEQ Northern Regional Office by appointment.

VPDES PERMIT PROGRAM FACT SHEET VA0001872 PAGE 19 of 19

24. Additional Comments:

Previous Board Action(s): None

Staff Comments:  EPA Review On March 2, 2017, EPA withdrew its waiver of permit review for the NPDES minor industrial categories in 40 CFR Part 122 Appendix A that was originally allowed by the 1975 Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Permit and Enforcement Programs between the State Water Control Board and the Regional Administrator, Region III Environmental Protection Agency (MOU). In addition to the review required for the TMDL WLA, and per the amended MOU, EPA was provided access to this permit and had no comment.

Public Comment: No public comments were received.

Fact Sheet Attachments – Table of Contents

Joint Basin Corporation – Fairfax Terminal Complex VA0001872

2020 Reissuance

Attachment 1 Stormwater Structural and Non-Structural Control Measures

Attachment 2 Outfall Map and Flow Diagrams

Attachment 3 NPDES Permit Rating Worksheet

Attachment 4 Topographic Maps

Attachment 5 Material Storage

Attachment 6 2018 Water Compliance Inspection Report

Attachment 7 Planning Statement

Attachment 8 Wasteload Allocation Analysis

Attachment 9 Monitoring Data Review

Attachment 10 Chesapeake Bay TMDL Calculations

Attachment 11 Whole Effluent Toxicity Review

Attachment 12 Whole Effluent Toxicity Statistical Evaluation

Attachment 13 Whole Effluent Toxicity Endpoint Derivation

Attachment 14 Abbreviated Public Notice

Attachment 15 Full Public Notice

Attachment 1 Codes from Outfall Number Company Control Measures Table 2F-1 Structural Diked tank field areas, concrete runoff channels, 001, 101 BUCKEYE loading rack canopy, oil/water separator, concrete 1U, 4A holding vault, holding tanks Diked tank field areas, concrete runoff channels, 001 CITGO loading rack canopy, oil/water separator, holding 1U, 4A tanks Diked tank field areas, concrete runoff channels, 001, 102 TRANSMONTAIGNE loading rack canopy, oil/water separator, holding 1U, 4A basin 001 MOTIVA Storm drains, runoff channels 1U, 4A Non-Structural Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plans, employee training, visual inspections, preventative maintenance, good housekeeping BUCKEYE, CITGO, measures. Additionally, all facilities operate 001 TRANSMONTAIGNE, under the City of Fairfax Department of Fire and NA MOTIVA Rescue, Office of Code Enforcement oversight (safety attendant present during locating, monthly high-level alarm inspections, and annual hazardous use permit inspections). Attachment 2

Attachment 3 VA0001872 NPDES PERMIT RATING WORK SHEET

Regular Addition Discretionary Addition VPDES NO. : VA0001872 X Score change, but no status Change Deletion Facility Name: Joint Basin – Fairfax Terminal Complex City / County: Fairfax / Fairfax Receiving Water: Daniels Run, UT Waterbody ID: VAN-A15R / PL30

Is this facility a steam electric power plant (sic =4911) with one or Is this permit for a municipal separate storm sewer serving a more of the following characteristics? population greater than 100,000? 1. Power output 500 MW or greater (not using a cooling pond/lake) YES; score is 700 (stop here) 2. A nuclear power Plant X NO; (continue) 3. Cooling water discharge greater than 25% of the receiving stream’s 7Q10 flow rater Yes; score is 600 (stop here) X NO; (continue)

FACTOR 1: Toxic Pollutant Potential PCS SIC Code: Primary Sic Code: 5171 Other Sic Codes: Industrial Subcategory Code: 000 (Code 000 if no subcategory)

Determine the Toxicity potential from Appendix A. Be sure to use the TOTAL toxicity potential column and check one) Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points No process waste streams 0 0 3. 3 15 7. 7 35

1. 1 5 4. 4 20 X 8. 8 40

2. 2 10 5. 5 25 9. 9 45

6. 6 30 10. 10 50

Code Number Checked: 8 Total Points Factor 1: 40

FACTOR 2: Flow/Stream Flow Volume (Complete either Section A or Section B; check only one)

Section A – Wastewater Flow Only considered Section B – Wastewater and Stream Flow Considered Wastewater Type Wastewater Type Code Points Percent of Instream Wastewater Concentration at (see Instructions) (see Instructions) Receiving Stream Low Flow Type I: Flow < 5 MGD 11 0 Code Points Flow 5 to 10 MGD 12 10 Type I/III: < 10 % 41 0 Flow > 10 to 50 MGD 13 20 10 % to < 50 % 42 10 Flow > 50 MGD 14 30 > 50% 43 20

Type II: Flow < 1 MGD X 21 10 Type II: < 10 % 51 0 Flow 1 to 5 MGD 22 20 10 % to < 50 % 52 20 Flow > 5 to 10 MGD 23 30 > 50 % 53 30 Flow > 10 MGD 24 50

Type III: Flow < 1 MGD 31 0 Flow 1 to 5 MGD 32 10 Flow > 5 to 10 MGD 33 20 Flow > 10 MGD 34 30

Code Checked from Section A or B: 21 Total Points Factor 2: 10 VA0001872 NPDES PERMIT RATING WORK SHEET

FACTOR 3: Conventional Pollutants (only when limited by the permit)

A. Oxygen Demanding Pollutants: (check one) BOD COD X Other: NA

Permit Limits: (check one) Code Points < 100 lbs/day 1 0 100 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 > 1000 to 3000 lbs/day 3 15 > 3000 lbs/day 4 20 Code Number Checked: NA Points Scored: 0

B. Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

Permit Limits: (check one) Code Points X < 100 lbs/day 1 0 100 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 > 1000 to 5000 lbs/day 3 15 > 5000 lbs/day 4 20 Code Number Checked: 1 Points Scored: 0

C. Nitrogen Pollutants: (check one) Ammonia X Other: NA

Permit Limits: (check one) Nitrogen Equivalent Code Points < 300 lbs/day 1 0 300 to 1000 lbs/day 2 5 > 1000 to 3000 lbs/day 3 15 > 3000 lbs/day 4 20

Code Number Checked: NA Points Scored: 0 Total Points Factor 3: 0

FACTOR 4: Public Health Impact Is there a public drinking water supply located within 50 miles downstream of the effluent discharge (this include any body of water to which the receiving water is a tributary)? A public drinking water supply may include infiltration galleries, or other methods of conveyance that ultimately get water from the above reference supply.

YES; (If yes, check toxicity potential number below)

X NO; (If no, go to Factor 5)

Determine the Human Health potential from Appendix A. Use the same SIC Code and subcategory reference as in Factor 1. (Be sure to use the Human Health toxicity group column – check one below) Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points Toxicity Group Code Points No process 0 0 3. 3 0 7. 7 15 waste streams

1. 1 0 4. 4 0 8. 8 20

2. 2 0 5. 5 5 9. 9 25

6. 6 10 10. 10 30

Code Number Checked: NA Total Points Factor 4: 0 VA0001872 NPDES PERMIT RATING WORK SHEET

FACTOR 5: Water Quality Factors Is (or will) one or more of the effluent discharge limits based on water quality factors of the receiving stream (rather than technology- A. base federal effluent guidelines, or technology-base state effluent guidelines), or has a wasteload allocation been to the discharge

Code Points X YES 1 10

NO 2 0

B. Is the receiving water in compliance with applicable water quality standards for pollutants that are water quality limited in the permit?

Code Points X YES 1 0

NO 2 5

Does the effluent discharged from this facility exhibit the reasonable potential to violate water quality standards due to whole effluent C. toxicity?

Code Points YES 1 10

X NO 2 0

Code Number Checked: A 1 B 1 C 2 Points Factor 5: A 10 + B 0 + C 0 = 10

FACTOR 6: Proximity to Near Coastal Waters

A. Base Score: Enter flow code here (from factor 2) 21

Check appropriate facility HPRI code (from PCS): Enter the multiplication factor that corresponds to the flow code: HPRI# Code HPRI Score Flow Code Multiplication Factor 1 1 20 11, 31, or 41 0.00 12, 32, or 42 0.05 2 2 0 13, 33, or 43 0.10 14 or 34 0.15 3 3 30 21 or 51 0.10 22 or 52 0.30 X 4 4 0 23 or 53 0.60 24 1.00 5 5 20

HPRI code checked : 4

Base Score (HPRI Score): 0 X (Multiplication Factor) 0.10 = 0

B. Additional Points – NEP Program C. Additional Points – Great Lakes Area of Concern For a facility that has an HPRI code of 3, does the facility For a facility that has an HPRI code of 5, does the facility discharge to one of the estuaries enrolled in the National discharge any of the pollutants of concern into one of the Great Estuary Protection (NEP) program (see instructions) or the Lakes’ 31 areas of concern (see instructions)? Chesapeake Bay? Code Points Code Points X 1 10 1 10 2 0 X 2 0

Code Number Checked: A 4 B 1 C 2 Points Factor 6: A 0 + B 10 + C 0 = 10 VA0001872 NPDES PERMIT RATING WORK SHEET

SCORE SUMMARY

Factor Description Total Points

1 Toxic Pollutant Potential 40 2 Flows / Streamflow Volume 10 3 Conventional Pollutants 0

4 Public Health Impacts 0

5 Water Quality Factors 10 6 Proximity to Near Coastal Waters 10

TOTAL (Factors 1 through 6) 70

S1. Is the total score equal to or grater than 80 YES; (Facility is a Major) X NO

S2. If the answer to the above questions is no, would you like this facility to be discretionary major?

X NO

YES; (Add 500 points to the above score and provide reason below: Reason:

NEW SCORE : 70 OLD SCORE : 73

Permit Reviewer’s Name : Susan Mackert Phone Number: (703) 583-3853 Date: June 8, 2020 Attachment 4 MANTUA WEATHER STATION (KVAFAIRF) M:\Graphics\0400-Crofton\Misc\Joint Basin Corporation (Fairfax Terminal)\JBC- fairfax SLM.dwg, Model, 9/14/2017 10:21:30 AM, wwesterlund AM, 10:21:30 9/14/2017 Model, SLM.dwg, fairfax Terminal)\JBC- (Fairfax Corporation Basin M:\Graphics\0400-Crofton\Misc\Joint kj 001 ^_102

VA0001872 Joint Basin Corporation Fairfax Terminal Complex Outfalls kj 001 FG 101 FG 101 . ^_ 102 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 Miles

Map created by RMS 09-Jun-2020

Materials Inventory

Fairfax Terminal Complex 9601 Colonial Ave. Fairfax, VA 22301

Tank Capacity Outfall Number Company Product Stored Number (gallons) 001, 101 BUCKEYE 1 3,121,524 PBOB 2 2,541,042 CBOB 3 906,444 Ethanol 4 4,478,628 RBOB 5 1,603,560 RBOB 6 3,047,058 ULSD 7 10,000 Gasoline Additive 8 10,000 PCW 9 10,000 PCW 10 4,000 Additive (currently not in use) 11 10,000 Gasoline Additive 12 3,000 Lubricity 13 7,000 Gasoline Additive 14 300 Red Dye Unnumbered 300 Product (conductivity) TOTE Unnumbered 55+ Various oil storage drums 001 CITGO 1 3,184,000 RBOB 2 951,000 Ethanol 3 1,427,910 RBOB (PBOB and CBOB) 4 5,028,969 ULSD 5 17,430 PCW 6 2,124,000 PBOB 7 3,385,000 RBOB 8 3,780 Remediation (currently not in use) 9 8,988 Gasoline Additive 10 4,002 Pourback 11 2,982 Premium Dist. Additive 12 546 Red Dye 14 9,500 Lubricity 001, 102, 103 TRANSMONTAIGNE 101 2,440,681 RBOB 102 1,978,925 RBOB 103 3,429,051 ULSD 104 2,315,794 ULSD 105 2,368,648 PBOB 106 211,410 Ethanol 107 16,360 PCW 108 4,000 Additive (currently not in use) 109 586,484 Ethanol 110 853,189 ULSD 111 3,429,936 RBOB 112 3,455,284 RBOB 113 10,000 Additive 114 966 Rack Overflow 115 4,000 Additive 116 2,000 ULSD (currently not in use) 117A 1,441 Diesel Additives (currently not in use) 117B 3,008 Lubricity 117C 1,441 Red Dye 118 200 Heating Fuel Oil 119 500 Heating Fuel Oil (currently not in use) Unnumbered 55+ Various oil storage drums 001 MOTIVA NA NA NA

Notes: 1. PBOB = Premium blendstock for oxygenate blending 2. CBOB = Conventional blendstock for oxygenate blending

Page 1 of 7 Table 1

Materials Inventory

Fairfax Terminal Complex 9601 Colonial Ave. Fairfax, VA 22301

3. RBOB = Reformulated blendstock for oxygenate blending 4. ULSD = Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel 5. PCW = Petroleum contact water 6. NA = Not applicable NOTE: This table only includes materials stored on property that drains to the Storm Water Impoundment Basin.

Page 2 of 7 Attachment 6

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 13901 Crown Court, Woodbridge, Virginia 22193

(703) 583-3800 David K. Paylor Director www.deq.virginia.gov Matthew J. Strickler Secretary of Natural Resources Thomas A. Faha Regional Director June 5, 2018

Mr. Mike Younce President, Joint Basin Corporation - Fairfax Terminal Complex 9601 Colonial Avenue Fairfax, VA 22031

Re: Fairfax Terminal Complex – Technical Inspection (VA0001872)

Dear Mr. Younce,

Attached is a copy of the Inspection Report generated while conducting a Facility Technical Inspection at the Fairfax Terminal Complex facility on May 23, 2018. This letter is not intended as a case decision under the Virginia Administrative Process Act, Va. Code § 2.2-4000 et seq. (APA).

If you have any questions or comments concerning this report, please contact Mark Evans at the Northern Regional Office at (703) 583-3811 or by E-mail at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Mark Evans Environmental Specialist II cc: Permit/DMR File; Water Compliance Manager Mr. Mike Younce [email protected]

PREFACE VPDES/State Certification No. (RE) Issuance Date Amendment Date Expiration Date

VA0001872 December 1, 2015 None November 30, 2020

Facility Name Address Telephone Number

Fairfax Terminal Complex 9601 Colonial Avenue (703) 503-3687 Fairfax, VA 22031 Owner Name Title Telephone Number

Joint Basin Corporation -- (703) 550-9510

Responsible Officials Titles Telephone Numbers

Mr. Mike Younce President (703) 503-3687

Responsible Operators Title Telephone Number

Mr. Carl Pires Buckeye Terminal Operator (703) 503-3687

Mr. Stanley Clayborn Citgo Assistance Manager (703) 323-1100 Mr. Jeff Ramey, TransMontaigne Terminal Manager -- TYPE OF FACILITY: DOMESTIC INDUSTRIAL

Federal Major Major Primary

Non-federal Minor Minor X Secondary

INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS: DESIGN: Design Flow NA EFFLUENT LIMITS: mg/L unless otherwise specified. Parameter Min. Monthly Daily Max. Parameter Min. Monthly Daily Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Outfall 0011 Flow NA NL NA NL Total Suspended Solids NA NA NA 60

pH (S.U.) 6.0 NA NA 9.0 Total Petroleum NA NA NA 15 Hydrocarbons (TPH)

Benzene (ug/L) NA NA NA 12 Ethylbenzene (ug/L) NA NA NA 4.3

MTBE (ug/L) NA NA NA 440 Naphthalene (ug/L) NA NA NA 8.9

Toluene (ug/L) NA NA NA 43 Total Xylenes (ug/L) NA NA NA 33 Outfalls 101 and 102 Flow NA NL NA NL TPH NA NA NA 15 Receiving Stream UT Daniels Run Basin Potomac River Outfalls 001: 101: 102: (Lat/Long) 38o 51’ 02.22’’ N/77o 16’ 41.81’’ W 38o 50’ 51.20’’ N/77o 16’ 44.92’’ W 38o 51’ 01.05’’ N/77o 16’ 29.10’’ W 1. Eleven (11) other parameters are monitored at this outfall but do not have limits.

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 2

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

WASTEWATER FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT

FACILITY NAME: Fairfax Terminal Complex INSPECTION DATE: May 23, 2018 INSPECTOR Mark Evans PERMIT No.: VA0001872 REPORT DATE: June 5, 2018 TYPE OF ☐Municipal ☑ Small Minor TIME OF INSPECTION: Arrival Departure FACILITY: 8:30 am 12:30 pm ☑ Industrial TOTAL TIME SPENT ☐ Federal 40 hours / travel & report PHOTOGRAPHS: ☑ Yes ☐ No UNANNOUNCED ☑ Yes ☐ No INSPECTION?

REVIEWED BY / Date: 6/5/18 PRESENT DURING INSPECTION: Mike Younce, Operations Manager, Maryland and Virginia, and Carl Pires, Lead Terminal Operator – Buckeye Partners, L.P.; Stanley Clayborn, Assistant Manager – Citgo; and Jeff Ramey, Terminal Manager – TransMontaigne, Inc.

TECHNICAL INSPECTION

1. Has there been any new construction?  If so, were plans and specifications approved? ☐ Yes ☑ No Comments: 2. Is the Operations and Maintenance Manual approved and up-to-date? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: 3. Are the Permit and/or Operation and Maintenance Manual specified licensed operator being met? ☐ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA 4. Are the Permit and/or Operation and Maintenance Manual specified operator staffing requirements being met? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: 5. Is there an established and adequate program for training personnel? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: 6. Are preventive maintenance task schedules being met? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: 7. Does the plant experience any organic or hydraulic overloading? ☐ Yes ☑ No Comments: 8. Has there been any bypassing or overflows since the last inspection? ☐ Yes ☑ No Comments: 9. Is the standby generator (including power transfer switch) operational and exercised regularly? ☐ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA 10. Is the plant alarm system operational and tested regularly? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: Fairfax County Fire Department oversight.

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 3

Permit # VA0001872

TECHNICAL INSPECTION

11. Is sludge disposed of in accordance with the approved sludge management plan? ☐ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA 12. Is septage received?  If so, is septage loading controlled, and are appropriate records maintained? ☐ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA 13. Are all plant records (operational logs, equipment maintenance, industrial waste contributors, sampling and testing) available for review and are records adequate? ☐ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA 14. Which of the following records does the plant maintain? ☐ Operational logs ☐ Instrument maintenance & calibration

☐ Mechanical equipment maintenance ☐ Industrial waste contribution (Municipal facilities) Comments: NA 15. What does the operational log contain? ☐ Visual observations ☐ Flow measurement ☐ Laboratory results ☐ Process adjustments

☐ Control calculations ☐ Other (specify): Comments: NA 16. What do the mechanical equipment records contain? ☐ As built plans and specs ☐ Manufacturer’s instructions ☐ Lubrication schedules

☐ Spare parts inventory ☐ Equipment/parts suppliers

☐ Other (specify): Comments: NA 17. What do the industrial waste contribution records contain (Municipal only)? ☐ Waste characteristics ☐ Impact on plant ☐ Locations and discharge types

☐ Other (specify) Comments: NA 18. Which of the following records are kept at the plant and available to personnel? ☐ Equipment maintenance records ☐ Operational log ☐ Industrial contributor records

☐ Instrumentation records ☐ Sampling and testing records Comments: NA 19. List records not normally available to plant personnel and their location: Comments: Maintenance records (no computer on site) and past DMRs. 20. Are the records maintained for the required time period (three or five years)? ☑ Yes ☐ No Comments: NA

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 4

Permit # VA0001872

UNIT PROCESS EVALUATION SUMMARY SHEET

UNIT PROCESS COMMENTS Outfall 001 * Discharges stormwater runoff and petroleum contact water from the stormwater impoundment basin (SIB) that is situated northwest of and receives discharges from the three terminal sources listed below. Outfall 101 Discharges from the Buckeye Terminal OWS and 37,000-gallon vault to the SIB basin and Outfall 001. Outfall 102 Discharges from the TransMontaigne OWS to the SIB and Outfall 001. Hydrostatic Test Water Hydrostatic testing is conducted on tanks within the complex as required under temporary time-limited NPDES permits issued under General Permit VAG83,

which specifies DEQ notifications, sampling, and record-keeping relating to such testing. Fire Test Area CITGO has a lease agreement with the City of Fairfax. The Fairfax Police and Fire

Departments use approximately 1.5 acres of CITGO’s land for training activities.1 BUCKEYE TERMINAL Contains six petroleum tanks >900,000 gallons and nine tanks <11,000 gallons. Oil/Water Separator (OWS) Receives water from maintenance building floor drains, fire test/spill area, and loading rack. Discharges water to a 37,000-gallon lined vault and discharges hydrocarbons to tank #9 for off-site treatment/disposal. 37,000-Gallon lined vault Receives water from the OWS for testing prior to release through Outfall 101 to the

SIB and Outfall 001. Loading Rack Floor Drains Discharge to OWS Remediation Groundwater Discharged to tank #8 for off-site treatment/disposal. Hydrostatic Test Water No hydrostatic tests conducted in the past eight years. Tank Bottom Water Disposal Discharged to tank #8 for off-site treatment/disposal. Fire Test Spill Clean Areas Discharge to OWS. CITGO TERMINAL Contains six petroleum tanks >900,000 gallons and seven tanks <20,000 gallons. Hydrostatic Test Water Reviewed records on recent testing on tanks #3 and #4. OWS inside product storage berm. Presently not in use; discharge to the SIB and/or tank #5 when needed. Loading Rack Floor Drains Discharged to tank #5 for off-site treatment/disposal. Fire Test Spill Clean Areas Discharge to tank #5 for off-site treatment/disposal. Tank Bottom Water Discharged to tank #5 for off-site treatment/disposal. TRANSMONTAIONE TERMINAL Contains 10 petroleum tanks >900,000 gallons and 11 tanks <20,000 gallons. Bermed Tank Areas Discharges to the Concrete Containment Basin (CCB) CCB Discharges to the OWS. OWS Receives water from truck parking and the CCB; Discharges water to the retention

pond and hydrocarbons to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. Loading Rack Floor Drains Discharge to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. Fire Test Spill Clean Areas Discharge to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. Ethanol Offload Spills Discharge to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. Hydrostatic Test Water Reviewed records on recent testing on tanks #107 and #109. Tank Bottom Water Discharge to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. Groundwater Monitoring Discharge to tank #107 for off-site treatment/disposal. T1 French Drain This drain does not discharge; it ends in a 60-inch sump. * Problem Codes 1. Unit Needs Attention 4. Unapproved Modification or Temporary Repair 2. Abnormal Influent/Effluent 5. Evidence of Process Upset

1 In August 2005, a pre-fabricated steel training tower was installed, in addition to a single story portable classroom, an automobile extrication training pad, an industrial confined-space entry simulator, a roof operations simulator, and a fire extinguisher simulator area. No new plumbing facilities were constructed for this facility. Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 5

3. Evidence of Equipment Failure 6. Other (explain in comments)

Permit # VA0001872

INSPECTION OVERVIEW AND CONDITION OF TREATMENT UNITS Based on information in DEQ files reviewed by Mr. Evans prior to the inspection, the Joint Basin Corporation consists of four companies that operate petroleum product distribution terminals on Colonial Avenue in Fairfax, Virginia. The four companies which comprise the Joint Basin Corporation are Buckeye Terminals, LLC, Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Motiva Enterprises, LLC2, and TransMontaigne, Incorporated. The terminals receive gasoline products from the Colonial Pipeline3 (and ethanol via trucks) which are then stored in numerous above ground storage tanks (ASTs) located within four properties (photo 1). Final product is distributed by tanker truck and via the Colonial Pipeline. Fuel blending with additives is also conducted on the properties. Outfall 001, located in the northwest corner of the complex (photos 1 to 3), discharges stormwater runoff from the 400,000-gallon stormwater impoundment basin (SIB), which receives stormwater from the fuel loading and the bulk storage areas located on each terminal property. Outfall 101 and 102 are located respectively on the Buckeye and TransMontaigne terminal properties and both discharge to the SIB.

Mr. Evans arrived at the Buckeye terminal property at 8:30 am, met Mr. Younce and Mr. Pires, and explained that the purpose of the visit was to conduct a technical inspection of the complex. The inspection began with a tour of the Buckeye terminal (photos 4 to 11), followed by a review of unit processes referenced in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), items from a standard DEQ inspection checklist, and a direct review of the SWPPP.

During the tour, Mr. Younce indicated that the oil/water separator (OWS), which was receiving maintenance, is inspected daily and cleaned out at least annually. The tour reflected that the Buckeye property is well operated and maintained.

The responses to the standard DEQ inspection checklist questions are shown on pages #3 and #4 above and the unit process information is shown on the page #5 above - no issues are identified. The direct SWPPP review involved comparisons of SWPPP permit requirements with observed SWPPP elements, including sampling and analytical procedures and results (see pages 14 to 16). These comparisons indicate that the SWPPP appears to be complete and up-to-date; it was dated 10/19/17 and signed/certified on 11/13/17.

After the SWPPP review Mr. Younce and Mr. Pires escorted Mr. Evans to the Citgo terminal property (photos 12 to 19) where they introduced Mr. Clayborn who provided records from two recent hydrostatic tests that had been triggered by the addition of double bottoms to product tanks #3 and #53. Mr. Clayborn provided a tour of the Citgo property in which, Mr. Younce and Mr. Pires participated and then escorted Mr. Evans to the TransMontaigne property (photos 20 to 29) where they introduced Jeff Ramey who conducted a property tour in which Mr. Younce and Mr. Pires also participated.

After the tours of the Citgo and TransMontaigne properties, Mr. Evans concluded that all of the inspected properties at the complex are well maintained and operated.

The inspection concluded at 12:30 pm.

Permit # VA0001872

2 The Motiva company has a separate permit ( 3 Records of the recent hydrostatic tank tests at Citgo were not found in DEQ files; however, recent records of hydrostatic testing at the TransMontaigne property (November 13, 2017 on tank #109 and March 14, 2017 on tank #107) were found in DEQ files. Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 6

EFFLUENT FIELD DATA (measured by operator): Flow NA Dissolved Oxygen NA TRC (Contact Tank) NA pH NA Temperature NA TRC (Final Effluent) NA

Was a Sampling Inspection conducted? ☐ Yes (see Sampling Inspection Report) ☑ No NA = Not measured during the inspection.

CONDITION OF OUTFALL AND EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS: 1. Type of outfall: ☑ Shore based ☐ Submerged Diffuser? ☐ Yes ☑ No

2. Are the outfall and supporting structures in good condition? ☑Yes ☐ No

3. Final Effluent (evidence of following problems): ☐ Sludge bar ☐ Grease ☐ Turbid effluent ☐ Visible foam ☐ Unusual color ☐ Oil sheen

4. Is there a visible effluent plume in the receiving stream? ☐ Yes ☑ No

5. Receiving stream: ☑ No observed problems ☐ Indication of problems (explain below) Comments: Slight discharge during the inspection.

REQUEST for CORRECTIVE ACTION: None

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 7

PHOTOS Outfall 102 Outfall 001

Citgo retention basin

Outfall 101

Loading rack

Buckeye Retention Basin

1. Overview of the site showing the four terminal properties, the Colonial Pipeline property, and drainage directions (red arrows) to the stormwater impoundment basin (SIB). 001 Outfall

Flow from the long culvert running along the western border of the facility

2. Looking north from the southwest corner of the SIB. 3. Close-up of Outfall 001.

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 8

4. Buckeye property loading rack (looking toward southwest 5. Loading rack floor drain is connected to OWS (Buckeye). corner). Tank 15 Buckeye retention basin

6. OWS (red circle) connected to holding tank (not shown) 7. Holding tank receives OWS discharges (looking south and tank 15 (Buckeye). along western boundary of the Buckeye property).

Fence line All drains flow toward the with Citgo SIB and Outfall 001. property

Outfall 101

8. Close-up of the 101 Outfall confluence with drainage to the 9. Looking north from berm of the Buckeye retention basin. SIB (looking west).

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 9

Tank 8

10. Looking east from berm of the Buckeye retention basin. 11. Looking northeast from berm of the Buckeye retention basin. Citgo loading rack Citgo office

Drain for parking lot

12. Looking west from near the center of the Citgo property. 13. Looking east from near the center of the Citgo property.

14. Close-up of Citgo loading rack floor drains. 15. Sump and transfer pump near loading rack connected to tank #5 for off-site treatment/disposal (Citgo).

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 10

OWS used when sheen is Discharge point present. through berm

16. Tank #5 looking north from the loading rack (Citgo). 17. Looking east along the northern berm of the Citgo product storage area.

Valved drain to SIB.

18. Looking south across the Citgo retention basin at Fairfax 19. Looking west toward confluence of valved drain (photo County fire training area (white circle). 18) and drain to the stormwater impoundment pond.

20. Entrance of the TransMontaigne property. 21. TransMontaigne loading rack (looking northeast from office).

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 11

22. Floor drain in the Montaigne loading rack. 23. Sump and pump to tank 107 for off-site treatment/ disposal.

Tank 107

24. Looking south from the TransMontaigne loading rack 25. OWS on the northern border of the TransMontaigne (Motiva tanks are shown in circle). property.

Outfall 102

26. Looking southwest at the concrete containment basin 27. Looking west from the CCB at Outfall 102 from the OWS (CCB) at the TransMontaigne property. at the TransMontaigne property.

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 12

28. Looking southwest from the CCB at the invert that 29.View of the SIB between Outfalls 103 (on left) and 103 conveys CCB discharges to the SIB (Outfall 103). from the CCB. Photos and layout by Mark Evans

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 13

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - WATER DIVISION LABORATORY INSPECTION REPORT 11/2014

PERMIT #: INSPECTION DATE: PREVIOUS INSP. DATE: PREVIOUS TIME SPENT: EVALUATION: 2 hours w/ travel VA0001872 5/23/17 1/19/2012 No Deficiencies & report NAME/ADDRESS OF FACILITY: FACILITY CLASS: FACILITY TYPE: UNANNOUNCED ☐ MAJOR ☐ MUNICIPAL INSPECTION? ☑ YES ☐ MINOR ☑ INDUSTRIAL ☐ NO FFY-SCHEDULED ☑ MINOR (Small) ☐ FEDERAL INSPECTION? ☑ YES ☐ VPA ☐ NO INSPECTOR(S): Mark Evans REVIEWER(S): PRESENT AT INSPECTION: Mike Younce, Operations Manager, Maryland and Virginia, and Carl Pires, Lead Terminal Operator – Buckeye Partners, L.P LABORATORY EVALUATION DEFICIENCIES? Yes No LABORATORY RECORDS ☐ ☑ GENERAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ☐ ☑ pH PROCEDURE ☐ ☑ OTHER

VELAP CERTIFICATION (on site Environmental Laboratory) Yes No Does the laboratory have VELAP certification (interim or final)? – Document the laboratory’s VELAP laboratory number: ☐ ☑ – Document the effective date of the VELAP certification: – Document the expiration date of the VELAP certification: – List the certified parameters: VELAP ACCREDITATION (Commercial Environmental Laboratory) Yes No IS A VELAP ACCREDITED LAB USED FOR OTHER PERMIT REQUIRED ANALYSES? VELAP#, LAB NAME, ADDRESS and LIST PARAMETERS: ☑ ☐

VELAP # LAB NAME ADDRESS PARAMETERS* 460182 Eurofins Lancaster Laboratories 2425 New Holland Pike TSS, MTBE, Naphthalene, Environmental Lancaster, PA 17601 TPH, Zn, and BTEX 460030 Coastal Bioanalysts, Inc. 6400 Enterprise Court Whole effluent toxicity Gloucester, VA 23061 testing IF PERMIT REQUIRED SAMPLE ANALYSIS IS PERFORMED AT ANOTHER LOCATION, ☑ ☐ ARE SHIPPING PROCEDURES ADEQUATE?

COPIES: ☑ DEQ - RO; ☐ Owner, ☐ Other:

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 14

PERMIT #: VA0001872

LABORATORY RECORDS SECTION

LABORATORY RECORDS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ☑ SAMPLING DATE ☑ ANALYSIS DATE ☐ CONT MONITORING CHART ☑ SAMPLING TIME ☑ ANALYSIS TIME ☐ INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION ☑ SAMPLE LOCATION ☑ TEST METHOD ☐ INSTRUMENT MAINTENANCE ☐ CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ☐ SAMPLING SCHEDULES ☐ CALCULATIONS ☐ ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

YES NO N/A DO ALL ANALYSTS INITIAL THEIR WORK? ☑ ☐ ☐ DO BENCH SHEETS (or LOG BOOK) INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ☑ ☐ ☐ DETERMINE RESULTS? IS THE DMR COMPLETE AND CORRECT? LIST MONTH(S) REVIEWED: January, February, ☑ ☐ ☐ and March of 2018 ARE ALL MONITORING VALUES REQUIRED BY THE PERMIT REPORTED? ☑ ☐ ☐ DOES CHAIN OF CUSTODY DOCUMENT PROPER SAMPLE PRESERVATION WAS MET? ☑ ☐ ☐ WHEN THE CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS CONTAINS FLAGGED DATA IS THE ‘FLAG’ ☐ ☐ ☑ REPORTED ON THE DMR? (Flagged data not encountered in the three months reviewed.)

GENERAL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SECTION

YES NO N/A*

ARE SAMPLE LOCATIONS ACCORDING TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS? ☑ ☐ ☐ ARE PERMIT REQUIRED SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURES APPROPRIATE? ☑ ☐ ☐ ARE EFFLUENT SAMPLES REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MONITORED ACTIVITY? ☑ ☐ ☐ ARE PERMIT REQUIRED COMPOSITE SAMPLES FLOW PROPORTIONAL? NOTE: Equal ☐ ☐ ☑ volume composite aliquots are acceptable if the instantaneous flow is within ± 10% of the daily average flow during the monitoring period. Some permits specify how the composite is to be taken (e.g., 5G/8HC). IS COLLECTION SAMPLE EQUIPMENT ADEQUATE? ☑ ☐ ☐ IS FLOW MEASUREMENT ACCORDING TO PERMIT REQUIREMENTS?* ☐ ☐ ☐ * Samples are collected, field tested for pH and shipped for analyses by GES, Inc., 440 Creamery Way, Suite 500, Exton PA, 19341. No sample collection or field measurements were conducted during the inspection.

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 15

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY – WATER DIVISION LABORATORY INSPECTION REPORT SUMMARY

FACILITY NAME: Fairfax Terminal Complex Permit #: VA0001872 INSPECTION 5/23/18 DATE:

LABORATORY EVALUATION ☑ No required actions at this time

☐ REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION(s) IDENTIFIED

SUMMARY of REQUEST FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION

Lab Records Laboratory Records section deficiency and required action:  None General Sampling and Analysis General Sampling and Analysis section deficiency and required action:  None pH Analysis pH deficiency and required action:  None OTHER – Comments or Observations  None

Inspection at Fairfax Terminal Complex, Permit #: VA0001872 Page 16

Attachment 7

To: Susan Mackert From: Rebecca Shoemaker

Date: September 29, 2020 Subject: Planning Statement for Joint Basin Corporation – Fairfax Terminal Complex Permit Number: VA0001872

Information for Outfalls: 001 Discharge Type: Industrial Stormwater Discharge Flow: Variable Receiving Stream: UT to Daniel’s Run Latitude / Longitude: 38 51′ 02.22″ / 77 16′ 41.81″ Rivermile: 0.18 Streamcode: 1-XIV Waterbody: VAN-A15R 6th Order HUC: PL30 Water Quality Standards: Class III, Section 7, special stds. b. Drainage Area: <5 sq miles

1. Please provide water quality monitoring information for the receiving stream segment. If there is not monitoring information for the receiving stream segment, please provide information on the nearest downstream monitoring station, including how far downstream the monitoring station is from the outfall.

This facility discharges to an unnamed tributary to Daniels Run that has been neither monitored nor assessed. Daniels Run has not been monitored by DEQ; the aquatic life use is assessed with an observed effect for benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment based on citizen monitoring. Accotink Creek is located approximately 0.80 miles downstream from Outfall 001; DEQ ambient water quality monitoring station 1aACO021.28 is located at Route 237, approximately 1.1 miles downstream from Outfall 001. The following is the water quality summary for this segment of Accotink Creek, as taken from the Draft* 2020 Integrated Report:

Class III, Section 7, special stds. b.

DEQ monitoring stations located in this segment of Accotink Creek:  ambient water quality monitoring station 1aACO021.28 at Route 237.

The aquatic life use is assessed as impaired based on benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment (based on DEQ station 1aACO014.57 at Route 620, located in the downstream segment); the Accotink Creek chloride and sediment TMDLs for the Upper Accotink watershed have been completed and approved. The recreation use is assessed as impaired based on previous E. coli monitoring data at USGS monitoring station 01653900 at Pickett Street; this impairment is nested in the downstream Accotink Creek bacteria TMDL. There are insufficient data to assess the wildlife use. The fish consumption use was not assessed.

*Virginia’s 2020 Integrated Report is currently in draft format. The public comment period, including EPA’s initial review, is complete. Submittal to EPA for final approval is planned for autumn 2020.

2. Does this facility discharge to a stream segment on the 303(d) list? If yes, please fill out Table A. No.

Page 1 of 2

3. Are there any downstream 303(d) listed impairments that are relevant to this discharge? If yes, please fill out Table B. Yes.

Table B. Information on Downstream 303(d) Impairments and TMDLs

Year First Distance Waterbody TMDL Impaired Use Cause Listed as From WLA Basis for WLA Name completed Impaired Outfall

Impairment Information in the Draft* 2020 Integrated Report Upper Accotink Recreation E. coli 2002 ------Bacteria 5/31/2002 TSS 0.8 mile Sediment: concentration Accotink Accotink Creek Benthic 9.14 60 mg/L Creek Sediment Macro- 2010 tons/year --- Aquatic Life & invertebrates 0.100 MGD Accotink Creek Chloride † Chloride: aggregated industrial 05/23/2018 ‡ Chloride 2016 3.8 miles stormwater WLA Wildlife PCBs in Fish No ------Lake Fish Tissue 2010 9.1 miles Accotink Consumption Mercury in No ------Fish Tissue This facility is accounted for in the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Aquatic Life / Chesapeake NPDES Permit Inventory and is Accotink Dissolved 19.9 Open Water 2014 Bay TMDL part of an aggregated WLA for Bay Oxygen miles Aquatic Life 12/29/2010 total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids (Appendix Q). 22.3 Pohick Bay Aquatic Life pH 2012 No ------miles *Virginia’s 2020 Integrated Report is currently in draft format. The public comment period, including EPA’s initial review, is complete. Submittal to EPA for final approval is planned for autumn 2020. †The Accotink Creek Sediment and Accotink Creek Chloride TMDLs apply to the benthic macroinvertebrate impairment; the Accotink Creek Chloride TMDL applies to the chloride impairment (for both the aquatic life and wildlife uses). ‡This facility is included in an aggregated WLA for chlorides for the Upper Accotink Creek Watershed. A stakeholder group has convened to develop a Salt Management Strategy (SaMS) to proactively address salt loads through outreach and implementation of best management practices while protecting public safety. Additional information about the strategy can be found at http://www.deq.virginia.gov/SaMS.aspx

4. Is there monitoring or other conditions that Planning/Assessment needs in the permit?

Lake Accotink is listed with a PCB impairment approximately 9.1 miles downstream from Outfall 001. This facility completed low-level PCBs monitoring during the last permit cycle. Based on DEQ review of the low-level PCBs monitoring data, additional low-level PCBs monitoring is not requested, and a pollution minimization plan will not be required.

5. Fact Sheet Requirements – Please provide information regarding any drinking water intakes located within a 5 mile radius of the discharge point.

There are no public water supply intakes located within five miles of this discharge.

Page 2 of 2

Attachment 8 FRESHWATER WATER QUALITY CRITERIA / WASTELOAD ALLOCATION ANALYSIS

Facility Name: Joint Basin - Fairfax Terminal Permit No.: VA0001872

Receiving Stream: Daniels Run, UT Version: OWP Guidance Memo 00-2011 (8/24/00)

1.26E-07 1.3E-07 2.512E-08 Stream Information 2E-07 Stream Flows Mixing Information Effluent Information 3.98E-07 3.981E-07 Mean Hardness (as CaCO3) = 50 mg/L 1Q10 (Annual) = 0 MGD Annual - 1Q10 Mix = 100 % Mean Hardness (as CaCO3) = 37 mg/L 90% Temperature (Annual) = 22 deg C 7Q10 (Annual) = 0 MGD - 7Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Temp (Annual) = 25 deg C 90% Temperature (Wet season) = deg C 30Q10 (Annual) = 0 MGD - 30Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Temp (Wet season) = deg C 90% Maximum pH = 6.9 SU 1Q10 (Wet season) = 0 MGD Wet Season - 1Q10 Mix = 100 % 90% Maximum pH = 7.6 SU 10% Maximum pH = 6.7 SU 30Q10 (Wet season) = 0 MGD - 30Q10 Mix = 100 % 10% Maximum pH = 6.4 SU Tier Designation (1 or 2) = 1 30Q5 = 0 MGD Discharge Flow = 0.087 MGD Public Water Supply (PWS) Y/N? = y Harmonic Mean = 0 MGD Trout Present Y/N? = n Early Life Stages Present Y/N? = y

Parameter Background Water Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations Most Limiting Allocations Method (ug/l unless noted) Conc. Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Target Value Acenapthene 0 -- -- 7.0E+01 9.0E+01 -- -- 7.0E+01 9.0E+01 ------7.0E+01 9.0E+01 7.0E+01 Acrolein 0 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 4.0E+02 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 4.0E+02 ------3.0E+00 3.0E+00 3.0E+00 4.0E+02 1.2E+00 C Acrylonitrile 0 -- -- 6.1E-01 7.0E+01 -- -- 6.1E-01 7.0E+01 ------6.1E-01 7.0E+01 6.1E-01 C Aldrin 0 3.0E+00 -- 7.7E-06 7.7E-06 3.0E+00 -- 7.7E-06 7.7E-06 ------3.0E+00 -- 7.7E-06 7.7E-06 7.7E-06 Ammonia-N (mg/l) (Yearly) 0 1.70E+01 2.02E+00 -- -- 1.70E+01 2.02E+00 ------1.70E+01 2.02E+00 -- -- 1.2E+00 Ammonia-N (mg/l) (High Flow) 0 1.70E+01 3.98E+00 -- -- 1.70E+01 3.98E+00 ------1.70E+01 3.98E+00 -- -- 2.4E+00 Anthracene 0 -- -- 3.0E+02 4.0E+02 -- -- 3.0E+02 4.0E+02 ------3.0E+02 4.0E+02 3.0E+02 Antimony 0 -- -- 5.6E+00 6.4E+02 -- -- 5.6E+00 6.4E+02 ------5.6E+00 6.4E+02 5.6E+00 Arsenic 0 3.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.0E+01 -- 3.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.0E+01 ------3.4E+02 1.5E+02 1.0E+01 -- 1.0E+01 Barium 0 -- -- 2.0E+03 ------2.0E+03 ------2.0E+03 -- 2.0E+03 C Benzene 0 -- -- 5.8E+00 1.6E+02 -- -- 5.8E+00 1.6E+02 ------5.8E+00 1.6E+02 5.8E+00 C Benzidine 0 -- -- 1.4E-03 1.1E-01 -- -- 1.4E-03 1.1E-01 ------1.4E-03 1.1E-01 1.4E-03 C Benzo (a) anthracene 0 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 ------1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 C Benzo (b) fluoranthene 0 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 ------1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 C Benzo (k) fluoranthene 0 -- -- 1.2E-01 1.3E-01 -- -- 1.2E-01 1.3E-01 ------1.2E-01 1.3E-01 1.2E-01 C Benzo (a) pyrene 0 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 ------1.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.2E-03 C Bis (chloromethyl) Ether 0 -- -- 1.5E-03 1.7E-01 -- -- 1.5E-03 1.7E-01 ------1.5E-03 1.7E-01 1.5E-03 C Bis2-Chloroethyl Ether 0 -- -- 3.0E-01 2.2E+01 -- -- 3.0E-01 2.2E+01 ------3.0E-01 2.2E+01 3.0E-01 Bis2-Chloroisopropyl Ether 0 -- -- 2.0E+02 4.0E+03 -- -- 2.0E+02 4.0E+03 ------2.0E+02 4.0E+03 2.0E+02 C Bis 2-Ethylhexyl Phthalate 0 -- -- 3.2E+00 3.7E+00 -- -- 3.2E+00 3.7E+00 ------3.2E+00 3.7E+00 3.2E+00 C Bromoform 0 -- -- 7.0E+01 1.2E+03 -- -- 7.0E+01 1.2E+03 ------7.0E+01 1.2E+03 7.0E+01 Butylbenzylphthalate 0 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 ------1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 Cadmium 0 7.1E-01 3.4E-01 5.0E+00 -- 7.1E-01 3.4E-01 5.0E+00 ------7.1E-01 3.4E-01 5.0E+00 -- 2.0E-01 C Carbon Tetrachloride 0 -- -- 4.0E+00 5.0E+01 -- -- 4.0E+00 5.0E+01 ------4.0E+00 5.0E+01 4.0E+00 Carbaryl 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 -- -- 2.1E+00 2.1E+00 ------2.1E+00 2.1E+00 -- -- 8.4E-01 C Chlordane 0 2.4E+00 4.3E-03 3.1E-03 3.2E-03 2.4E+00 4.3E-03 3.1E-03 3.2E-03 ------2.4E+00 4.3E-03 3.1E-03 3.2E-03 2.6E-03 Chloride 0 8.6E+05 2.3E+05 2.5E+05 -- 8.6E+05 2.3E+05 2.5E+05 ------8.6E+05 2.3E+05 2.5E+05 -- 1.4E+05 TRC 0 1.9E+01 1.1E+01 -- -- 1.9E+01 1.1E+01 ------1.9E+01 1.1E+01 -- -- 6.6E+00 Chlorobenzene 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 8.0E+02 -- -- 1.0E+02 8.0E+02 ------1.0E+02 8.0E+02 1.0E+02

page 1 VA0001872 Attachment 8 2020 - Freshwater WLAs 7/7/2020 - 3:36 PM Parameter Background Water Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations Most Limiting Allocations Method (ug/l unless noted) Conc. Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Target Value C Chlorodibromomethane 0 -- -- 8.0E+00 2.1E+02 -- -- 8.0E+00 2.1E+02 ------8.0E+00 2.1E+02 8.0E+00 Chloroform 0 -- -- 6.0E+01 2.0E+03 -- -- 6.0E+01 2.0E+03 ------6.0E+01 2.0E+03 6.0E+01 2-Chloronaphthalene 0 -- -- 8.0E+02 1.0E+03 -- -- 8.0E+02 1.0E+03 ------8.0E+02 1.0E+03 8.0E+02 2-Chlorophenol 0 -- -- 3.0E+01 8.0E+02 -- -- 3.0E+01 8.0E+02 ------3.0E+01 8.0E+02 3.0E+01 Chlorpyrifos 0 8.3E-02 4.1E-02 -- -- 8.3E-02 4.1E-02 ------8.3E-02 4.1E-02 -- -- 2.5E-02 Chromium III 0 2.5E+02 3.3E+01 -- -- 2.5E+02 3.3E+01 ------2.5E+02 3.3E+01 -- -- 2.0E+01 Chromium VI 0 1.6E+01 1.1E+01 -- -- 1.6E+01 1.1E+01 ------1.6E+01 1.1E+01 -- -- 6.4E+00 Chromium, Total 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 ------1.0E+02 ------1.0E+02 -- 1.0E+02 C Chrysene 0 -- -- 1.2E+00 1.3E+00 -- -- 1.2E+00 1.3E+00 ------1.2E+00 1.3E+00 1.2E+00 Copper 0 5.3E+00 3.8E+00 1.3E+03 -- 5.3E+00 3.8E+00 1.3E+03 ------5.3E+00 3.8E+00 1.3E+03 -- 2.1E+00 Cyanide, Free 0 2.2E+01 5.2E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+02 2.2E+01 5.2E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+02 ------2.2E+01 5.2E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+02 3.1E+00 C DDD 0 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 ------1.2E-03 1.2E-03 1.2E-03 C DDE 0 -- -- 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 -- -- 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 ------1.8E-04 1.8E-04 1.8E-04 C DDT 0 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 1.0E-03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 ------1.1E+00 1.0E-03 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 3.0E-04 Demeton 0 -- 1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 -- -- 1.0E-01 Diazinon 0 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 -- -- 1.7E-01 1.7E-01 ------1.7E-01 1.7E-01 -- -- 6.8E-02 C Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 -- -- 1.2E-03 1.3E-03 ------1.2E-03 1.3E-03 1.2E-03 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0 -- -- 1.0E+03 3.0E+03 -- -- 1.0E+03 3.0E+03 ------1.0E+03 3.0E+03 1.0E+03 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 0 -- -- 7.0E+00 1.0E+01 -- -- 7.0E+00 1.0E+01 ------7.0E+00 1.0E+01 7.0E+00 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0 -- -- 3.0E+02 9.0E+02 -- -- 3.0E+02 9.0E+02 ------3.0E+02 9.0E+02 3.0E+02 C 3,3-Dichlorobenzidine 0 -- -- 4.9E-01 1.5E+00 -- -- 4.9E-01 1.5E+00 ------4.9E-01 1.5E+00 4.9E-01 C Dichlorobromomethane 0 -- -- 9.5E+00 2.7E+02 -- -- 9.5E+00 2.7E+02 ------9.5E+00 2.7E+02 9.5E+00 C 1,2-Dichloroethane 0 -- -- 9.9E+01 6.5E+03 -- -- 9.9E+01 6.5E+03 ------9.9E+01 6.5E+03 9.9E+01 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0 -- -- 3.0E+02 2.0E+04 -- -- 3.0E+02 2.0E+04 ------3.0E+02 2.0E+04 3.0E+02 1,2-trans-dichloroethylene 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 4.0E+03 -- -- 1.0E+02 4.0E+03 ------1.0E+02 4.0E+03 1.0E+02 2,4-Dichlorophenol 0 -- -- 1.0E+01 6.0E+01 -- -- 1.0E+01 6.0E+01 ------1.0E+01 6.0E+01 1.0E+01 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) 0 -- -- 1.3E+03 1.2E+04 -- -- 1.3E+03 ------1.3E+03 -- 1.3E+03 1,2-DichloropropaneC 0 -- -- 9.0E+00 3.1E+02 -- -- 9.0E+00 3.1E+02 ------9.0E+00 3.1E+02 9.0E+00 1,3-Dichloropropene C 0 -- -- 2.7E+00 1.2E+02 -- -- 2.7E+00 1.2E+02 ------2.7E+00 1.2E+02 2.7E+00 C Dieldrin 0 2.4E-01 5.6E-02 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 2.4E-01 5.6E-02 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 ------2.4E-01 5.6E-02 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 1.2E-05 Diethyl Phthalate 0 -- -- 6.0E+02 6.0E+02 -- -- 6.0E+02 6.0E+02 ------6.0E+02 6.0E+02 6.0E+02 2,4-Dimethylphenol 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 3.0E+03 -- -- 1.0E+02 3.0E+03 ------1.0E+02 3.0E+03 1.0E+02 Dimethyl Phthalate 0 -- -- 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 -- -- 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 ------2.0E+03 2.0E+03 2.0E+03 Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 0 -- -- 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 ------2.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.0E+01 2,4 Dinitrophenol 0 -- -- 1.0E+01 3.0E+02 -- -- 1.0E+01 3.0E+02 ------1.0E+01 3.0E+02 1.0E+01 Dinitrophenols 0 -- -- 1.0E+01 1.0E+03 -- -- 1.0E+01 1.0E+03 ------1.0E+01 1.0E+03 1.0E+01 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 0 -- -- 2.0E+00 3.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+00 3.0E+01 ------2.0E+00 3.0E+01 2.0E+00 C 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0 -- -- 4.9E-01 1.7E+01 -- -- 4.9E-01 1.7E+01 ------4.9E-01 1.7E+01 4.9E-01 Dioxin 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0 -- -- 5.0E-08 5.1E-08 -- -- 5.0E-08 5.1E-08 ------5.0E-08 5.1E-08 5.0E-08 C 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0 -- -- 3.0E-01 2.0E+00 -- -- 3.0E-01 2.0E+00 ------3.0E-01 2.0E+00 3.0E-01 Alpha-Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 ------2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 3.4E-02 Beta-Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 ------2.2E-01 5.6E-02 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 3.4E-02 Alpha + Beta Endosulfan 0 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 -- -- 2.2E-01 5.6E-02 ------2.2E-01 5.6E-02 -- -- 3.4E-02 Endosulfan Sulfate 0 -- -- 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+01 4.0E+01 ------2.0E+01 4.0E+01 2.0E+01 Endrin 0 8.6E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 8.6E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 ------8.6E-02 3.6E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 2.2E-02 Endrin Aldehyde 0 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 ------1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00

page 2 VA0001872 Attachment 8 2020 - Freshwater WLAs 7/7/2020 - 3:36 PM Parameter Background Water Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations Most Limiting Allocations Method (ug/l unless noted) Conc. Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Target Value Ethylbenzene 0 -- -- 6.8E+01 1.3E+02 -- -- 6.8E+01 1.3E+02 ------6.8E+01 1.3E+02 6.8E+01 Fluoranthene 0 -- -- 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 ------2.0E+01 2.0E+01 2.0E+01 Fluorene 0 -- -- 5.0E+01 7.0E+01 -- -- 5.0E+01 7.0E+01 ------5.0E+01 7.0E+01 5.0E+01 Foaming Agents 0 -- -- 5.0E+02 ------5.0E+02 ------5.0E+02 -- 5.0E+02 Guthion 0 -- 1.0E-02 ------1.0E-02 ------1.0E-02 -- -- 1.0E-02 C Heptachlor 0 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 5.9E-05 5.9E-05 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 5.9E-05 5.9E-05 ------5.2E-01 3.8E-03 5.9E-05 5.9E-05 5.9E-05 C Heptachlor Epoxide 0 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 3.2E-04 3.2E-04 5.2E-01 3.8E-03 3.2E-04 3.2E-04 ------5.2E-01 3.8E-03 3.2E-04 3.2E-04 3.2E-04 C Hexachlorobenzene 0 -- -- 7.9E-04 7.9E-04 -- -- 7.9E-04 7.9E-04 ------7.9E-04 7.9E-04 7.9E-04 C Hexachlorobutadiene 0 -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 Hexachlorocyclohexane C Alpha-BHC 0 -- -- 3.6E-03 3.9E-03 -- -- 3.6E-03 3.9E-03 ------3.6E-03 3.9E-03 3.6E-03 Hexachlorocyclohexane C Beta-BHC 0 -- -- 8.0E-02 1.4E-01 -- -- 8.0E-02 1.4E-01 ------8.0E-02 1.4E-01 8.0E-02 Hexachlorocyclohexane Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 0 9.5E-01 -- 4.2E+00 4.4E+00 9.5E-01 -- 4.2E+00 4.4E+00 ------9.5E-01 -- 4.2E+00 4.4E+00 3.8E-01 Hexachlorocyclohexane C (HCH) - Technical 0 -- -- 6.6E-02 1.0E-01 -- -- 6.6E-02 1.0E-01 ------6.6E-02 1.0E-01 6.6E-02 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0 -- -- 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 -- -- 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 ------4.0E+00 4.0E+00 4.0E+00 C Hexachloroethane 0 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 -- -- 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 ------1.0E+00 1.0E+00 1.0E+00 Hydrogen Sulfide 0 -- 2.0E+00 ------2.0E+00 ------2.0E+00 -- -- 2.0E+00 C Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 0 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 -- -- 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 ------1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.2E-02 Iron 0 -- -- 3.0E+02 ------3.0E+02 ------3.0E+02 -- 3.0E+02 C Isophorone 0 -- -- 3.4E+02 1.8E+04 -- -- 3.4E+02 1.8E+04 ------3.4E+02 1.8E+04 3.4E+02 Kepone 0 -- 0.0E+00 ------0.0E+00 ------0.0E+00 -- -- 0.0E+00 Lead 0 3.1E+01 3.6E+00 1.5E+01 -- 3.1E+01 3.6E+00 1.5E+01 ------3.1E+01 3.6E+00 1.5E+01 -- 2.1E+00 Malathion 0 -- 1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 -- -- 1.0E-01 Mercury 0 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 - - - - 1.4E+00 7.7E-01 ------1.4E+00 7.7E-01 - - - - 4.6E-01 Methyl Bromide 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 -- -- 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 ------1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+02 3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol 0 -- -- 5.0E+02 2.0E+03 -- -- 5.0E+02 2.0E+03 ------5.0E+02 2.0E+03 5.0E+02 C Methylene Chloride 0 -- -- 2.0E+01 1.0E+03 -- -- 2.0E+01 1.0E+03 ------2.0E+01 1.0E+03 2.0E+01 Methoxychlor 0 -- 3.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 -- 3.0E-02 2.0E-02 ------3.0E-02 2.0E-02 -- 1.8E-02 Mirex 0 -- 0.0E+00 ------0.0E+00 ------0.0E+00 -- -- 0.0E+00 Nickel 0 7.9E+01 8.7E+00 6.1E+02 4.6E+03 7.9E+01 8.7E+00 6.1E+02 4.6E+03 ------7.9E+01 8.7E+00 6.1E+02 4.6E+03 5.2E+00 Nitrate (as N) 0 -- -- 1.0E+04 ------1.0E+04 ------1.0E+04 -- 1.0E+04 Nitrobenzene 0 -- -- 1.0E+01 6.0E+02 -- -- 1.0E+01 6.0E+02 ------1.0E+01 6.0E+02 1.0E+01 C N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0 -- -- 6.9E-03 3.0E+01 -- -- 6.9E-03 3.0E+01 ------6.9E-03 3.0E+01 6.9E-03 C N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 0 -- -- 3.3E+01 6.0E+01 -- -- 3.3E+01 6.0E+01 ------3.3E+01 6.0E+01 3.3E+01 C N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 0 -- -- 5.0E-02 5.1E+00 -- -- 5.0E-02 5.1E+00 ------5.0E-02 5.1E+00 5.0E-02 Nonylphenol 0 2.8E+01 6.6E+00 -- -- 2.8E+01 6.6E+00 ------2.8E+01 6.6E+00 -- -- 4.0E+00 Parathion 0 6.5E-02 1.3E-02 -- -- 6.5E-02 1.3E-02 ------6.5E-02 1.3E-02 -- -- 7.8E-03 C PCB Total 0 -- 1.4E-02 6.4E-04 6.4E-04 -- 1.4E-02 6.4E-04 6.4E-04 ------1.4E-02 6.4E-04 6.4E-04 6.4E-04 Pentachlorobenzene 0 -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 -- -- 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 ------1.0E-01 1.0E-01 1.0E-01 C Pentachlorophenol 0 4.8E+00 3.7E+00 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 4.8E+00 3.7E+00 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 ------4.8E+00 3.7E+00 3.0E-01 4.0E-01 3.0E-01 Phenol 0 -- -- 4.0E+03 3.0E+05 -- -- 4.0E+03 3.0E+05 ------4.0E+03 3.0E+05 4.0E+03 Pyrene 0 -- -- 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+01 3.0E+01 ------2.0E+01 3.0E+01 2.0E+01 Radionuclides 0 ------Gross Alpha Activity (pCi/L) 0 -- -- 1.5E+01 ------1.5E+01 ------1.5E+01 -- 1.5E+01 Beta and Photon Activity (mrem/yr) 0 -- -- 4.0E+00 ------4.0E+00 ------4.0E+00 -- 4.0E+00 Radium 226 + 228 (pCi/L) 0 -- -- 5.0E+00 ------5.0E+00 ------5.0E+00 -- 5.0E+00 Uranium (ug/l) 0 -- -- 3.0E+01 ------3.0E+01 ------3.0E+01 -- 3.0E+01

page 3 VA0001872 Attachment 8 2020 - Freshwater WLAs 7/7/2020 - 3:36 PM Parameter Background Water Quality Criteria Wasteload Allocations Antidegradation Baseline Antidegradation Allocations Most Limiting Allocations Method (ug/l unless noted) Conc. Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Acute Chronic HH (PWS) HH Target Value Selenium, Total Recoverable 0 2.0E+01 5.0E+00 1.7E+02 4.2E+03 2.0E+01 5.0E+00 1.7E+02 4.2E+03 ------2.0E+01 5.0E+00 1.7E+02 4.2E+03 3.0E+00 Silver 0 6.2E-01 ------6.2E-01 ------6.2E-01 ------2.5E-01 Sulfate 0 -- -- 2.5E+05 ------2.5E+05 ------2.5E+05 -- 2.5E+05

1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 0 -- -- 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 -- -- 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 ------3.0E-02 3.0E-02 3.0E-02 C 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0 -- -- 2.0E+00 3.0E+01 -- -- 2.0E+00 3.0E+01 ------2.0E+00 3.0E+01 2.0E+00 C Tetrachloroethylene 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 2.9E+02 -- -- 1.0E+02 2.9E+02 ------1.0E+02 2.9E+02 1.0E+02 Thallium 0 -- -- 2.4E-01 4.7E-01 -- -- 2.4E-01 4.7E-01 ------2.4E-01 4.7E-01 2.4E-01 Toluene 0 -- -- 5.7E+01 5.2E+02 -- -- 5.7E+01 5.2E+02 ------5.7E+01 5.2E+02 5.7E+01 Total dissolved solids 0 -- -- 5.0E+05 ------5.0E+05 ------5.0E+05 -- 5.0E+05 C Toxaphene 0 7.3E-01 2.0E-04 7.0E-03 7.1E-03 7.3E-01 2.0E-04 7.0E-03 7.1E-03 ------7.3E-01 2.0E-04 7.0E-03 7.1E-03 1.2E-04 Tributyltin 0 4.6E-01 7.2E-02 -- -- 4.6E-01 7.2E-02 ------4.6E-01 7.2E-02 -- -- 4.3E-02 C 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0 -- -- 7.1E-01 7.6E-01 -- -- 7.1E-01 7.6E-01 ------7.1E-01 7.6E-01 7.1E-01 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0 -- -- 1.0E+04 2.0E+05 -- -- 1.0E+04 2.0E+05 ------1.0E+04 2.0E+05 1.0E+04 C 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0 -- -- 5.5E+00 8.9E+01 -- -- 5.5E+00 8.9E+01 ------5.5E+00 8.9E+01 5.5E+00 C Trichloroethylene 0 -- -- 6.0E+00 7.0E+01 -- -- 6.0E+00 7.0E+01 ------6.0E+00 7.0E+01 6.0E+00 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 0 -- -- 3.0E+02 6.0E+02 -- -- 3.0E+02 6.0E+02 ------3.0E+02 6.0E+02 3.0E+02 C 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0 -- -- 1.5E+01 2.8E+01 -- -- 1.5E+01 2.8E+01 ------1.5E+01 2.8E+01 1.5E+01 2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid (Silvex) 0 -- -- 1.0E+02 4.0E+02 -- -- 1.0E+02 ------1.0E+02 -- 1.0E+02 C Vinyl Chloride 0 -- -- 2.2E-01 1.6E+01 -- -- 2.2E-01 1.6E+01 ------2.2E-01 1.6E+01 2.2E-01 Zinc 0 5.0E+01 5.1E+01 7.4E+03 2.6E+04 5.0E+01 5.1E+01 7.4E+03 2.6E+04 ------5.0E+01 5.1E+01 7.4E+03 2.6E+04 2.0E+01

Notes: 1. All concentrations expressed as micrograms/liter (ug/l), unless noted otherwise 2. Discharge flow is highest monthly average or Form 2C maximum for Industries and design flow for Municipals 3. Metals measured as Dissolved, unless specified otherwise 4. "C" indicates a carcinogenic parameter 5. Regular WLAs are mass balances (minus background concentration) using the % of stream flow entered above under Mixing Information. Antidegradation WLAs are based upon a complete mix. 6. Antideg. Baseline = (0.25(WQC - background conc.) + background conc.) for acute and chronic = (0.1(WQC - background conc.) + background conc.) for human health 7. WLAs established at the following stream flows: 1Q10 for Acute, 30Q10 for Chronic Ammonia, 7Q10 for Other Chronic, 30Q5 for Non-carcinogens and Harmonic Mean for Carcinogens. To apply mixing ratios from a model set the stream flow equal to (mixing ratio - 1), effluent flow equal to 1 and 100% mix.

page 4 VA0001872 Attachment 8 2020 - Freshwater WLAs 7/7/2020 - 3:36 PM VA0001872 - Joint Basin Fairfax Terminal (pH Data)

Parameter Due Outfall Con Min Limit Min Conc Max Limit Max Units Description

1/10/16 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 2/10/16 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 3/10/16 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 4/10/16 001 pH 7.4 6.0 7.4 9.0 S.U. 5/10/16 001 pH 7.3 6.0 7.3 9.0 S.U. 6/10/16 001 pH 5.8 6.0 5.8 9.0 S.U. 7/10/16 001 pH 6.3 6.0 6.3 9.0 S.U. 8/10/16 001 pH 6.8 6.0 6.8 9.0 S.U. 9/10/16 001 pH 6.3 6.0 6.3 9.0 S.U. 10/10/16 001 pH 6.0 6.0 6.0 9.0 S.U. 11/10/16 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 12/10/16 001 pH 7.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 S.U. 1/10/17 001 pH 6.7 6.0 6.7 9.0 S.U. 2/10/17 001 pH 7.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 S.U. 3/10/17 001 pH 7.6 6.0 7.6 9.0 S.U. 4/10/17 001 pH 6.8 6.0 6.8 9.0 S.U. 5/10/17 001 pH 6.4 6.0 6.4 9.0 S.U. 6/10/17 001 pH 6.7 6.0 6.7 9.0 S.U. 7/10/17 001 pH 6.6 6.0 6.6 9.0 S.U. 8/10/17 001 pH 6.4 6.0 6.4 9.0 S.U. 9/10/17 001 pH 6.9 6.0 6.9 9.0 S.U. 10/10/17 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 11/10/17 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 12/10/17 001 pH 7.4 6.0 7.4 9.0 S.U. 1/10/18 001 pH 7.9 6.0 7.9 9.0 S.U. 2/10/18 001 pH 7.9 6.0 7.9 9.0 S.U. 3/10/18 001 pH 7.6 6.0 7.6 9.0 S.U. 4/10/18 001 pH 7.8 6.0 7.8 9.0 S.U. 5/10/18 001 pH 7.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 S.U. 6/10/18 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 7/10/18 001 pH 6.99 6.0 6.99 9.0 S.U. 8/10/18 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 9/10/18 001 pH 6.2 6.0 6.2 9.0 S.U. 10/10/18 001 pH 7.6 6.0 7.6 9.0 S.U. 11/10/18 001 pH 7.4 6.0 7.4 9.0 S.U. 12/10/18 001 pH 8.0 6.0 8.0 9.0 S.U. 1/10/19 001 pH 8.2 6.0 8.2 9.0 S.U. 2/10/19 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 3/10/19 001 pH 7.3 6.0 7.3 9.0 S.U. 4/10/19 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 5/10/19 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 6/10/19 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U.

7/10/19 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 8/10/19 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 9/10/19 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 10/10/19 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 11/10/19 001 pH 7.6 6.0 7.6 9.0 S.U. 12/10/19 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 1/10/20 001 pH 7.3 6.0 7.3 9.0 S.U. 2/10/20 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 3/10/20 001 pH 7.1 6.0 7.1 9.0 S.U. 4/10/20 001 pH 7.2 6.0 7.2 9.0 S.U. 5/10/20 001 pH 7.14 6.0 7.14 9.0 S.U. 6/10/20 001 pH 7.3 6.0 7.3 9.0 S.U.

90% pH = 7.6 S.U. 10% pH = 6.4 S.U.

1 VA0001872 - Joint Basin Fairfax Terminal (Hardness Data)

Parameter Due Outfall Conc Max Limit Max Units Description

7/10/16 001 Hardness 40.1 NL mg/L 1/10/17 001 Hardness 35.9 NL mg/L 7/10/17 001 Hardness 23.2 NL mg/L 1/10/18 001 Hardness 33.1 NL mg/L 7/10/18 001 Hardness 38.8 NL mg/L 1/10/19 001 Hardness 18.5 NL mg/L 7/10/19 001 Hardness 31.2 NL mg/L 1/10/20 001 Hardness 73.2 NL mg/L 7/10/20 001 Hardness 42.5 NL mg/L

Average = 37 mg/L

1 Attachment 9 VA0001872 - Joint Basin Fairfax Terminal (Benzene)