821-B-05-005 

Preliminary Engineering Report: 

Steam Electric Detailed Study 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

Office of Water 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460

 August 2005 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared with the technical support of Eastern Research Group, 

Inc. under the direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the United 

States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees 

make any warrant, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any 

third party’s use of, or the results of, such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process 

discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately 

owned rights. 

The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is: 

Martha Segall 

U.S. EPA Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 566-1041 (telephone) 

(202) 566-1053 (fax) 

segall.martha@epa.gov 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1-1

2.0 EXISTING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND OTHER REGULATIONS .................... 2-1

2.1 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines .................................. 2-1

2.2 Cooling Water Intake Structures .................................... 2-4

2.3 Air Regulations ................................................. 2-6

2.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ..................... 2-7

3.0 DATA SOURCES ....................................................... 3-1

3.1 Energy Information Administration .................................. 3-2

3.1.1 Form EIA-860 ............................................ 3-2

3.1.2 Form EIA-767 ............................................ 3-3

3.2 Permit Compliance System ........................................ 3-3

3.3 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) ..................................... 3-6

3.4 Economic Census ................................................ 3-7

3.5 Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures ........................ 3-7

3.6 Utility Water Act Group .......................................... 3-8

3.7 1996 Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category

(PDS) ......................................................... 3-9

3.8 OECA Sector Notebook ........................................... 3-9

4.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE ..................................................... 4-1

4.1 Facility Types .................................................. 4-1

4.2 Process Description and Wastewater Sources .......................... 4-3

4.3 Industry Demographics ........................................... 4-7

4.3.1 Overall Steam Electric Industry ............................... 4-8

4.3.2 Utilities ................................................. 4-12

4.3.3 Nonindustrial Nonutilities .................................. 4-14

4.3.4 Industrial Nonutilities ..................................... 4-17

4.3.5 Other Fuel Sources ........................................ 4-20

5.0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ........................................ 5-1

5.1 Utilities ........................................................ 5-2

5.1.1 PCS .................................................... 5-2

5.1.2 TRI .................................................... 5-12

5.2 Nonindustrial Nonutilities ........................................ 5-15

5.2.1 PCS ................................................... 5-15

5.2.2 TRI .................................................... 5-20

5.3 Industrial Nonutilities ........................................... 5-24

6.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS AND NEXT STEPS .......................... 6-1

6.1 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies ............ 6-2

6.2 UWAG Information .............................................. 6-3

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Page 

6.3 Industrial Nonutilities ............................................ 6-3

6.4 Renewable/Recycled Fuel Sources .................................. 6-4

6.5 Emerging Issues ................................................. 6-5

7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................... 7-1

ii 
LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

2-1 Pollutants Regulated by Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards .... 2-3

3-2 Steam Electric Facilities Contacted to Verify PCS 2002 Data. ................... 3-5

4-1 Wastewater Streams from Steam Electric Facilities ........................... 4-6

4-2 Distribution of PCS Facilities by SIC Code ................................. 4-8

4-3 Distribution of TRI Facilities by SIC Code .................................. 4-9

4-4 Number of Steam Electric Facilities, Generating Units, and Capacity, by Facility Type

Reported to EIA ...................................................... 4-12

4-5 Distribution of Steam Electric Utilities by Size .............................. 4-12

4-6 Distribution of Steam Electric Nonindustrial Nonutilities by Size ............... 4-15

4-7 Distribution of Industrial Nonutilities by NAICS Code ....................... 4-17

4-8 Distribution of Steam Electric Industrial Nonutilities by Size .................. 4-19

4-9 Summary of EIA Data for Other Fuel Sources for All Steam Electric Facilities Reporting

to EIA 2002 ......................................................... 4-21

5-1 Number of Facilities in the PCS and TRI Databases Matched to the EIA Database . . 5-2

5-2 The Top Pollutants Released From 327 Utilities in the PCS Database ............. 5-3

5-3 Pollutants Without TWFs Discharged From 327 Utilities in the PCS Database ...... 5-4

5-4 PCS Discharges From 327 Utilities Distributed by Energy Source ............... 5-5

5-5 Top Five Pollutants From 327 Utilities by Fuel Source ........................ 5-6

5-6 Pollutant Releases From RE Ginna Nuclear Plant in Ontario, NY ................ 5-6

5-7 Flow Categories ....................................................... 5-7

5-8 TWPE From Utilities by Flow Range ...................................... 5-8

5-9 Flow Distribution for the Top Five Pollutants Released by Utilities .............. 5-8

5-10 Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by Utilities ............................ 5-9

iii 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

5-11 Distribution of PCS TWPE From 305 Utilities by Type of Cooling System1 ....... 5-10

5-16 The Top Pollutants Released From 163 Steam Electric Nonindustrial Nonutilities in the

5-17 Comparison of Capacity Between Utilities and Nonindustrial Nonutilities Reporting in

5-18 Pollutants Without TWFs Released From 163 Nonindustrial Nonutilities in the PCS

5-20 Comparison of TWPE/Facility Between Utilities and Nonindustrial

5-21 Comparison of TWPE/MW Between Utilities and Nonindustrial Nonutilities Reporting in

5-23 The Top Pollutants Released From 103 Steam Electric Nonindustrial Nonutilities in the

5-25 Comparison of TWPE Between Utility and Nonindustrial Nonutility Facilities Reporting

5-26 Comparison of TWPE/MW Between Utility and Nonindustrial Nonutility Facilities

5-12 PCS Concentration Information From 309 Utilities for Top Pollutants in PCS ..... 5-11

5-13 Pollutants Released From 235 Utilities in the TRI Database ................... 5-13

5-14 TRI Discharges From 235 Utilities Distributed by Energy Source ............... 5-14

5-15 Top Five Pollutants From 235 Utilities for Each Fuel Source in the TRI Database . . 5-15

PCS Database ........................................................ 5-16

the PCS Database ..................................................... 5-17

Database ............................................................ 5-17

5-19 PCS Discharges From 163 Nonindustrial Nonutilities Distributed by Energy Source 5-18

Nonutilities Reporting in the PCS Database ................................ 5-19

the PCS Database ..................................................... 5-20

5-22 Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by Nonindustrial Nonutilities ............ 5-20

TRI Database ........................................................ 5-21

5-24 TRI Discharges From 103 Nonindustrial Nonutilities Distributed by Energy Source 5-22

in the TRI Database ................................................... 5-23

Reporting in the TRI Database .......................................... 5-23

5-27 Industries Represented in the Analysis of 60 Industrial Nonutilities ............. 5-25

iv 
LIST OF TABLES (Continued) 

Page 

5-28 Top Pollutants Released From 60 Industrial Nonutility Facilities Reporting in the PCS 

Database ............................................................ 5-26

5-29 Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by 60 Industrial Nonutility Facilities ....... 5-27

5-30 Distribution of Energy Sources Used by Industrial Nonutility Facilities .......... 5-27

6-1 Potential Pollution Prevention Options for Steam Electric Facilities .............. 6-2

v 
LIST OF FIGURES

Pages

4-1 Steam Electric Process Flow Diagram ...................................... 4-5

4-2 Distribution of Electricity Production in the Steam Electric Industry, 2002 . . . . . . . . 4-11

4-3 Distribution of Utility Capacity by Energy Source ........................... 4-13

4-4 Capacity of Utilities by Fuel Type ........................................ 4-14

4-5 Distribution of Nonindustrial Nonutility Capacity by Energy Source ............ 4-16

4-6 Capacity of Nonindustrial Nonutilities by Fuel Type ......................... 4-16

4-7 Distribution of Industrial Nonutility Capacity by Energy Source ................ 4-19

4-8 Capacity of Industrial Nonutilities by Fuel Source ........................... 4-20

vi 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Every other year, Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to publish a plan 

establishing a schedule for the annual review and revision of effluent guidelines required by 

Section 304(b). Section 304(m) also requires EPA to take public comment on its plan prior to 

issuing a final plan. EPA published the latest biennial plan, the 2004 effluent guidelines program 

plan (“2004 Plan”), on September 2, 2004 (69 FR 53705). EPA selected the Steam Electric 

Point Source Category (40 CFR 423) for detailed investigation because it ranked second in terms 

of toxic and non-conventional toxic-weighted discharges in the 2005 annual review. 

During the development of the 2004 Plan, EPA identified data gaps and issues that may 

affect the Agency's estimate of the potential hazards caused by discharges from steam electric 

facilities. To fill these gaps, EPA is currently collecting information on the wastewater 

characteristics and treatment technologies used at facilities in the steam electric point source 

category, including electric utilities and nonutilities that use fossil fuels or nuclear fuel to 

generate electricity for distribution in commerce. As part of the detailed study, EPA will also 

investigate data on facilities that are not currently regulated under Part 423 but that use a steam 

cycle to generate electricity. EPA will evaluate whether the point source category should be 

revised to include these facilities. 

This report presents the preliminary results of EPA’s evaluation and outlines the 

additional data collection that will be conducted for the development of the next biennial plan 

(“2006 Plan”). The report is organized into the following sections: 

C Section 2.0 summarizes the existing regulations for this industry; 

C Section 3.0 discusses the data sources used in this profile; 

C Section 4.0 presents a profile of the industry; 

C Section 5.0 discusses wastewater characteristics; 

1-1

C Section 6.0 discusses the additional information needs and next steps in the 

detailed review; and 

C Section 7.0 presents the references used to date for the detailed study. 

1-2

2.0 EXISTING EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND OTHER REGULATIONS 

This section presents a brief overview of existing regulations for steam electric facilities 

and is divided into the following sections: 

C Section 2.1 discusses the current effluent guidelines for the steam electric point 

source category; 

C Section 2.2 discusses the Cooling Water Intake Structure regulations; 

C Section 2.3 discusses Clean Air Act requirements; and 

C Section 2.4 discusses Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements 

(RCRA). 

2.1 Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines 

The steam electric point source category is currently regulated under 40 CFR 423. EPA 

first published effluent guidelines for this category in 1974 with subsequent revisions in 1977 

and 1982. The timeline below describes the history of the effluent guideline: 

October 8, 1974 (39 FR 36186): 

EPA promulgated effluent limitations based on: 

— Best practicable control technology currently available (BPT), 

— Best available control technology economically achievable (BAT), 

— New Source performance standards (NSPS), and 

— Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). 

The promulgated regulations addressed thermal and chemical pollution. Amendments 

were issued February 19, 1975 (40 FR 23987) and June 4, 1978 (40 FR 23987). The 

chemical limitations covered the following wastestreams: 

— Once-through cooling water, 

— Cooling tower blowdown, 

— Bottom ash transport water, 

— Fly ash transport water, 

— Boiler blowdown, 

— Low volume wastes, 

— Metal cleaning wastes, and 

2-1

— Material storage and construction runoff (including coal pile runoff). 

July 16, 1976: 

The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit remanded (1) thermal limitations;1 (2) 

NSPS for fly ash transport water; (3) rainfall run off limitations; and (4) BPT variance 

clause. 

March 23, 1977 (42 FR 15695): 

EPA promulgated pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). PSES covered 

copper in metal cleaning wastes, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and oil and grease. 

November 19, 1982 (47 FR 52290): 

EPA revised existing BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS effluent limitations guidelines and 

standards for the steam electric point source category, codified at 40 CFR 423. The 

regulations modified the existing subcategorization scheme and reserved effluent 

limitations for four types of wastestreams for future rulemaking: 

— Non-chemical metal cleaning, 

— Flue gas desulfurization waters, 

— Thermal discharges, and 

— Run off from materials storage and construction areas (other than coal 

storage). 

The 1982 guidelines are summarized in Table 2-1 and are applicable to: 

discharges resulting from the operation of a generating unit by an establishment 

primarily engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results 

primarily from a process utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in 

conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the 

thermodynamic medium. 

1

Thermal dischargers may still apply for a variance from stated water quality standards under section 316(a) of the 

Clean Water Act. 

2-2 
Table 2-1. Pollutants Regulated by Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and


Standards


Wastestream BPT BAT NSPS PSES & PSNS 

All Wastestreams pH 6-9 

PCBs: Zero 

discharge 

PCBs: Zero 

discharge 

pH 6-9 

PCBs: Zero 

discharge 

PCBs: Zero 

discharge 

Low Volume Wastes TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

No Limitation = BPT No Limitation 

Fly Ash Handling TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

No Limitation Zero Discharge Zero Discharge 

(PSNS only) 

No limitation in 

PSES 

Bottom Ash Handling TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

No Limitation TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

No Limitation 

Chemical Metal 

Cleaning 

TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

Cu 1.0/1.0 

Fe 1.0/1.0 

Cu 1.0/1.0 

Fe 1.0/1.0 

TSS 100/30 

Oil and Grease 

20/15 

Cu 1.0/1.0 

Fe 1.0/1.0 

Cu 1.0 max 

Once Through Cooling FAC 0.5/0.2 TRC 0.20 max or = 

BPT if <25 MW 

TRC 0.20 max or = 

BPT if <25 MW 

No Limitation 

Cooling Tower 

Blowdown 

FAC 0.5/0.2 FAC 0.5/0.2 

126 Pr. Pol. No. 

Detect 

Cr 0.2/0.2 

ZN 1.0/1.0 

FAC 0.5/0.2 

126 Pr. Pol. No. 

Detect 

Cr 0.2/0.2 

ZN 1.0/1.0 

126 Pr. Pol. 

No Detect 

Cr 0.2 max 

Zn 1.0 max 

Coal Pile Runoff TSS 50 max No Limitation TSS 50 max No Limitation 

Source: Code of Federal Regulations <http://www.epa.gov/epahome/cfr40.htm>. 

Notes: 

- Concentrations are in mg/l. If daily maximum and 30-day average concentrations apply, they are given as 

“maximum/average”. 

- Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) = Free Available Chlorine (FAC) + Combined Residual Chlorine (CRC). 

- BCT is reserved for all wastestreams. 

- Low Volume Wastes include: clarifier blowdown, makeup water filter backwash, lime softener blowdown, ion 

exchange softener regeneration, demineralizer regeneration, powdered resin demineralizer back flush, reverse 

osmosis brine, boiler blowdown, evaporator blowdown, laboratory drains, sanitary wastes, and diesel engine cooling 

system discharge. 

2-3

Region IV issued a policy guidance letter on December 19, 1989 stating that the steam 

electric unit of a facility employing combined-cycle technology is subject to the applicability of 

the steam electric effluent guidelines in 40 CFR 423. Region IV made the determination during 

a review of proposed new facilities at a Florida Power & Light plant. Because the steam electric 

portion of a facility employing combined-cycle technology uses fossil-type fuel in conjunction 

with a thermal cycle, Region IV declared that Part 423 applies to the steam electric portion of 

these facilities. The Region IV letter also states that no operational, technological, economic, or 

cost factors distinguish the steam electric portion of a combined cycle plant from a stand-alone 

steam electric unit. EPA has been following this guidance. (1) 

The current applicability of Part 423 does not include facilities that may be using a 

renewable fuel source, such as biomass or wood wastes, to generate steam to produce electricity, 

nor does it cover facilities whose primary activity is not the distribution and sale of electricity. 

According to information provided in the 1996 Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam 

Electric Point Source Category, permits for the effluent wastestreams of an electric power 

generating unit which exists as an ancillary unit of a plant not subject to Part 423 are normally 

written by best professional judgement (BPJ) using Part 423 regulations for similar wastestreams 

(U.S. EPA, 1996). EPA does not have information regarding the application of Part 423 limits to 

facilities using renewable fuel sources. 

2.2 Cooling Water Intake Structures 

Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to ensure that the location, design, 

construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available 

to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Such impacts include death or injury to aquatic 

organisms by impingement (being pinned against screens or other parts of a cooling water intake 

structure) or entrainment (being drawn into cooling water systems and subjected to thermal, 

physical, or chemical stresses). In response to section 316(b), EPA developed the regulation in 

three phases: 

Phase I, promulgated on December 18, 2001 (66 FR 65256), covers new facilities 

that use cooling water intake structures to withdraw water from waters of the U.S. 

2-4


C
and that have or require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit. New facilities subject to the Phase I regulations include those 

that have a design intake flow of greater than two million gallons per day and that 

use at least 25% of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes; 

C Phase II, promulgated on July 9, 2004 (69 FR 41576), covers large existing 

electric generating plants that use at least 50 million gallons of water a day from 

waters of the U.S., including existing utilities and nonindustrial nonutilities; and 

C Phase III, proposed on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68444), would cover certain 

existing facilities not covered under Phase II that withdraw cooling water above a 

certain threshold, and new offshore and coastal oil and gas extraction facilities. 

Phase II establishes performance standards and other requirements for cooling water intake 

structures at large utility and nonutility power plants. Phase III proposes similar requirements 

that would be applicable to power generating facilities co-located with manufacturing facilities 

(industrial nonutilities). The Phase II regulation applies to facilities that: 

C Meet the definition of an existing steam electric power generating facility; 

C Use a cooling water intake structure or structures, or obtain cooling water by a 

contract or arrangement with an independent supplier who has a cooling water 

intake structure; 

C Withdraw cooling water from waters of the U.S. and use at least 25% for contact 

or non-contact cooling purposes; 

C Have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or are 

required to obtain one; and 

C Have a design intake flow of 50 MGD or greater. 

The section 316(b) rulemaking focuses on reducing impingement, mortality, and entrainment. 

According to the Phase II rule, facilities must choose one of five alternatives for establishing the 

best technology available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impact. The impacts of the 

section 316(b) regulations on wastewater characteristics from steam electric facilities are not yet 

known. (U.S. EPA, section 316(b) Web site) 

2-5

2.3 Air Regulations 

Electric utility boilers that fire fossil fuels are subject to numerous regulations under the 

Clean Air Act. These regulations include the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), Clean Air 

Visibility Rule (CAVR), Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), Acid Rain Program, New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS), and National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP). The only regulations with the potential to create new wastewater streams at electric 

utilities are those with SO2 emission limits. Over time, new and revised SO2 regulations are 

leading to the greater use of flue gas desulfurization systems (FGD). Wet FGD systems create a 

sludge byproduct that must be de-watered for disposal. Each regulation is summarized briefly 

below. 

C CAIR. Published in 2005, CAIR will regulate SO2 and NOx emissions to help 

states achieve the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and 

fine particulate matter. The rule permanently caps emissions (tons per year) 

across 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia. The cap for SO2 will take 

effect in 2010 with a lower cap in 2015. States must meet the caps by 

establishing emission limits or participating in a regional cap and trade program. 

C CAVR. On June 15, 2005, EPA finalized amendments to the July 1999 regional 

haze rule. These amendments apply to the provisions of the regional haze rule that 

require emission controls known as best available retrofit technology, or BART, 

for industrial facilities emitting air pollutants that reduce visibility by causing or 

contributing to regional haze. The pollutants that reduce visibility include fine 

particulate matter, and compounds which contribute to its formation, including 

SO2 and others. The amendments include final guidelines, known as BART 

guidelines, for states to use in determining which facilities must install controls 

and the type of controls the facilities must use. States which adopt the CAIR cap 

and trade program for SO2 and NOx are allowed to apply CAIR controls as a 

substitute for controls required under BART because the analysis concluded that 

CAIR controls are “better than BART” for electric generating units in the states 

subject to CAIR. 

C CAMR. Published in 2005, this rule established a national cap and trade program 

for mercury emissions from power plants. Plants will be able to meet the first 

phase cap in 2010 using the SO2 and NOx controls required to comply with 

CAIR. The second phase cap in 2018 is expected to require the use of mercuryspecific control technologies. 

C Acid Rain. The acid rain program established a national cap and trade program 

for SO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants. Phase I began in 1995 and 

2-6

C

affected 445, mostly coal-fired electric utility plants located in 21 eastern and 

midwestern states. Phase II, which began in the year 2000, lowered the emission 

caps on the Phase I plants and also capped emissions on all units nation-wide that 

serve generating units > 25 MW fired by coal, oil, or gas. The program also 

established emission limits for NOx. 

NSPS. The NSPS limit SO2, particulate matter, NOx, and mercury from new, 

modified, or reconstructed electric utility boilers. EPA proposed amendments to 

the NSPS in February. The proposed SO2 standard sets a single limit that all fuels 

must achieve regardless of the fuel sulfur content. The SO2 standard for units 

burning high sulfur coals requires approximately a 95% reduction of emissions, 

which requires FGD. Units burning low sulfur coals can achieve the standard 

with approximately 80% reduction, which can be achieved with a spray dryer. 

Spray dryers do not generate a wastewater stream. The NOx emission limits 

require the use of selective catalytic reduction or selective non-catalytic 

reduction. The mercury NSPS emission limits can be met using the same 

technologies used to meet SO2 and NOx NSPS emission limits. The particulate 

matter NSPS can be met using an electrostatic precipitator or bag house. 

C NESHAP. The NESHAP regulates hazardous air pollutant emissions from 

stationary gas turbines and reciprocating internal combustion engines. The 

controls to meet these standards will not create wastewater streams. 

2.4 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

In 1993, EPA issued a regulatory determination addressing large volume wastes (fly ash, 

bottom ash, boiler ash, boiler slag, and flue gas emission control wastes) generated by coal-fired 

utility power plants, including independent power producers. This determination stated that 

these wastes should not be regulated as Subtitle C wastes. Therefore, no Federal regulations 

exist for solid wastes from steam electric facilities; instead, they are managed by state solid 

waste programs or specific programs for fossil fuel combustion wastes (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

2-7

3.0 DATA SOURCES 

This section describes the data sources EPA used, to date, for its detailed study of the 

Steam Electric Point Source Category. EPA used calendar year 2002 data from three primary 

data sources: the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Permit 

Compliance System (PCS), and the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).1 EPA also reviewed data 

from other regulations impacting steam electric sources, and data provided by trade associations. 

The remainder of this section presents information on the following sources as they 

pertain to the steam electric industry detailed study: 

C Section 3.1 discusses EIA data; 

C Section 3.2 discusses PCS data; 

C Section 3.3 discusses TRI data; 

C Section 3.4 discusses data obtained from the 2002 Economic Census; 

C Section 3.5 discusses data obtained from records supporting EPA’s section 316(b) 

Cooling Water Intake Structure Guidelines; 

C Section 3.6 discusses data provided by the Utilities Water Act Group (UWAG); 

C Section 3.7 discusses information obtained from the 1996 Preliminary Data 

Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category; and 

C Section 3.8 discusses information obtained from EPA’s Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Generation Industry (Sector Notebook). 

1

Note that the most recent TRI data available when EPA began this study was for calendar year 2002. 

3-1 
3.1 Energy Information Administration 

The EIA is a statistical agency of the Department of Energy that collects information on 

existing electrical generating plants and associated equipment to evaluate the current status and 

potential trends in the electric power industry. EPA used information from two of EIA’s data 

collection forms: 

C Form EIA-860, Annual Electric Generator Report (discussed in Section 3.1.1); 

and 

C Form EIA-767, Steam Electric Plant Operation and Design Report (discussed in 

Section 3.1.2). 

3.1.1 Form EIA-860 

Form EIA-860 collects data for all electric generating plants that have or will have a 

nameplate rating of one megawatt or more, and are operating or plan to be operating within five 

years of the filing of the report. The data collected in Form EIA-860 are associated only with the 

design and operation of the generators at facilities. EPA used the following information from 

Form EIA-860 to characterize the steam electric industry: 

C Company Name;

C Facility Name;

C Plant ID (Assigned by EIA);

C North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code;

C Generator ID;

C Nameplate Capacity - The maximum rated output of a generator;

C Prime Mover - The engine, turbine, water wheel, or similar machine that drives an

electric generator; 

C Energy Source - The primary source providing the power that is converted to 

electricity through chemical, mechanical, or other means; 

3-2

C Month and year of initial operation; and 

C Type - A code identifying whether the parent company is a regulated or 

unregulated company. 

3.1.2 Form EIA-767 

Form EIA-767 collects information annually from all U.S. plants with a total existing or 

planned organic-fueled or combustible renewable steam-electric unit that has a generator 

nameplate rating of ten megawatts or larger. The data collected in Form EIA-767 is associated 

with the operation and design of the entire facility. EPA used Form EIA-767 primarily for 

information on the type of cooling system including the following data fields: 

C Type of system; 

C Type of towers; 

C Flow rates; and 

C Source water. 

One of the limitations of using data from Form EIA-767 is that the cooling system 

information is required to be completed only by facilities that have a nameplate capacity larger 

than 100 megawatts. Therefore, some of the facilities that report to EIA-767 do not report any 

information about cooling systems. 

EPA will review any additional or updated data from Form EIA-767 during the 

development of the final 2006 ELG Plan. 

3.2 Permit Compliance System 

OECA maintains PCS which is a computerized management information system, 

containing information from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR) that facilities provide to their 

permitting authority (e.g., states, regions) in accordance with their permit requirements. The 

information stored in PCS consists of the concentration and/or quantity of the parameter 

discharged, as well as the flows associated with the various discharge pipes. Using this 

3-3

information, EPA estimated the annual pounds released for each of the reported parameters. 

PCS provides information only for wastewaters discharged directly to receiving streams. The 

PCS database contains information for both major and minor sources. EPA only used 

information from the major sources because permitting authorities are not required to provide 

DMR data to PCS for minor sources. Consequently, data available for minor sources are limited. 

To compute a Toxic-Weighted Pound Equivalent (TWPE) for each parameter reported, the 

estimated mass (in pounds) of the chemical discharged is multiplied by its toxic weighting factor 

(TWF). Additional information on the calculation of TWPE and the PCS loading calculations 

can be found in the 2005 Screening-Level Analysis Report. 

Chlorine, used by steam electric facilities to control the growth of microorganisms in 

cooling water systems (i.e., condenser tubes, cooling towers, etc), is reported to PCS as either 

free available chlorine or total residual chlorine (TRC). Per 40 CFR 423, neither free available 

chlorine nor TRC may be discharged from once-through cooling or cooling tower blowdown for 

more than two hours in any one day. However, PCS may report pollutant concentrations as 

either a daily maximum or average or as a 2-hour maximum or average. In computing chlorine 

releases for the detailed study, EPA assumed chlorine is discharged only 2 hours per day, and 

calculated loads using this discharge period rather than the standard 24 hours per day. UWAG 

stated that the amount of time a facility discharges chlorine varies from plant to plant and could 

only be determined through an industry survey (see DCN 01738 in section 13.2 of the record). 

EPA determined that eight facilities discharged 93% of the TWPE for the steam electric 

industry. EPA contacted these facilities to verify their discharges and revised the PCS data to 

include the newly collected information. Table 3-2 shows the facilities contacted and the 

explanation of their discharges. Based on these explanations, EPA determined it was appropriate 

to revise the 2002 PCS data for these facilities. After making the revisions, the TWPE for steam 

electric facilities decreased from 22.7 million to 1.6 million. EPA used the revised loadings for 

all analyses discussed in this report. For additional information, see the 2005 Screening-Level 

Analysis Report. 

3-4

Table 3-2. Steam Electric Facilities Contacted to Verify PCS 2002 Data. 

Facility NPID Pollutant 

2002 Estimated 

Load 

(lbs/yr) 

2002 Revised 

Load 

(lbs/yr) 

Explanation for Re-estimated 

Discharge Loads

1 

AL Power Co. 

(EC Gaston Plant) 

Wilsonville, AL 

AL0003140 Arsenic 2,016,604 2,016 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than μg/L. 

Gulf Power Co. 

Pensacola, FL 

FL0002275 Iron 1,010,409,425 1,010,409 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

South Bay 

Chula Vista, CA 

CA0001368 Chlorine 4,578,499 4,578 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than μg/L. 

FPL Energy 

Wyman Station 

Yarmouth, ME 

ME0000272 Mercury 18,028 0.018 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than ng/L. 

Progress Energy 

Asheville 

Arden, NC 

NC0000396 Copper 1,552,866 1,553 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

Marshall 

Terrell, NC 

NC0004987 Arsenic 16,880 244 Two of the four concentrations 

were reported correctly as mg/L, 

while the other two were 

incorrectly reported as mg/L 

rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

Marshall 

Terrell, NC 

NC0004987 Selenium 84,526 115 One of the four concentrations 

were reported correctly as mg/L, 

while the other three were 

incorrectly reported as mg/L 

rather than μg/L. 

Gulf Power Co 

(Scholz Plant) 

Chattahoochee, FL 

FL0002283 Iron 109,028,494 109,028 PCS incorrectly reported the units 

as mg/L rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

(Allen) 

Belmont, NC 

NC0004979 Cadmium 19,498 43 One of the two concentrations 

was reported correctly as mg/L, 

while the other one was 

incorrectly reported as mg/L 

rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

(Allen) 

Belmont, NC 

NC0004979 Zinc 557,712 1,208 One of the two concentrations 

was reported correctly as mg/L, 

while the other one was 

incorrectly reported as mg/L 

rather than μg/L. 

Duke Energy 

(Allen) 

Belmont, NC 

NC0004979 Barium 8,925,808 16,607 One of the two concentrations 

was reported correctly as mg/L, 

while the other one was 

incorrectly reported as mg/L 

rather than μg/L. 

1

 Discharge loads were re-estimated for use in this detailed study. 

3-5

3.3 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 

Steam electric facilities are required to complete a TRI Form R or A if the facility meets 

the following criteria: 

C Facility Identification: The facility is in SIC code 4911, 4931, or 4939 and it 

combusts coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating electric power. 

C Number of Employees: Facilities must have 10 or more full-time employees or 

their equivalent. EPA defines a “full-time equivalent” as a person who works 

2,000 hours in the reporting year. 

C Activity Thresholds: Facilities must conduct an activity threshold analysis for 

every chemical and chemical category on the current TRI list to determine 

whether it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses each chemical at or above 

the appropriate activity threshold. 

Facilities provide an estimate of toxic chemical2 releases in pounds per year. Note that TRI does 

not collect data for natural gas or nuclear powered steam electric facilities. However, if the 

facility combusts any coal or oil for the purpose of distributing electricity in commerce, the 

entire facility (including the non-coal/oil combustion operations) is subject to TRI reporting 

requirements. TRI considers kerosene and petroleum coke as “oil” for reporting purposes. EPA 

used the reported releases to compute a TWPE for each chemical reported for reporting year 

2002. (U.S. EPA, 2000) 

Unlike PCS, chlorine is reported to TRI as chlorine (Cl2), not as TRC. The EPCRA 

Section 313 Industry Guidance for Electricity Generating Facilities states that no releases to 

water of chlorine are typically expected. At a pH above four, chlorine reacts almost completely 

with water to form HOCl, Cl-, and H+; therefore, no releases of Cl2 are expected during normal 

discharge situations. However, 13 steam electric facilities reported releases of chlorine in TRI. 

EPA provided information on the 13 facilities to an industry trade group, UWAG. UWAG 

believes the facilities reported incorrectly and will be submitting Form R corrections to TRI (See 

DCN 01738 in section 13.2 of the record). 

2

Over 600 specific chemicals and chemical categories are associated with TRI reporting. 

3-6 
3.4 Economic Census 

The Economic Census provides a detailed portrait of the U.S. economy once every five 

years. The 2002 Economic Census covers nearly all of the U.S. economy in its basic collection 

of establishment statistics, and provides the following information by NAICS code: 

C Number of companies; 

C Number of establishments; 

C Number of establishments by size range, based on number of employees; and 

C Number of employees. 

The Economic Census provides an upper limit of the number of facilities performing 

operations that fall under the steam electric category, as the census may overstate the number by 

including nonproduction facilities, such as distribution locations. Also, some of the facilities 

included in the census may not use a steam turbine. For these reasons, EPA used the census data 

only as a point of reference in this detailed study. 

3.5 Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures 

For the section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures Rulemaking, EPA conducted a 

survey of steam electric utilities, steam electric nonutilities, and other manufacturing facilities 

that use cooling water in the following four major manufacturing sectors: Paper and Allied 

Products (SIC 26), Chemical and Allied Products (SIC 28), Petroleum and Coal Products (SIC 

29), and Primary Metals (SIC 33). The survey requested the following type of information: 

C General plant information, such as plant name, location, and SIC codes; 

C Cooling water source and uses; 

C Design and operational data on cooling water intake structures and cooling water 

systems; 

3-7

C Studies of potential impacts from cooling water intake structures that the facility 

had performed; and 

C Financial and economic information about the facility. 

Although the section 316(b) survey was used to create guidelines for cooling water intake 

structures, the cooling water system information collected is useful for this review of the steam 

electric industry. EPA used the information provided by the section 316(b) survey in the 

following analyses: 

C Linking EIA facility information to the TRI and PCS discharges; 

C Identifying the type of cooling systems used by facilities; and 

C Identifying industrial nonutilities. 

EPA will continue to evaluate section 316(b) information as it completes the detailed 

study. 

3.6 Utility Water Act Group 

UWAG is a trade association that represents the utility electricity producers. On 

February 22, 2005, EPA staff met with representatives of UWAG to discuss the detailed study 

and certain data inconsistencies and gaps. UWAG indicated that they would try to provide EPA 

additional information on the steam electric industry such as the following aggregated data: 

C Information regarding reported chlorine and boron releases; 

C Information on wastewater characteristics; and 

C Information regarding current technologies used by the industry. 

Information provided by UWAG to EPA as of June 27, 2005 has been included in this report, 

where appropriate. For more information regarding specific information that has been provided 

to EPA, see Docket ID No. OW-2004-0032. 

3-8

3.7 1996 Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category 

(PDS) 

The 1996 Preliminary Data Summary (PDS) was conducted to provide technical support 

for possible revision of the 1982 steam electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards. 

The 1996 PDS contained information about the process descriptions and the pollutants released 

in each of the different types of waste streams. EPA used the 1996 PDS as a guide for the type 

of information that would be useful to collect for the industry profile and wastewater 

characteristic sections of the detailed study report. Because the 1996 PDS noted changes that 

were starting to occur in the industry, it can be used as a point of comparison to the results of this 

detailed study. 

3.8 OECA Sector Notebook 

The OECA Sector Notebook, Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation 

Industry, contains the following information: 

C Industry profile using 1995 data; 

C Industrial process descriptions; 

C Chemical releases and transfers; 

C Pollution prevention opportunities; and 

C Regulatory summary. 

EPA supplemented data from EIA, PCS, and TRI with background information from the Sector 

Notebook (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

3-9

4.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE 

This section describes the steam electric industry in greater detail and is divided into the 

following sections: 

C Section 4.1 discusses the different types of steam electric facilities; 

C Section 4.2 presents an overview of the steam cycle for electricity generation and 

discusses the waste streams generated; and 

C Section 4.3 discusses the demographics of the industry using data from EIA. 

4.1 Facility Types 

Electric power plants may use various prime movers to generate electricity. DOE’s EIA 

defines prime mover as the engine, turbine, water wheel, or similar machine that drives an 

electric generator; or, a device that converts energy to electricity directly (e.g., photovoltaic solar 

and fuel cell(s)) (U.S. DOE EIA Web site). The primary types of prime movers are steam 

turbines, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, combined-cycle turbines, hydraulic turbines, 

and others. 

Steam electric facilities use a steam/water system as the thermodynamic medium to drive 

a turbine. An energy source is required to produce heat for the boiler which generates the steam. 

The current applicability of Part 423 covers facilities that use fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or 

nuclear fuel to produce the steam. However, other fuel sources such as municipal solid wastes or 

wood wastes (biomass) may also be used to produce the steam. For this preliminary report, EPA 

focused on facilities that meet the definition of steam electric under Part 423. A brief discussion 

of steam facilities using alternate fuel sources is included in Section 4.3.5. EPA will investigate 

these facilities further during the development of the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. 

Some electricity generators use combined-cycle units to produce electricity. These units 

use steam turbine technology to increase the efficiency of the primary gas turbine. Hot gases 

4-1

from the turbines are transported to a waste heat recovery boiler to generate steam for a second 

turbine. 

For the purposes of this detailed study, EPA divided the steam electric industry into the 

three facility types: 

1. Utility: A corporation, person, agency, authority, or other legal entity or 

instrumentality that owns and/or operates facilities for the generation, 

transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy for use primarily by the 

public. Utilities provide electricity within a designated franchised service area and 

file forms listed in 18 CFR Part 141. Per EIA, facilities that qualify as 

cogenerators or small power producers under the Public Utility Regulatory 

Policies Act are not considered electric utilities. 

2. Nonindustrial nonutility: A corporation, person, agency, authority, or other legal 

entity or instrumentality that owns electric generating capacity and is not an 

electric utility. Nonutility power producers include qualifying cogenerators, 

qualifying small power producers, and other nonutility generators (including 

independent power producers) without a designated franchised service area, and 

which do not file forms listed in 18 CFR Part 141. 

3. Industrial nonutility: Industrial nonutilities are similar to nonindustrial nonutilities 

except their primary purpose is not the distribution and sale of electricity. This 

category includes electric generators that are co-located with other manufacturing 

activities such as chemical manufacturing or pulp making. 

In general, utilities and nonindustrial nonutilities are categorized by three SIC codes: 

C 4911: Electric Services - Establishments engaged in the generation, 

transmission, and/or distribution of energy for sale. 

C 4931: Electric and other services combined - Establishments primarily engaged 

in providing electric services in combination with other services when the 

electric services are the major part of the services, but are less than 95% of 

the total services. 

C 4939: Combination utilities, not elsewhere classified - Establishments primarily 

engaged in providing combinations of electric, gas, and other services, not 

elsewhere classified. 

4-2

NAICS codes have replaced SIC codes. The U.S. Census Bureau provides tables showing the 

correspondence between NAICS and SIC codes. SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939 all fall under 

NAICS code 22, Utilities. The NAICS definition of utilities includes establishments providing 

the following utility services: electric power, natural gas, steam supply, water supply, and 

sewage removal. Within this sector, the specific activities associated with the utility services 

provided vary by establishment. Services that electric power establishments may provide 

include generation, transmission, and distribution. NAICS code 22 is further subdivided into the 

following codes that apply to steam electric facilities: 

C 221112 - Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation;

C 221113 - Nuclear Electric Power Generation; and

C 221119 - Other Electric Power Generation.

Utilities and nonindustrial nonutilities typically report to EIA under NAICS code 22. The 2002 

Economic Census data uses the more detailed six-digit NAICS code. 

Industrial nonutilities are not categorized in the above SIC and NAICS codes since their 

primary purpose is not the distribution and sale of electricity. EPA used the reported SIC and 

NAICS codes to identify industrial nonutilities. Section 4.3 discusses the identification of steam 

electric facilities in greater detail. 

4.2 Process Description and Wastewater Sources 

Steam electric facilities consist of a steam generator (boiler), a steam turbine, and a 

condenser. The following description of the steam process reflects facilities using fossil fuel. 

Fossil fuels are conveyed into a boiler where they are combusted to generate steam. Boilers may 

have superheaters, reheaters, economizers, and air heaters to improve efficiency. The high 

temperature, high pressure steam leaves the boiler and enters the turbine generator. As it moves 

from the high pressure boiler to the low pressure condenser the steam drives the turbine blades. 

During the process, the steam expands, and the now low pressure steam enters the condenser, 

where it is condensed by the cooling water flowing through condenser tubes. The condensate 

travels back to the boiler where it is reheated for use in the turbine. Figure 4-1 shows a diagram 

4-3

of the steam electric cycle. Table 4-1 lists the wastewater streams produced by the steam electric 

cycle. 

A constant flow of cooling water is required to keep the condenser shell at the proper 

pressure. The cooling water is warmed during the condensation process. Facilities use either a 

once-through or recirculating cooling water system. In once-through cooling water systems, the 

cooling water is withdrawn from the source water, flows through the condenser, and is 

discharged back to the source water. In a recirculating system, the warmed cooling water is 

cooled in cooling towers or cooling ponds and then recirculated to the condenser. Recirculating 

systems require only about 5% of the water that once-through systems use. In recirculating 

systems, a small amount of water must be discharged periodically to control the build-up of 

solids; then make-up water is added to the system. 

In both once-through and recirculating systems, chemicals may be added to prevent 

scaling and biofouling. Chlorination is the most widely used method of biofouling control, 

although some facilities use bromine. EPA does not have information on the types and amounts 

of chemicals used at steam electric facilities. According to information from UWAG, if facilities 

report discharges of total residual oxidants, rather than total residual chlorine, the facility is 

likely using bromine. Facilities using bromine must still use some chlorine to activate the 

bromine. UWAG also stated that the steam electric industry is trying to optimize the amount of 

chemicals added and the timing of the addition to reduce costs (see DCN 01738 in section 13.2 

of the record). 

4-4

4-5

Flu e gas 

Fu el

A ir 

B o ttom A sh

H and ling Sy stem

B o iler

W aste

(S olid o r Liquid) 

G as to

A tm os ph ere

Fly Ash W aste

W aste

(T reatmen t Residu als)

Figure 4-1. Steam Electric Process Flow Diagram 

(S olid or Liquid) C o llection Sy stem 

C o nd en ser 

Tu rb ine

G ener ato r 

M ake- u p

W ater 

C o oling

Tower

B low d ow n 

Electrical

G ener ato r 

C o nd en sate 

Ch emical

A dd itio n

C h emical

A dd ition 

W ater Treatm ent

C o oling W ater 

H ig h Pr essu re S team 

O nce-th r ough Co o lin g W ater

O nce-th r ough Disch arg e 

– O R –

Recircu latin g System 

Source: U.S. EPA 1996 and 1997
Two types of ash are produced during the combustion of fossil fuels, bottom ash and fly 

ash. Bottom ash collects at the bottom of the boiler. Fly ash, which is finer than bottom ash, is 

transferred by the flue gas to the end of the boiler where it is collected in the economizer, air 

heater, or particulate control equipment. Fly ash and bottom ash may be managed separately or 

together in landfills or in wet surface impoundments. While natural gas plants generally do not 

require ash handling facilities, coal-fired facilities generate the largest quantities of ash and 

usually require ash handling facilities. The ash content will depend on the type of coal burned, 

how it was prepared before burning, and the operating conditions of the boiler. According to the 

OECA Sector Notebook (U.S. EPA, 1997), more than 95% of the ash consists of silicon, 

aluminum, iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and titanium. Trace constituents 

include antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, strontium, 

zinc, and other metals. 

Another source of wastewater from steam electric facilities is coal pile runoff. Rainwater 

can dissolve inorganic salts in coal and carry the pollutants into the runoff. Other sources of 

wastewater include water treatment discharges, boiler blowdown, maintenance cleaning, and wet 

air pollution control devices (flue gas desulfurization) (U.S. EPA, 1997). 

Table 4-1. Wastewater Streams from Steam Electric Facilities 

Process Wastewater 

Cooling Water Chlorine, iron, copper, nickel, chlorinated organic compounds, temperature, 

suspended solids 

Ash Handling Generally: SiO2, Al2O3, Fe3O3, CaO, MgO, TiO2, SO3, P2O3, and carbon residuals 

Possibly: TDS, TSS, sulfate, calcium, chloride, magnesium, nitrate, antimony, 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, 

selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and zinc (may cause turbidity) 

Coal Pile Runoff Generally: Acidity, COD, calcium, magnesium, iron, aluminum, manganese, 

silica, chloride, sulfate, TD, TSS, arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, 

and zinc 

Possibly: antimony, cadmium, beryllium, lead, selenium, thallium, mercury, and 

silver 

4-6

Table 4-1 (Continued) 

Process Wastewater 

Water Treatment Clarification: aluminum sulfate, sodium aluminate, ferrous sulfate, ferrous 

chloride, and calcium carbonate 

Filtration: suspended solids 

Ion Exchange: calcium and magnesium salts, iron, copper, zinc, aluminum, 

manganese, potassium, soluble sodium, chlorides, sulfates, organics, sulfuric acid, 

and sodium hydroxide 

Evaporation: salts (type depends on intake water characteristics) 

Softening: calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, and sodium salts 

Boiler Blowdown Chlorides, sulfates, metals, precipitated solids containing calcium and magnesium 

salts, soluble and insoluble corrosion products, and chemical additives 

Flue Gas Desulfurization 

Waste from Wet Scrubbers 

A slurry of ash, unreacted lime, calcium sulfate, and calcium sulfite. 

Maintenance Cleaning Oil, grease, phosphates, nitrites, suspended solids, dissolved solids, iron, nickel, 

chromium, vanadium, zinc, magnesium salts, polynuclear hydrocarbons, acidity, 

alkalinity, and oil 

Miscellaneous 

Wastestreams 

Suspended solids, dissolved solids, oil and grease, phosphates, surfactants, 

acidity, methylene chloride, phthalates, BOD5, COD, fecal coliform, and nitrates 

Source: Preliminary Study of the Steam Electric Point Source Category, 1996 and OECA Sector Notebook, 1997. 

4.3 Industry Demographics 

EPA performed a preliminary analysis of the demographic information for the year 2002 

collected by EIA. 

This section is divided into the following subsections: 

C Section 4.3.1 discusses the overall industry;

C Section 4.3.2 discusses utilities;

C Section 4.3.3 discusses nonindustrial nonutilities;

C Section 4.3.4 discusses industrial nonutilities; and

C Section 4.3.5 discusses additional fuel types.

4-7

4.3.1 Overall Steam Electric Industry 

As stated previously, the steam electric industry comprises facilities that generate 

electricity using a steam cycle. Part 423 regulates steam facilities that use fossil fuel or nuclear 

fuel as their energy source. For the purpose of this preliminary report, EPA refers to facilities 

using fossil or nuclear fuel to produce electricity through a steam-cycle as ‘steam electric’ 

facilities. Facilities may be using other sources of energy to generate steam. Section 4.3.5 

provides a brief discussion of these facilities. EPA will investigate these facilities further during 

the development of the 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan. 

EPA reviewed data from PCS, TRI, and EIA to characterize the steam electric industry. 

This section describes the facilities included in each data source. EIA provided information on 

facility type, capacity, and fuel type while PCS and TRI provided information on wastewater 

characteristics. 

EPA extracted all PCS data from major sources in SIC 4911, SIC 4931, and SIC 4939 for 

the preliminary detailed study. In the PCS database, 882 facilities report one of these SIC codes. 

Of the 882 facilities, 554 are major dischargers and 328 are minor dischargers. The analyses in 

this report use PCS data from the 554 major facilities. Table 4-2 shows the distribution of the 

PCS facilities by SIC code. 

Table 4-2. Distribution of PCS Facilities by SIC Code 

SIC Code 

Major 

Dischargers 

Minor 

Dischargers Total 

4911 545 266 811 

4931 9 42 51 

4939 0 20 20 

Total 554 328 882 

EPA also extracted TRI data from all facilities in SIC 4911, 4931, and 4939. Of the 692 

facilities that report one of these SIC codes in the TRI database, only 376 report wastewater 

4-8 
discharges of reportable toxic chemicals, and one facility reports wastewater discharge in SIC 

Code 4939. Because this facility has only one discharge of 1.7 pounds of barium, resulting in a 

TWPE of 0.003, EPA did not use this facility’s data in this analysis. Table 4-3 shows the 

distribution of the TRI facilities by SIC code. EPA linked the PCS and TRI data to information 

from EIA to classify each facility type. Section 5.0 discusses the use of the PCS and TRI data in 

greater detail. 

Table 4-3. Distribution of TRI Facilities by SIC Code 

SIC Total 

No Reported 

Water Discharge Direct Discharge 

Indirect 

Discharge 

Both Direct and 

Indirect Discharge 

4911 639 289 320 12 18 

4931 45 20 19 3 3 

4939 8 7 1 0 0 

Total 692 316 340 15 21 

Since Form EIA-860 contained the most detailed information on facility type, energy 

source, and capacity, EPA used data from EIA to develop a preliminary demographic profile of 

the industry. Form EIA-860 contains records for 16,413 generators from 5,137 facilities for 

calendar year 2002. However, these records include data from all facilities that produce 

electricity, not specifically steam electric facilities. EPA included just the facilities that used a 

steam turbine as the prime mover in the steam electric detailed study. For this preliminary 

report, EPA included the following prime movers from Form EIA-860: 

C ST - Steam Turbine; 

C CA - Combined Cycle Steam Part; and 

C CS - Combined Cycle Single Shaft (combustion turbine and steam turbine share a 

single generator). 

As mentioned in Section 2.1, Region IV determined that the steam electric effluent guidelines in 

40 CFR 423 are applicable to the steam electric unit of a combined cycle generating plant 

because the steam electric portion of the combined cycle uses fossil-type fuel in conjunction with 

4-9

a thermal cycle. Therefore, EPA included data for the prime movers reported as “combined 

cycle steam part” in this study. 

Based on the current applicability of 40 CFR 423, EPA included facilities using only 

fossil or nuclear fuel in this initial analysis: 

C BIT - Anthracite Coal, Bituminous Coal;

C LIG - Lignite Coal;

C SUB - Subbituminous Coal;

C WC - Waste/Other Coal;

C DFO - Distillate Fuel Oil;

C JF - Jet Fuel;

C KER - Kerosene;

C RFO - Residual Fuel Oil;

C WO - Oil-Other and Waste Oil, Crude Oil, Liquid Byproducts, Oil Waste,

Propane (Liquid), Re-Refined Motor Oil, Sludge Oil, Tar Oil);

C NG - Natural Gas; and

C NUC - Nuclear (Uranium, Plutonium, Thorium).

Figure 4-2 shows the distribution of the energy sources used in the steam electric 

industry. The figure shows that most of the electricity produced by the steam electric facilities is 

provided by coal and natural gas. For 2002, Form EIA-860 reporting shows 1,450 steam electric 

facilities with a total electric capacity of 631,635 Megawatts. 

4-10

Coal

53%

Oil

6%

Nuclear 

17%

Natural Gas

24%

Total Steam Electric Capacity: 

631,635 Megawatts

Coal 

53% 

Oil 

6% 

Nuclear 

17% 

Natural Gas 

24% 

Total Steam Electric Capacity: 

631,635 Megawatts 

Source: EIA, 2002 

Figure 4-2. Distribution of Electricity Production in the Steam Electric Industry, 

2002 

EIA uses the terms “regulated” and “unregulated” entities to correspond to utilities and 

nonutilities. Regulated entities sell electricity to the public while unregulated entities do not 

have a designated franchised service area. According to information obtained from EIA, the 

“type” field reported on Form EIA-860 can be used to separate utilities (regulated) from 

nonutilities (unregulated). However, some unregulated facilities may be run by regulated 

utilities, and vice-versa. 

EIA reports facilities by NAICS code rather than SIC code. Utilities and nonindustrial 

nonutilities are reported under NAICS code 22, while industrial nonutilities are reported under 

the NAICS code for their primary industry. EPA used the NAICS code along with the regulated 

status to determine the number of facilities, number of generating units, and total capacity for 

each type of facility, shown in Table 4-4. 

4-11

Table 4-4. Number of Steam Electric Facilities, Generating Units, and Capacity, by


Facility Type Reported to EIA


Facility Type Number of Facilities Number of Generating Units Total Capacity (MW) 

Utilities 662 1,721 416,361 

Nonindustrial nonutilities 480 857 204,614 

Industrial nonutilities 308 676 10,660 

Total 1,450 3,254 631,635 

4.3.2 Utilities 

Utilities provide approximately 66 percent (416,361 Megawatts) of the electricity 

produced by steam electric facilities. Table 4-5 presents the capacity, number of steam electric 

facilities, and number of steam electric generating units according to plant capacity. Note that 

facilities may have multiple generating units. 

Table 4-5. Distribution of Steam Electric Utilities by Size 

Plant Capacity 

0-50 

MW 

50-100 

MW 

100-200 

MW 

200-300 

MW 

300-400 

MW 

400-500 

MW 

>500 

MW Total 

Total Utility 

Capacity (MW) 

2,887 5,249 12,511 12,826 14,527 18,855 349,506 416,361 

Percent of Utility 

Capacity 

1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 5% 84% 100% 

Number of 

Utility Facilities 

109 70 85 52 41 42 263 662 

Percent of Utility 

Facilities 

16% 11% 13% 8% 6% 6% 40% 100% 

Number of 

Utility 

Generating Units 

203 153 203 129 124 112 797 1,721 

Percent of Utility 

Generating Units 

12% 9% 12% 7% 7% 7% 46% 100% 

The data in Table 4-5 show that the majority of the utilities, generating units, and capacity is 

from the largest size group (>500 megawatts). EPA also divided the utility group by primary 

energy source as shown in Figure 4-3. The majority of utility capacity is provided by coal. 

4-12 
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil

C

apa

city (

Thous

and M

W)

63%

17% 16%

4%

Total Existing Capacity:

416,361 Megawatts

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil 

C

apa

city (

Thous

and M

W) 

63% 

17% 16% 

4% 

Total Existing Capacity: 

416,361 Megawatts 

Figure 4-3. Distribution of Utility Capacity by Energy Source 

Figure 4-4 presents a timeline of cumulative capacity for the utilities reported on the 2002 EIA 

forms. The graph shows the cumulative steam electric capacity based on initial year of 

operation. While the coal-fired capacity increased rapidly in the 1970s, the utility capacity has 

leveled off in recent years. 

4-13

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

Through 

1950 

Through 

1960 

Through 

1970 

Through 

1980 

Through 

1990 

Through 

2002 

Time Period 

C

u

m

ulative C

a

p

acity

(Thous

a

nd MW)

Coal 

Natural Gas 

Nuclear 

Oil 

Figure 4-4. Capacity of Utilities by Fuel Type 

4.3.3 Nonindustrial Nonutilities 

Nonindustrial nonutilities provide 32% of the total steam electric capacity. Table 4-6 and 

Figures 4-5 and 4-6 present the nonindustrial nonutility distributions in the same manner as the 

utilities. Like utilities, most of the capacity is from large (>500 MW) facilities; however, 

nonindustrial nonutilities have a greater percentage of facilities and generating units in the 

smaller size ranges than utilities. 

4-14

Table 4-6. Distribution of Steam Electric Nonindustrial Nonutilities by Size 

Plant Capacity 

0-50 

MW 

50-100 

MW 

100-200 

MW 

200-300 

MW 

300-400 

MW 

400-500 

MW 

>500 

MW Total 

Total 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Capacity (MW) 

2,835 4,210 9,868 12,655 12,532 8,332 154,181 204,613 

Percent of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Capacity 

1% 2% 5% 6% 6% 4% 75% 100% 

Number of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Facilities 

118 57 68 52 36 19 130 480 

Percent of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Facilities 

25% 12% 14% 11% 8% 4% 27% 100% 

Number of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Generating Units 

144 64 98 76 67 45 363 857 

Percent of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Generating Units 

17% 7% 11% 9% 8% 5% 42% 100% 

Nonindustrial nonutilities also have a larger percentage of capacity than natural gas-fired 

generating units. The overall capacity from natural gas for utilities and nonutilities is similar 

(70,800 megawatts for utilities and 75,700 megawatts for nonindustrial nonutilities). 

4-15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil

C

apa

city (

Thous

a

nd M

W)

36% 37%

18%

9%

Total Existing Capacity:

204,613 Megawatts

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil 

C

apa

city (

Thous

a

nd M

W) 

36% 37% 

18% 

9% 

Total Existing Capacity: 

204,613 Megawatts 

Figure 4-5. Distribution of Nonindustrial Nonutility Capacity by Energy Source 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

Through 

1950 

Through 

1960 

Through 

1970 

Through 

1980 

Through 

1990 

Through 

2002 

Time Period 

Cu

m

ulative Ca

p

a

city

(Thous

a

n

d M

W)

Coal 

Natural Gas 

Nuclear 

Oil 

Figure 4-6. Capacity of Nonindustrial Nonutilities by Fuel Type 

4-16

Figure 4-5 shows that coal-fired nonindustrial nonutility capacity increased through the 1960s 

and 1970s. Nonindustrial nonutilities also saw a large increase in natural gas capacity during the 

1990s. 

4.3.4 Industrial Nonutilities 

The industrial nonutility group contains facilities reporting NAICS codes other than 22, 

Utilities. These facilities are not currently regulated under 40 CFR 423. According to 

information provided in the 1996 Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point 

Source Category, permits for the effluent wastestreams of an electric power generating unit 

which exists as an ancillary unit of a plant falling under an effluent guideline other than Part 423 

are normally written by best professional judgement (BPJ) using Part 423 regulations for similar 

wastestreams. Table 4-7 lists the industries, the number of facilities represented, and the total 

capacity for steam electric industrial nonutilities using fossil or nuclear fuel as reported to EIA. 

Table 4-7. Distribution of Industrial Nonutilities by NAICS Code 

NAICS Code NAICS Title Number of Facilities Total Capacity (MW) 

322 Paper Manufacturing 82 2,968 

325 Chemical Manufacturing 58 3,147 

311 Food Manufacturing 44 1,001 

611 Educational Services 33 456 

324 Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing 

20 743 

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 12 1,158 

211 Oil and Gas Extraction 10 34 

622 Hospitals 9 60 

92 Public Administration 5 57 

314 Textile Product Mills 5 84 

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing 

2 77 

336 Transportation Equipment 

Manufacturing 

3 93 

3122 Tobacco Manufacturing 3 101 

4-17

Table 4-7 (Continued) 

NAICS Code NAICS Title Number of Facilities Total Capacity (MW) 

321 Wood Product Manufacturing 2 9 

333 Machinery Manufacturing 2 24 

22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities 2 112 

326 Plastics and Rubber Products 

Manufacturing 

1 40 

332 Fabricated Metal Product 

Manufacturing 

1 10 

481 Air Transportation 1 8 

482 Rail Transportation 1 4 

514 Information Services and Data 

Processing 

1 0.7 

521 Monetary Authorities 1 12 

561 Administrative and Support 

Services 

1 2 

624 Social Assistance 1 2 

814 Private Households 1 6 

212 Mining 2 66 

2212 Natural Gas Distribution 1 3 

3345 Navigational, Measuring, 

Electromedical, and Control 

Instruments Manufacturing 

1 205 

4911 Postal Service 1 178 

562212 Solid Waste Landfill 1 1 

Total 308 10,660 

Table 4-8 and Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present the distribution information for industrial 

nonutilities. Table 4-8 shows that industrial nonutilities are much smaller in size than utilities 

and nonindustrial nonutilities, which is expected since the steam electric generator is ancillary to 

other manufacturing activities. Industrial nonutilities have a fairly small overall capacity 

(10,660 MW). The capacity is fairly equally distributed between coal and natural gas fired 

generating units. 

4-18

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil

C

a

pacity (

T

h

o

usan

d M

W)

45%

52%

0%

3%

Total Existing Capacity:

10,660 Megawatts

Table 4-8. Distribution of Steam Electric Industrial Nonutilities by Size 

Plant Capacity 

0-50 

MW 

50-100 

MW 

100-200 

MW 

200-300 

MW 

300-400 

MW 

400-500 

MW 

>500 

MW Total 

Total Industrial 

Nonutility Capacity 

(MW) 

3,257 2,950 2,145 1,195 688 425 0 10,660 

Percent of Industrial 

Nonutility Capacity 

31% 28% 20% 11% 6% 4% 0% 100% 

Number of Industrial 

Nonutility Facilities 

242 42 16 5 2 1 0 308 

Percent of Industrial 

Nonutility Facilities 

79% 14% 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% 100% 

Number of Industrial 

Nonutility 

Generating Units 

453 124 59 29 4 7 0 676 

Percent of Industrial 

Nonutility 

Generating Units 

67% 18% 9% 4% 1% 1% 0% 100% 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil 

C

a

pacity (

T

h

o

usan

d M

W)

45% 

52% 

0% 

3% 

Total Existing Capacity: 

10,660 Megawatts 

Figure 4-7. Distribution of Industrial Nonutility Capacity by Energy Source 

4-19

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Through 

1950 

Through 

1960 

Through 

1970 

Through 

1980 

Through 

1990 

Through 

2002 

Time Period 

Cum 

ulati ve Ca

p

a

city

(Thous

a

n

d M

W)

Coal 

Natural Gas 

Oil 

Figure 4-8. Capacity of Industrial Nonutilities by Fuel Source 

4.3.5 Other Fuel Sources 

Some facilities that produce electricity using a steam cycle may be using a renewable fuel 

rather than fossil or nuclear fuel. EPA has not reviewed wastewater characteristics for these 

facilities, to date. This section provides demographic information for these facilities. 

Facilities reported using the following fuel types with steam cycles in EIA: 

C AB - Agricultural Crop; 

C MSW - Municipal Solid Waste; 

C OBS - Other Biomass Solid; 

C TDF - Tire-derived Fuels; 

C WDS - Wood/Wood Waste Solids; 

C BLQ - Black Liquor; 

C WDL - Wood Waste Liquids; 

C LFG - Landfill Gas; 

C GEO - Geothermal; 

4-20

C PC - Petroleum Coke;

C OG - Other Gas;

C BFG - Blast Furnace Gas;

C PUR - Purchased Steam;

C OBG - Other Biomass Gas;

C SUN - Solar; and

C OTH - Other.

Table 4-9 lists the number of facilities, number of generating units, and total capacity for the 

renewable fuels. 

Table 4-9. Summary of EIA Data for Other Fuel Sources for All Steam Electric Facilities 

Reporting to EIA 2002 

Facility Type Number of Facilities Number of Generating Units Total Capacity (MW) 

Steam Cycle - BLQ 66 157 3,688 

Steam Cycle - GEO 45 200 2,987 

Steam Cycle - MSW 81 105 2,900 

Steam Cycle - WDS 117 161 2,701 

Steam Cycle - PC 16 19 1,043 

Steam Cycle - OG 24 54 837 

Steam Cycle - BFG 9 29 826 

Steam Cycle - OTH 20 29 673 

Steam Cycle - SUN 9 9 410 

Steam Cycle - AB 13 27 345 

Steam Cycle - LFG 11 12 212 

Steam Cycle - PUR 4 9 58 

Steam Cycle - TDF 2 2 57 

Steam Cycle - WDL 2 3 35 

Steam Cycle - OBS 2 2 25 

Steam Cycle - OBG 1 1 18 

4-21

5.0 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION 

EPA analyzed the wastewater discharges by the type of facility reporting (utility, 

nonindustrial nonutility, or industrial nonutility). In order to classify the PCS and TRI data by 

facility type, EPA linked the PCS and TRI databases to the EIA database. Each of these primary 

data sources uses unique identification numbers for facilities. EPA linked the PCS and TRI data 

for each facility using EPA’s Facility Registration System (FRS). FRS provides a unique 

identification number for facilities and contains relevant information about the facility such as 

name, address, owners, and permits held. Both PCS and TRI identification numbers are included 

in the FRS system. EPA linked the PCS and TRI information to the EIA data using information 

from EPA’s section 316(b) cooling water intake structure regulation development, and also by 

matching zip codes and other facility identification information. EPA created a master table that 

lists the FRS ID, TRI ID, NDPES number, and EIA ID. This master table allowed information 

from each data source to be consolidated by facility. See Docket ID No. OW-2004-0032 for 

additional information. 

Table 5-1 shows the number of facilities that are in the TRI and PCS databases that report 

to the SIC codes applicable to the steam electric industry, the number of facilities linked to the 

EIA database, and the percent of the TWPE that is represented by the linked facilities. EPA was 

not able to categorize all the facilities listed in the table below as utilities or nonutilities due to 

incomplete information in EIA. For example, EIA does not contain information for facilities in 

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and some facility information was incomplete. However, the 

analysis of wastewater characteristics presented in this section represents 96% of the PCS TWPE 

and 95% of the TRI TWPE. 

5-1

Table 5-1. Number of Facilities in the PCS and TRI Databases Matched to the EIA


Database


Database 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Number of 

Matched 

Utilities 

Number of Matched 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutilities 

Total Number 

of Matched 

Facilities 

Percent of 

TWPE 

Represented 

PCS 554 (major 

dischargers) 

327 163 490 96 

TRI 375 235 103 338 95 

The remainder of this section presents the wastewater characteristics for the following 

types of steam electric facilities: 

C Section 5.1 discusses utilities;

C Section 5.2 discusses non-industrial nonutilities; and 

C Section 5.3 discusses industrial nonutilities.

5.1 Utilities 

This section summarizes the wastewater characteristics for utilities. Section 5.1.1 

discusses the PCS data and 5.1.2 discusses the TRI data. 

5.1.1 PCS 

EPA analyzed data from PCS to identify pollutants discharged from steam electric 

utilities. Of the 554 major facilities reporting to PCS, 327 are utilities. Table 5-2 presents the 

top pollutants discharged based on TWPE, along with the number of facilities reporting the 

pollutant. The top five pollutants reported are: 

1. Copper: Copper may be present in cooling water biocides or coal pile runoff. 

2. Arsenic: Coal pile runoff and ash handling wastes are the most likely source of 

arsenic since arsenic is naturally occurring in coal. All but 1 of the 44 facilities 

that report arsenic discharges are coal facilities. Arsenic discharges are reported 

by facilities in only 14 states, and 29 of the 44 facilities reporting arsenic 

5-2

discharges are in Region IV. Facilities in North Carolina account for 12% of the 

arsenic TWPE. 

3. Chlorine: Chlorine is used as a biocide and is most likely discharged from cooling 

water streams. Chlorine is a constituent of coal and therefore may also be present 

in other wastestreams such as coal pile runoff, ash handling streams, and scrubber 

wastes. Chlorine reported in PCS refers to TRC and not Cl2. 

4. Boron: Boron is not regulated by 40 CFR 423 so few facilities report boron 

discharges. Of the 11 facilities that reported boron discharges, 6 use coal as an 

energy source and 5 use nuclear as an energy source. One facility accounts for 

67% of the boron discharged, and the top five boron dischargers account for 98%. 

EPA does not currently have information on potential sources of boron in the 

wastewater; however, UWAG has performed an initial investigation regarding 

the release of boron and will be submitting a summary memorandum to EPA on 

the sources of this pollutant (see DCN 01739 in section 13.2 of the record). 

5. Aluminum: Aluminum is typically used as a treatment chemical in chemical 

precipitation/clarification systems although the potential source in steam electric 

discharges is not apparent from the PCS data. 

Table 5-2. The Top Pollutants Released From 327 Utilities in the PCS Database 

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities Reporting 

Pollutant

 Total Pounds 

Estimated to 

be Discharged

 Total 

TWPE 

Percent of 

Total 

TWPE 

Copper 121 318,312 202,071 19% 

Arsenic 44 47,443 191,732 18% 

Chlorine (based on discharging 2 hrs/day) 136 364,978 185,833 17% 

Boron 11 920,836 163,186 15% 

Aluminum 21 1,609,747 104,136 10% 

Silver 6 5,090 83,836 7.9% 

Selenium 50 28,229 31,655 3.0% 

Iron 88 4,442,293 24,877 2.3% 

Cadmium 22 744 17,209 1.6% 

Fluoride 7 412,707 14,445 1.4% 

Lead 26 6,216 13,923 1.3% 

Mercury 25 97 11,360 1.1% 

Zinc 69 159,696 7,488 0.7% 

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (as N) 5 807,041 4,519 0.42% 

Nickel 25 23,422 2,551 0.24% 

Nitrite plus Nitrate Total 1 Det. (as N) 11 342,762 1,919 0.18% 

5-3

Table 5-2 (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities Reporting 

Pollutant

 Total Pounds 

Estimated to 

be Discharged

 Total 

TWPE 

Percent of 

Total 

TWPE 

Manganese 15 76,926 1,110 0.10% 

Chromium, Hexavalent 6 2,051 1,060 0.10% 

Total 327 9,568,590 1,067,569 99.6% 

Note: Includes only pollutants that have a TWF. Does not include conventional pollutants like BOD5 and TSS. 

In addition to the pollutants listed in Table 5-2, steam electric plants discharge other 

pollutants, such as the conventional pollutants, that do not have a toxic weighting factor (TWF). 

EPA could not calculate TWPE for these pollutants. As shown in Table 5-3, utilities discharge 

large masses of these pollutants. 

Table 5-3. Pollutants Without TWFs Discharged From 327 Utilities in the PCS Database 

Pollutant 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Pollutant 

Total Pounds Estima

Discharged 

ted to be 

Total Suspended Solids 294 375,870,357 

BOD5 94 7,611,588 

Oil & Grease 280 4,886,983 

Total Residual Oxidants* 49 729,338 

*According to UWAG, total residual oxidants indicates use of bromine biocides (see DCN 01738 in section 13.2 of 

the record). 

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Energy Source 

EPA further investigated the pollutant discharges reported in PCS by the energy source 

reported in the EIA database. Table 5-4 shows the number of facilities, the combined capacity, 

and the TWPE associated with the reported discharges by energy source. Table 5-4 was created 

using information from the 327 PCS steam electric utilities. Since facilities may report two or 

more energy sources, the total number of facilities reported in Table 5-4 is greater than 327. 

5-4

Table 5-4. PCS Discharges From 327 Utilities Distributed by Energy Source 

Category 

Number of 

Facilities

 Energy Source 

Capacity (MW) MW/Facility 

TWPE 

(tox-lb/yr) TWPE/Facility TWPE/MW 

Coal 231 200,650 869 853,828 3,696 4.26 

Natural Gas 71 45,324 638 72,864 1,026 1.61 

Nuclear 38 56,993 1,500 120,125 3,161 2.11 

Oil 30 13,262 442 20,753 692 1.56 

For facilities that reported using two or more energy sources, EPA distributed the TWPE 

to each energy source based on the percentage of capacity from each energy source. For 

example, if 25% of a facility’s capacity is from coal and 75% is from natural gas, and the facility 

reported releasing 4,000 pounds of chlorine, then EPA assumed 1,000 pounds are associated 

with coal and 3,000 pounds are associated with natural gas operations. Although some 

pollutants, especially metals, are more likely to result from the use of certain fuels (e.g., coal), 

this approximation allowed EPA to evaluate whether certain energy sources contributed the bulk 

of the pollutant loads. Table 5-4 shows that the majority of the utility TWPE is discharged by 

coal facilities. Coal facilities account for 65% of the steam electric utility capacity, but 80% of 

the TWPE discharged. Compared to the other fuel types, coal facilities have additional waste 

streams from coal pile runoff and ash handling that add to the loadings for this energy source. 

Table 5-4 also shows TWPE per megawatt, TWPE per facility, and megawatt per facility 

calculated by EPA. The table shows that coal facilities have the highest TWPE per megawatt, 

discharging more than 2.5 times as much as natural gas and oil facilities, and twice as much as 

nuclear facilities per megawatt. 

Table 5-5 shows the top five pollutants and their TWPE released from each energy 

source and the total TWPE. Similar pollutants are ranked in the top five for each energy source. 

Coal has the highest levels of arsenic compounds, likely due to coal pile runoff or ash handling 

since arsenic is naturally occurring in coal. As mentioned previously, cooling water is a 

potential source of chlorine. Copper may be found in cooling water, ash handling, coal pile 

runoff, or the low volume wastestreams. 

5-5

Table 5-5. Top Five Pollutants From 327 Utilities by Fuel Source 

Rank 

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil 

Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE 

1 Arsenic 177,205 Copper 30,439 Copper 37,824 Chlorine 11,649 

2 Chlorine 137,480 Chlorine 24,204 Boron 34,492 Copper 3,451 

3 Copper 130,357 Arsenic 11,866 Aluminum 19,507 Arsenic 2,661 

4 Boron 128,690 Lead 1,610 Iron 13,202 Nitrite Plus 

Nitrate 

Total (as N) 

1,028 

5 Aluminum 84,630 Mercury 1,529 Chlorine 12,499 Iron 640 

Total 853,828 Total 72,864 Total 120,125 Total 20,753 

According to Tables 5-4 and 5-5, nuclear facilities have a TWPE of 120,125 lb-eq, which 

accounts for 11% of the total utility TWPE. However, 60% of this discharge is released from 

one facility, RE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario, NY. The top five pollutant discharges 

from this facility based on TWPE are copper, boron, iron, chlorine, and zinc. The facility 

accounts for 80% of the copper TWPE, 66% of the boron TWPE, and 99.9% of the iron TWPE 

released from utility facilities using nuclear as an energy source. Table 5-6 compares the 

releases from the RE Ginna facility to the releases for all nuclear facilities. The high TWPE per 

facility and TWPE per MW for nuclear facilities are driven by the results from this facility. 

Table 5-6. Pollutant Releases From RE Ginna Nuclear Plant in Ontario, NY 

Pollutant RE Ginna Nuclear Plant All Nuclear Facilities 

Copper 30,071 37,824 

Boron 22,721 34,492 

Iron 13,198 13,202 

All Releases 71,690 120,125 

5-6

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Flow Rate 

PCS does not provide adequate information to determine the process stream (e.g., fly ash 

handling) for each reported discharge. Therefore, EPA divided waste streams into four 

categories based on flow, shown in Table 5-7, to help determine the type of streams driving 

loads. Although the flows for these streams varies largely by plant size, EPA is using these 

categories only as a screening-level tool to determine the source of the majority of the TWPE. 

Table 5-7. Flow Categories 

Flow Rate (MGD) Potential Streams 

> 50 Once-Through Cooling Water 

10 - 50 Recirculating Cooling Water 

1-10 Ash Handling 

< 1 Miscellaneous, Metal Cleaning Waste 

EPA separated the discharges for each of the top pollutants released by flow category. 

EPA did not have concentration and flow information for all 327 facilities in the utility segment. 

Some facilities report releases by a mass quantity (rather than concentration and flow), and 

therefore, the TWPE from these facilities could not be distributed to one of the flow categories. 

However, these facilities account for only 1% of the total TWPE reported by utilities. Table 5-8 

lists the total TWPE for each of the four flow categories. The table shows that the majority 

(52%) of the TWPE released is from streams that are greater than 50 MGD. 

5-7

Table 5-8. TWPE From Utilities by Flow Range 

Flow Range 

(MGD) 

Total Flow 

(MGD) TWPE Percent of Total TWPE 

>50 167,375 549,009 52% 

10-50 7,111 224,908 21% 

1-10 2,703 246,801 23% 

<1 301 36,618 4% 

TOTALS 177,490 1,057,336 

Note: Approximately 1 percent of the total TWPE is not included in the flow analysis since some facilities do not 

report a flow rate, but do report a discharge by quantity. 

Table 5-9 shows the distribution among the four flow categories for the top five 

pollutants. Arsenic is the only pollutant that does not have the majority of its TWPE associated 

with flows that are greater than 50 MGD. The majority of the arsenic TWPE falls in the flow 

range of 10 - 50 MGD. Arsenic is a constituent of coal, and is likely to be released from ash 

ponds. Although ash handling streams are likely to have a lower flowrate, coalpile runoff may 

also be contributing to the arsenic loads and may be a higher flow stream. 

Table 5-9. Flow Distribution for the Top Five Pollutants Released by Utilities 

Flow Range 

(MGD) 

Copper 

TWPE 

Arsenic 

TWPE 

Chlorine 

TWPE 

Boron 

TWPE 

Aluminum 

TWPE 

>50 123,630 14,518 181,061 117,858 51,932 

10-50 35,832 115,885 3,715 6,150 29,945 

1-10 38,316 56,805 382 37,507 10,176 

<1 4,293 4,354 211 1,670 2,703 

Total 202,071 191,562 185,369 163,186 94,755 

Note: Approximately 1% of the total TWPE is not included in the flow analysis since some facilities do not report a 

flow rate, but do report a discharge by quantity. 

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Type of Cooling System 

Steam electric power plants use two types of cooling systems: once-through and 

recirculating. EPA used information from EIA and the section 316(b) cooling water intake 

structure regulation development to categorize cooling system type. Form EIA-767 and section 

316(b) contain information about the type of cooling system in use at 305 of the 327 steam 

5-8

electric utilities in PCS. Table 5-10 shows the number of utilities that use each type of cooling 

system. Table 5-11 shows the total TWPE released for all utilities, once-through facilities, 

recirculating facilities, and facilities using a combination of once-through and recirculating 

cooling systems. Forty facilities reported both a once-through and a recirculating cooling 

system. Table 5-11 shows that, for each of the pollutants, once-through facilities release a 

greater amount of pollutant than recirculating facilities. 

Table 5-10. Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by Utilities 

Type of Cooling System Number of Facilities 

Once Through 195 

Recirculating 70 

Combination 40 

Total 305 

Analysis of Effluent Pollutant Concentrations 

EPA used concentration data available in PCS to compute the minimum, average, and 

maximum concentration of detected concentrations reported for each of the top pollutants. EPA 

also determined the number of non-detects reported. Table 5-12 shows the distribution of 

concentrations for each of the top pollutants along with the method detection limit. 

Concentration data were available for 309 of the 327 PCS utilities, which accounts for 97% of 

the total PCS TWPE. 

5-9

Table 5-11. Distribution of PCS TWPE From 305 Utilities by Type of Cooling System1 

5-10

Pollutant 

Number of

Facilities

Reporting

Pollutant

 Total

TWPE for

the 327

Steam

ElectricUtilities 

Once Through Recirculating Combination 

Number of

Facilities

Reporting TWPE TWPE/Facility 

Number of

Facilities

Reporting TWPE TWPE/Facility 

Number of

Facilities

Reporting TWPE 

TWPE/Facility 

Copper 121 202,071 68 164,006 2,412 31 34,181 1,103 18 3,460 192 Arsenic 44 191,732 27 141,643 5,246 11 13,585 1,235 6 36,505 6,084 Chlorine 136 185,833 72 151,676 2,107 42 10,727 255 16 23,303 1,456 Oxidants, TotalResidual 

- 13 - - 7 - - 6 - -

Boron 11 163,186 8 51,228 6,404 1 3,119 3,119 2 108,839 54,420 Aluminum 21 104,136 14 77,749 5,554 7 26,387 3,770 0 0 -Silver 6 83,836 5 83,835 16,767 1 1.5 1 0 0 -Selenium 50 31,655 29 17,474 603 17 3,611 212 4 10,570 2,642 Iron 88 24,877 53 16,471 311 21 2,676 127 12 5,728 477 Cadmium 22 17,209 15 9,931 662 5 1,088 218 2 6,190 3,095 Fluoride 7 14,445 6 13,822 2,304 1 623 623 0 0 -Lead 26 13,923 16 11,532 721 4 605 151 6 1,785 298 Mercury 25 11,360 15 2,608 174 4 48 12 6 8,704 1,451 

1EPA used information from EIA and section 316(b) to identify cooling system type. 
Table 5-12. PCS Concentration Information From 309 Utilities for Top Pollutants in PCS

5-11

Pollutant 

Number

of

Facilities 

Number

of

Records 

Number of

Non-Detects 

Number

of Detects 

Summary of Detected Concentrations 

Units Avg Conc. Min Conc. Max Conc. 

Method

Detection

Limit 

Copper, Total (As Cu) 49 347 72 275 272 0.12 35820 6 ug/L Arsenic, Total (As As) 12 76 14 62 27 0.01 243 1 ug/L Chlorine, Total Residual 100 1131 226 905 1713 0.05 790000 ug/L Boron, Total (As B) 9 164 9 155 5.21 0.002 426 0.005 mg/L Aluminum, Total (As Al) 8 91 0.97 0.003 15 0.045 mg/L Silver, Total (As Ag) 8 19 13 6 0.05 0.0005 0.19 0.007 mg/L Selenium, Total (As Se) 18 99 24 75 6.1 0.0010 456 0.002 mg/L Iron, Total (As Fe) 43 310 12 298 777 0.10 30100 7 ug/L Cadmium, Total (As Cd) 11 59 14 45 1.9 0.009 51 4 ug/L Fluoride, Total (As F) 6 79 0.67 0.10 4.1 0.1 mg/L Lead, Total (As Pb) 13 55 20 35 20 0.08 405 1 ug/L Mercury, Total (As Hg) 17 64 11 53 28 0.00 300 0.2 ug/L 

Note: This table presents only total metals and not dissolved metals or total recoverable metals. All three types of metals analyses contribute to the total TWPE. 
5.1.2 TRI 

EPA developed analyses similar to the PCS data analyses using information from TRI. 

However, the two data sets have differences, such as: 

C Not all pollutants are reported to both databases - for example, TRO is reported to 

PCS but not TRI; 

C Chlorine is reported to TRI as Cl2 rather than residual chlorine; 

C TRI data contains only facilities using coal or oil as energy, as other fuel sources 

aren’t required to report unless the facility also uses coal or oil; and 

C TRI contains data for both direct and indirect discharges, while PCS contains only 

direct discharges. 

The numbers presented in this section of the report for pounds released and TWPE represents the 

quantity discharged to receiving streams and accounts for POTW treatment (for indirect 

discharges). 

As in the PCS analysis, EPA was not able to link all TRI facilities to information in EIA 

to obtain facility information. Of the 375 facilities reporting to TRI, 235 are utilities. Table 5-13 

shows the pollutant discharges reported from the 235 utilities in TRI. Arsenic is the top 

pollutant discharged, followed by copper, mercury, lead, and selenium. Arsenic is reported by 

84 out of 235 facilities and accounts for 49% of the total TWPE reported by steam electric 

utilities in TRI. All 84 facilities that reported arsenic discharges are coal facilities. Arsenic 

discharges are reported by only 17 states, of which 45 of the 84 releases are from Region IV. 

5-12

Table 5-13. Pollutants Released From 235 Utilities in the TRI Database 

Chemical Name 

Number of 

Facilities 

Reporting 

Chemical

 Total Pounds 

Released 

Accounting for 

POTW 

Removals

 Total 

TWPE 

Percent of 

Total TWPE 

Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 84 73,224 295,923 49% 

Copper and Copper Compounds 143 258,030 163,803 27% 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 96 313 36,654 6% 

Lead and Lead Compounds 148 16,272 36,449 6% 

Selenium and Selenium Compounds 21 26,858 30,117 5% 

Chlorine 9 22,929 11,675 2% 

Zinc and Zinc Compounds 148 212,630 9,969 1.6% 

Nickel and Nickel Compounds 119 60,598 6,600 1.1% 

Manganese and Manganese Compounds 126 379,967 5,484 0.9% 

Chromium and Chromium Compounds 111 31,561 2,389 0.4% 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 3 24 2,382 0.4% 

Vanadium and Vanadium Compounds 66 62,811 2,198 0.4% 

Thallium and Thallium Compounds 11 1,832 1,882 0.3% 

Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds 15 1,279 1,351 0.2% 

Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds 38 10,389 1,187 0.2% 

Barium and Barium Compounds 167 543,754 1,082 0.18% 

Ammonia 18 48,006 72 0.01% 

Antimony and Antimony Compounds 7 4,111 50 0.01% 

Nitrate Compounds 3 516,350 32 0.01% 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 4 18 5 <0.01% 

Methanol 1 6,604 0.10 <0.01% 

Sulfuric Acid (1994 and after "Acid Aerosols" 

Only) 

1 5 0.007 <0.01% 

Hydrochloric Acid (1995 and after "Acid 

Aerosols" Only) 

1 5 0.00012 <0.01% 

Hydrogen Fluoride 1 10 0.00006 <0.01% 

Total 235 609,307 100% 

5-13

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Energy Source 

EPA segmented the TRI discharges by the energy source as in the PCS analysis. Table 5­

14 shows a summary of the total TWPE for each energy source. Since facilities may report 

using two or more energy sources, the total number of facilities reported in Table 5-14 is greater 

than 235. For facilities that reported using two or more energy sources in the EIA database, EPA 

distributed the TWPE to each energy source based on the percentage of capacity from each 

energy source as in the PCS data analysis. As with the PCS data, the majority of the utility 

TWPE is released by coal facilities. EPA also computed the TWPE per megawatt (MW), TWPE 

per facility, and megawatt per facility. Table 5-14 shows that coal facilities again have the 

highest TWPE per MW. Coal facilities account for most of the capacity, but they also account 

for most of the TWPE, and on a TWPE per MW basis, coal facilities are discharging just slightly 

more than natural gas facilities, four times as much as oil facilities, and more than eight times as 

much as nuclear facilities. As mentioned previously, natural gas and nuclear facilities are not 

required to report under TRI. Facilities report to TRI if any portion of their capacity is generated 

from coal or oil. Not enough information is available to determine why the natural gas and 

nuclear facilities may be reporting to TRI. 

Table 5-14. TRI Discharges From 235 Utilities Distributed by Energy Source 

Category 

Number of 

Facilities

 Energy 

Source 

Capacity 

(MW) MW/Facility 

TWPE 

(Tox-lb/yr) TWPE/Facility TWPE/MW 

Coal 220 192,560 875 567,360 2,579 2.95 

Natural Gas 25 12,296 492 32,849 1,314 2.67 

Nuclear 4 7,974 1,994 2,792 698 0.35 

Oil 18 8,578 477 6,305 350 0.74 

Table 5-15 shows the top five pollutants, based on TWPE, released from each energy 

source and the total TWPE for the energy source. The top pollutants are mainly metals which 

are a constituent of coal and may be released to water in the fly ash handling system or through 

coal pile runoff. 

5-14 
Table 5-15. Top Five Pollutants From 235 Utilities for Each Fuel Source in the TRI


Database


Rank 

Coal Natural Gas Nuclear Oil 

Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE Pollutant TWPE 

1 Arsenic 282,479 Arsenic 13,168 Copper 1,696 Mercury 1,734 

2 Copper 155,335 Chlorine 8,381 Zinc 952 Copper 1,552 

3 Lead 35,351 Copper 5,220 Lead 110 Polycyclic 

Aromatic 

Compounds 

1,468 

4 Mercury 30,560 Mercury 4,359 Nickel 35 Chlorine 458 

5 Selenium 29,998 Lead 674 Lead 314 

Total 567,360 Total 32,849 Total 2,792 Total 6,305 

Summary 

The PCS and TRI analysis shows that copper, arsenic, chlorine, boron, aluminum, 

mercury, lead, and selenium rank highest in terms of TWPE released to wastewater for utilities. 

The majority of the pollutant loads are from coal facilities. This result is expected since coal 

facilities have additional wastestreams due to coal-pile runoff and ash handling systems. The 

initial evaluation of cooling system information shows that utilities using a once-through cooling 

water system discharge higher levels of pollutants. 

5.2 Nonindustrial Nonutilities 

This section summarizes the wastewater characteristics for nonindustrial nonutilities. 

Section 5.2.1 discusses the PCS data and 5.2.2 discusses the TRI data. 

5.2.1 PCS 

EPA analyzed data from PCS to identify pollutants discharged from steam electric 

nonindustrial nonutilities. Of the 554 facilities reporting to PCS, 163 are nonindustrial 

nonutilities. Table 5-16 presents the top pollutants discharged based on TWPE, along with the 

number of facilities reporting the pollutant. 

5-15

Table 5-16. The Top Pollutants Released From 163 Steam Electric Nonindustrial


Nonutilities in the PCS Database


Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities Reporting 

Pollutant

 Total Pounds 

Estimated to be 

Discharged Total TWPE 

Percent of 

Total TWPE 

Boron 14 703,404 124,654 26% 

Aluminum 24 1,858,482 120,227 25% 

Chlorine 79 184,974 94,182 20% 

Copper 55 71,321 45,276 10% 

Iron 62 4,578,911 25,642 5% 

Lead 19 8,809 19,733 4% 

Silver 5 1,016 16,733 4% 

Zinc 49 267,254 12,530 3% 

Selenium 11 5,723 6,417 1.4% 

Chromium, Hexavalent 5 6,009 3,104 0.7% 

Cadmium 9 99 2,295 0.5% 

Mercury 6 4 521 0.11% 

Hydrazine 7 7,409 465 0.10% 

Nickel 27 3,636 396 0.08% 

Manganese 20 23,405 338 0.07% 

Nitrogen, Ammonia 20 223,024 336 0.07% 

Boric Acid 1 519,734 312 0.07% 

Arsenic 8 74 298 0.06% 

Sulfate 13 48,887,354 274 0.06% 

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (As N) 6 35,868 201 0.04% 

Chloride 5 6,511,436 159 0.03% 

Chromium 12 1,918 145 0.03% 

Pcb-1260 (Arochlor 1260) 2 0 81 0.02% 

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (As N) 4 209 78 0.02% 

Magnesium 2 75,839 66 0.01% 

Vanadium 7 1,349 47 0.01% 

Cobalt 1 235 27 0.01% 

Molybdenum 2 121 24 0.01% 

Sodium 1 2,318,659 13 <0.01% 

Fluoride 4 339 12 <0.01% 

Titanium 2 109 3 <0.01% 

Beryllium 4 1 1 <0.01% 

Barium 2 408 1 <0.01% 

Total 474,591 

5-16

As in the analyses of utilities, boron, aluminum, chlorine, and copper ranked in the top 

five pollutants discharged based on TWPE. Iron also ranked in the top five for nonindustrial 

nonutilities. Arsenic is the only pollutant that was in the top five for utilities, but not for 

nonindustrial nonutilities. The capacity of coal-fired plants is over three times higher for utilities 

than nonindustrial nonutilities which may also account for the higher arsenic loads. 

Table 5-17 shows the comparison of capacity between the utility and the nonindustrial 

nonutility facilities. 

Table 5-17. Comparison of Capacity Between Utilities and Nonindustrial Nonutilities


Reporting in the PCS Database


Energy Source 

Utility Capacity 

(MW)

 Percent of Total 

Utility Capacity 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility Capacity 

(MW) 

Percent of Total 

Non-industrial 

Nonutility Capacity 

Coal 200,650 64 59,426 40 

Natural Gas 45,324 14 37,609 25 

Nuclear 56,993 18 35,245 24 

Oil 13,262 4 16,428 11 

Total 316,229 100 148,708 100 

As with the utilities, some of the pollutants discharged, such as conventional pollutants, 

do not have TWFs. Some of these pollutants can have significant discharges, as shown in Table 

5-18. 

Table 5-18. Pollutants Without TWFs Released From 163 Nonindustrial Nonutilities in the 

PCS Database 

Pollutant 

Number of Facilities Reporting 

Pollutant 

Total Pounds Estimated to be 

Discharged 

Total Suspended Solids 139 88,278,176 

Oil & Grease 131 11,621,147 

Total Residual Oxidants 26 669,239 

BOD5 65 21,359 

5-17

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Energy Source 

EPA further investigated the pollutant discharges reported in PCS by the energy source 

reported in the EIA database. Table 5-19 shows the number of facilities, the combined capacity, 

and the TWPE associated with the reported discharges by energy source. Table 5-19 was created 

using information from the 163 PCS steam electric nonindustrial nonutilities. Since facilities 

may report two or more energy sources, the total number of facilities reported in Table 5-19 is 

greater than 163. 

Table 5-19. PCS Discharges From 163 Nonindustrial Nonutilities Distributed by Energy


Source


Category 

Number of 

Facilities

 Energy Source 

Capacity (MW) MW/Facility 

TWPE 

(tox-lb/yr) TWPE/Facility TWPE/MW 

Coal 80 59,426 743 184,089 2,301 3.10 

Natural Gas 53 37,609 710 190,001 3,585 5.05 

Nuclear 22 35,245 1,602 64,868 2,949 1.84 

Oil 33 16,428 498 35,633 1,080 2.17 

For facilities that reported using two or more energy sources, EPA distributed the TWPE 

to each energy source based on the percentage of capacity from each energy source. For 

example, if 25% of a facility’s capacity is from coal and 75% is from natural gas, and the facility 

reported releasing 4,000 pounds of chlorine, then EPA assumed 1,000 pounds are associated 

with coal and 3,000 pounds are associated with natural gas operations. Although some 

pollutants, especially metals, are more likely to result from the use of certain fuels (e.g., coal), 

this approximation allowed EPA to evaluate whether certain energy sources contributed the bulk 

of the pollutant loads. Table 5-19 shows that the natural gas facilities report the highest TWPE. 

Table 5-19 also shows TWPE per megawatt, TWPE per facility, and megawatt per 

facility calculated by EPA. The table shows that natural gas facilities have the highest TWPE 

per megawatt, discharging more than twice as much as nuclear and oil facilities, and more than 

1.5 times as much as coal facilities per megawatt. 

5-18

Table 5-20 shows the comparison of TWPE per facility between the utilities and 

nonutilities. Table 5-20 shows that the natural gas TWPE for nonindustrial nonutilities is 2.5 

times larger than for utilities while the number of facilities is lower. The overall TWPE per 

facility for nonindustrial nonutilities is more than three times larger than for utilities. The 

difference is driven by one facility, West Texas Utilities Company in Abilene, TX. This facility 

reports a discharge of 1,226,638 pounds of aluminum which is equal to 79,353 lb-eq. EPA will 

contact this facility to verify the reported discharge. 

Table 5-20. Comparison of TWPE/Facility Between Utilities and Nonindustrial 

Nonutilities Reporting in the PCS Database 

Category 

Number of 

Utility 

Facilities

 Utility 

TWPE 

Utility 

TWPE/Facility 

Number of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

Facilities

 Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

TWPE 

 Nonindustrial 

Nonutility 

TWPE/Facility 

Coal 231 853,828 3,696 80 184,089 2,301 

Natural Gas 71 72,864 1,026 53 190,001 3,585 

Nuclear 38 120,125 3,161 22 64,868 2,949 

Oil 30 20,753 692 33 35,633 1,080 

Due to the greater TWPE and the lower capacity for nonindustrial nonutility natural gas 

facilities compared to utility natural gas facilities, the TWPE per megawatt is greater. Part of 

this difference may be attributable to West Texas Utilities; however, even if the TWPE from that 

facility was set to zero, the TWPE would still be larger for nonindustrial nonutilities than for 

natural gas utilities. Table 5-21 shows the TWPE per megawatt for each of the energy sources 

for utility facilities and nonindustrial nonutility facilities. 

5-19

Table 5-21. Comparison of TWPE/MW Between Utilities and Nonindustrial Nonutilities


Reporting in the PCS Database


Energy Source Utility TWPE/MW 

Non-industrial Nonutility 

TWPE/MW 

Coal 4.26 3.10 

Natural Gas 1.61 5.05 

Nuclear 2.11 1.84 

Oil 1.56 2.17 

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Cooling System 

Using the section 316(b) and Form EIA-767 information, EPA determined the cooling 

system used by 144 of the 163 nonindustrial nonutilities. As with the utilities, the majority of 

the TWPE is released by facilities using once-through cooling systems. However, for the 

nonindustrial nonutilities, greater quantities of some pollutants (boron, selenium, and cadmium) 

are released from recirculating systems rather than once-through systems. Table 5-22 shows the 

distribution of the 144 facilities by cooling system type. Table 5-22 shows that the majority of 

the nonindustrial nonutilities use once-through cooling systems. 

Table 5-22. Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by Nonindustrial Nonutilities 

Type of Cooling System Number of Facilities 

Once-Through 102 

Recirculating 31 

Combination 11 

5.2.2 TRI 

EPA analyzed data from TRI to identify pollutants discharged from steam electric 

nonindustrial nonutilities. Of the 375 facilities reporting to TRI, 103 are nonindustrial 

nonutilities. Table 5-23 presents the top pollutants discharged based on TWPE, along with the 

number of facilities reporting the pollutant. 

5-20

Table 5-23. The Top Pollutants Released From 103 Steam Electric Nonindustrial


Nonutilities in the TRI Database


Chemical Name 

Number of Facilities 

Reporting Chemical

 Total Pounds 

Released 

Total 

TWPE 

Percent of 

Total TWPE 

Arsenic and Arsenic Compounds 29 15,395 62,216 41% 

Lead and Lead Compounds 76 20,742 46,462 30% 

Copper and Copper Compounds 43 30,978 19,665 13% 

Mercury and Mercury Compounds 41 44 5,099 3% 

Nickel and Nickel Compounds 41 44,984 4,899 3% 

Chromium and Chromium Compounds 40 54,413 4,119 3% 

Zinc and Zinc Compounds 52 46,593 2,185 1.4% 

Vanadium and Vanadium Compounds 28 59,998 2,100 1.4% 

Selenium and Selenium Compounds 7 1,862 2,088 1.4% 

Manganese and Manganese Compounds 55 107,621 1,553 1.0% 

Chlorine 2 1,945 990 0.6% 

Barium and Barium Compounds 63 286,663 571 0.4% 

Thallium and Thallium Compounds 4 530 544 0.4% 

Ammonia 22 46,871 71 0.05% 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 1 0.0012 41 0.03% 

Hexachlorobenzene 1 0.02 39 0.03% 

Toluene 2 4,200 24 0.02% 

Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds 6 132 15 0.01% 

Antimony and Antimony Compounds 4 763 9 0.01% 

Beryllium and Beryllium Compounds 1 4 4 <0.01% 

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds 2 0.03 3 <0.01% 

Molybdenum Trioxide 2 253 0.2 <0.01% 

Formic Acid 1 13 0.005 <0.01% 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 0.0005 0.00014 <0.01% 

Hydrogen Fluoride 1 10 0.00006 <0.01% 

Total 152,697 

5-21

Four of the top five pollutants (arsenic, lead, copper, and mercury) released from 

nonindustrial nonutilities were among the top five pollutant released from utility facilities. 

Nickel replaced selenium in the top five pollutants list for nonindustrial nonutilities. 

Analysis of Pollutants Discharged by Energy Source 

EPA segmented the TRI discharges by the energy source as in the PCS analysis. Table 5­

24 shows a summary of the total TWPE for each energy source. Since facilities may report two 

or more energy sources, the total number of facilities reported in Table 5-24 is greater than 103. 

For facilities that reported using two or more energy sources in the EIA database, EPA 

distributed the TWPE to each energy source based on the percentage of capacity from each 

energy source as discussed in the PCS data analysis. Unlike the PCS data, the majority of the 

nonindustrial nonutility TWPE is released by coal facilities, 91%, not natural gas. EPA also 

computed the TWPE per megawatt, TWPE per facility, and megawatt per facility. Table 5-24 

shows that coal facilities have the highest TWPE per megawatt. Coal facilities account for most 

of the capacity, but they also account for most of the TWPE, and on a TWPE per megawatt 

basis, coal facilities are discharging almost twice as much as natural gas facilities and four times 

as much as oil facilities. Four utility facilities reported a nuclear fuel source, but no 

nonindustrial nonutilities reported a nuclear fuel source. This discrepancy is not surprising, 

since nuclear facilities are not required to report to TRI. 

Table 5-24. TRI Discharges From 103 Nonindustrial Nonutilities Distributed by Energy


Source


Category 

Number of 

Facilities 

Energy 

Source 

Capacity MW/Facility

 Energy 

Source 

TWPE TWPE/Facility TWPE/MW 

Coal 90 56,939 633 139,615 1,551 2.45 

Natural Gas 14 5,484 392 6,939 496 1.27 

Oil 16 10,004 625 6,143 384 0.61 

5-22

Table 5-25 shows the comparison of TWPE between the two types of facilities. The 

TWPE percentage by fuel source is fairly consistent between the utilities and the nonindustrial 

nonutilities. 

Table 5-25. Comparison of TWPE Between Utility and Nonindustrial Nonutility Facilities 

Reporting in the TRI Database 

Category Utility TWPE 

Percent of Utility 

TWPE 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility TWPE 

Percent of 

Nonindustrial 

Nonutility TWPE 

Coal 567,360 93.1 139,615 91.4 

Natural Gas 32,849 5.4 6,939 4.6 

Nuclear 2,792 0.5 - -

Oil 6,305 1.0 6,143 4.0 

While the TWPE percentages were consistent, the TWPE per megawatt for each of the 

fuel sources was lower for utility facilities as compared to nonindustrial nonutility facilities. For 

example, the TWPE per megawatt was 52% lower for utilities than nonindustrial nonutilities 

using natural gas as the fuel source. Table 5-26 shows the comparison of TWPE per megawatt 

for the two types of facilities. 

Table 5-26. Comparison of TWPE/MW Between Utility and Nonindustrial Nonutility


Facilities Reporting in the TRI Database


Category Utility TWPE/MW 

Nonindustrial Nonutility 

TWPE/MW 

Coal 2.95 2.45 

Natural Gas 2.67 1.27 

Nuclear 0.35 -

Oil 0.74 0.61 

5-23

Summary 

The PCS and TRI analysis shows that boron, aluminum, chlorine, copper, iron, arsenic, 

mercury, lead, and nickel rank highest in terms of TWPE released to wastewater for 

nonindustrial nonutilities. Arsenic loadings reported to PCS are significantly lower for 

nonindustrial nonutilities than for utilities, because the megawatts generated by coal (the major 

source of arsenic) is over three times higher for utilities. The PCS data show that the TWPE per 

facility is highest for natural gas facilities, while the TRI data show coal facilities have the 

highest TWPE per facility. As discussed previously, the high TWPE reported for natural gas 

facilities may be due to a single anomalous facility. EPA will discuss the reported discharge 

with the facility, and, if necessary, investigate the source of their high discharge. The 

preliminary results show that utilities and nonutilities have similar wastewater characteristics. 

5.3 Industrial Nonutilities 

EPA was able to match 60 of the 308 steam electric industrial nonutilities listed in EIA to 

data included in the PCS database. The industries that these facilities represent are presented in 

Table 5-27. 

5-24

Table 5-27. Industries Represented in the Analysis of 60 Industrial Nonutilities 

Industry Number of Facilities 

Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 17 

Sugar Processing 8 

Petroleum Refining 8 

Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers 5 

Iron and Steel Manufacturing 5 

Vinyl Chloride and Chlor-Alkali 4 

Grain Mills Manufacturing 2 

Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing 2 

Pharmaceutical Manufacturing 2 

Pesticide Chemicals Manufacturing 2 

Fruits and Vegetable Processing 1 

Cement Manufacturing 1 

Inorganic Chemicals 1 

Metal Finishing 1 

Ore Mining and Dressing 1 

Explosives 1 

Sewerage Systems 1 

Since the industrial nonutilities’ primary purpose of operation is something other than 

electricity production, many of the chemicals released may not be associated with electricity 

production. Table 5-28 shows the top pollutants, based on TWPE, released from the steam 

electric industrial nonutilities. Of the 60 industrial nonutilities, 21 reported releasing chlorine, 

which is one of the most frequently reported chemicals from steam electric facilities in the PCS 

database. 

5-25

Table 5-28. Top Pollutants Released From 60 Industrial Nonutility Facilities Reporting in 

the PCS Database 

Pollutant 

Number of 

Facilities Pounds Released TWPE 

Silver 3 9,990 164,548 

Chlorine 21 295,368 150,390 

Molybdenum 1 717,011 144,434 

Sulfide 7 42,674 119,550 

Nitrogen, Ammonia 38 32,564,941 49,022 

Lead 15 13,085 29,310 

Copper 19 44,006 27,936 

Nitrogen, Nitrite Total (As N) 2 74,432 27,788 

Cyanide 11 18,422 20,576 

Fluoride 3 358,547 12,549 

Selenium 4 11,136 12,487 

Aluminum 5 168,466 10,898 

Arsenic 4 2,467 9,970 

Nickel 13 72,970 7,947 

Zinc 19 134,045 6,285 

Phenol & Phenolics 12 187,285 5,245 

Mercury 5 45 5,238 

Cadmium 4 216 4,986 

Chloride 6 126,159,200 3,072 

Tributyltin 1 25 2,242 

Nitrogen, Nitrate Total (As N) 3 143,050 801 

Boron 1 3,837 680 

Chromium, Hexavalent 5 1,307 675 

Using the section 316(b) and Form EIA-767 information, EPA determined the type of 

cooling system used by 22 of the 60 industrial nonutilities. Table 5-29 shows the distribution of 

the 22 facilities by cooling system type. The majority of the industrial nonutilities use 

recirculating cooling systems; however, with such a small data set, it is difficult to determine if 

these results are representative of all industrial nonutilities. 

5-26

Table 5-29. Distribution of Cooling Systems Used by 60 Industrial Nonutility Facilities 

Type of Cooling System Number of Facilities 

Once-Through 6 

Recirculating 15 

Combination 1 

Total 22 

Table 5-30 shows the distribution of the 60 facilities by energy source using EIA 

information. Five of the facilities reported using two or more energy sources; therefore, the total 

number of facilities reported in Table 5-30 is greater than 60. 

Table 5-30. Distribution of Energy Sources Used by Industrial Nonutility Facilities 

Energy Source Number of Facilities 

Coal 32 

Natural Gas 35 

Nuclear 0 

Oil 5 

Due to the limited information on industrial nonutilities, EPA will continue to investigate 

this type of facility as it completes the detailed study. 

5-27

6.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDS AND NEXT STEPS 

EPA will continue to evaluate steam electric facilities for the development of the 2006 

Plan. EPA will respond to comments on this preliminary report and continue to evaluate the 

topics discussed in this report. Topics requiring further study include: 

C Arsenic - Arsenic discharges are reported by facilities in 14 states, and 29 of the 

44 facilities reporting are in Region IV. EPA will investigate the reason for the 

increased discharge in this area; 

C Boron - Boron ranks in the top five pollutants discharged from steam electric 

utilities and nonindustrial nonutilities. EPA will investigate possible sources of 

boron; 

C Mercury - Mercury ranks in the top five pollutants discharged from natural gasfired utilities and coal- and natural gas-fired nonindustrial nonutilities. EPA will 

investigate the wastestreams that contribute to the mercury load; and 

C Total Suspended Solids - Steam electric facilities discharge high quantities of 

TSS. EPA will investigate the sources of TSS. 

In addition, EPA will conduct a focused review of topics that were not evaluated as part 

of the preliminary study. The additional areas to be investigated are discussed in the following 

sections: 

C Section 6.1 discusses the evaluation of pollution prevention and wastewater 

treatment technologies; 

C Section 6.2 discusses the review of information provided by UWAG; 

C Section 6.3 discusses the additional questions on industrial nonutilities; 

C Section 6.4 discusses the additional questions on generators using renewable or 

recycled fuel; and 

C Section 6.5 discusses emerging issues. 

EPA will review any additional information provided on these topics for the development of the 

2006 Plan. 

6-1

6.1 Pollution Prevention and Wastewater Treatment Technologies 

EPA will review pollution prevention and wastewater treatment technologies available to 

reduce pollutant loadings. When evaluating potential treatment options, EPA will take into 

account the preliminary concentration analysis (Table 5-12), which shows that, on average, the 

pollutants are present in steam electric wastewaters. EPA will consider the reported 

concentration levels when evaluating treatment options. 

In the OECA Sector Notebook (U.S. EPA, 1997), EPA suggested several methods for 

reducing pollution from steam electric facilities (summarized in Table 6-1). EPA will 

investigate these and other options further during the development of the final detailed study. 

Table 6-1. Potential Pollution Prevention Options for Steam Electric Facilities 

Pollution Prevention Option Description/Notes 

Cooling Water 

Optimize chemical use Facilities should minimize the amount of chemicals added to the 

system. 

Chemical substitution Bromine is more toxic than chlorine. Ozone treatment could be 

considered to replace both bromine and chlorine. 

Use inert construction materials Nonreactive construction materials will reduce scale and corrosion. 

Reduce water use Recirculating systems should be used instead of once-through systems. 

Installing automatic bleed/feed controllers and bypass feeders may also 

reduce volumes of chemicals and water required. 

Boiler Cleaning (Fire side) 

Use cleaner fuels Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel. Cleaner coals and oils will 

reduce amount of cleaning required. 

Use alternate cleaning methods Soot blowers, sonic horns, brushing, sweeping, or vacuuming used to 

replace or augment waster washing will reduce wastewater generated. 

Boiler Cleaning (Water side) 

Optimize cleaning frequency Maintain operating records including normal cycle chemistry to help 

determine when cleaning is needed 

Control boiler chemistry Controlling chemistry will help reduce scaling 

Source: OECA Sector Notebook (U.S. EPA, 1997) 

Steam electric facilities are currently recycling fly ash and bottom ash to minimize the 

amount of ash requiring treatment. UWAG provided information on the use of coal combustion 

6-2 
product wastes (see DCN 01728 in section 13.2 of the record). Information for 2003 shows that 

fly ash and bottom ash are used in the following applications: 

C Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout; 

C Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker; 

C Flowable Fill; 

C Structural Fills/Embankments; 

C Road Base/Sub-base/Pavement; 

C Soil Modification/Stabilization; 

C Mineral Filler in Asphalt; 

C Snow and Ice Control; 

C Blasting Grit/Roofing Granules; 

C Mining Applications; 

C Waste Stabilization/Agriculture; and 

C Agriculture. 

EPA will continue to collect information on potential pollution prevention and 

wastewater treatment options for this industry. 

6.2 UWAG Information 

As mentioned in Section 3.6, UWAG is currently collecting data from their members for 

use in EPA’s evaluation of this industry. EPA will review the information as it is received from 

UWAG and incorporate it into analyses where appropriate. Since UWAG represents only 

utilities, the information collected will only be applicable to this facility type (see DCN 01738 in 

section 13.2 of the record). 

6.3 Industrial Nonutilities 

Industrial nonutilities are not currently regulated under Part 423 since their primary 

purpose is not the generation or distribution of electricity. EPA will investigate these facilities 

6-3

further to estimate the potential hazard posed by discharges from the steam electric portion of 

these facilities. Additional questions to address include: 

C What are the current permit limits for these generating units? Are permit writers 

applying Part 423 limits to the steam electric portion of these plants? 

C Is wastewater from the steam electric plant commingled with other facility 

wastewater before treatment and discharge? Does it affect the pollutant loads and 

potential treatment? 

C What type of cooling systems are used by these facilities? What chemicals are 

they using to control biofouling? 

C Does the fact that these facilities are co-located with other manufacturing 

operations affect pollution prevention and treatment options? 

EPA may answer these questions through a targeted permit review and/or through facility site 

visits. 

6.4 Renewable/Recycled Fuel Sources 

Part 423 currently only applies to facilities using fossil-based or nuclear fuel. As 

mentioned in Section 4.3.5 steam electric facilities may use fuels such as agricultural waste and 

biomass to produce steam. EPA will investigate these facilities to determine if they should be 

included in the applicability of Part 423. Additional questions to address include: 

C How are these facilities similar to facilities currently covered by Part 423 in terms 

of pollutant discharge, water use, wastewater flow rates, and plant capacity? 

C Do these facilities have any additional sources of wastewater? 

How are these facilities currently permitted? What pollutants are regulated and 

what limits apply? 

EPA may answer these questions through a targeted permit review and/or through facility 

site visits. 

6-4


C
6.5 Emerging Issues 

EPA will also review information on emerging technologies that may impact pollutant 

loadings, such as Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC). This technology, which may 

become used more frequently, involves converting coal into a gaseous fuel which is then purified 

and combusted in a gas turbine generator to produce electricity. Heat from the exhaust gas is 

recovered and used to generate steam to produce additional electricity. IGCC plants are more 

efficient than traditional steam electric plants. Most of the environmental benefits for this 

technology will be related to reducing air emissions. (U.S. EPA, 1997) 

EPA will collect additional information on the prevalence of these types of facilities. 

Currently, EPA only has information on one IGCC plant located at the Polk Power Station in 

Florida. The 260 MW IGCC plant is considered a zero-discharge facility. A brine concentration 

unit handles all of the liquid wastes and the effluent is reused in the process. EPA will 

investigate topics related to IGCC plants during the development of the 2006 Plan. 

(www.tampaelectric.com/TEEVPowerPlantsIGCC.cfm)] 

6-5

7.0 REFERENCES 

1. Kaplan, Charles H., Letter to Regional Permit Branch Chiefs and State Directors. 

“Combined Cycle Electric Generation Plants, Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category”, U.S. EPA Region IV, December 19, 1989. 

2. Tampa Electric Environmental Web site, 

http://www.tampaelectric.com/TEEVPowerPlantsIGCC.cfm 

3. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. www.eia.doe.gov. 

4. U.S. EPA. Cooling Water Intake Structures Section 316(b) Web site, 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/index.html. 

5. U.S. EPA, EPCRA Section 313 Industry Guidance Electricity Generating Facilities, EPA 

745-B-00-004, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, February 2000. 

6. U.S. EPA. 2005. PCSLoads2002_v01 Database. 

7. U.S. EPA. Preliminary Data Summary for the Steam Electric Point Source Category, 

EPA-821-Z-96-010, Washington, DC, 1996. 

8. U.S. EPA, Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry, EPA Office of 

Compliance Sector Notebook Project, EPA/310-R097-007, September 1997. 

9. U.S. EPA, Screening-Level Analysis Report. Washington, DC, 2005. 

10. U.S. EPA. 2005. TRIReleases2002_v02 Database. 

7-1