# MEMORANDUM

TO: Bill Swietlik, EPA

FROM: Joanna Kind, ERG

DATE: April 19, 2013

SUBJECT: Site-Specific Estuary Dilution Analysis (DCN SE03577)

1.0 I NTRODUCTION



# ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

for development of revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category. In support of the development of revised

ELGs, ERG developed a water quality model to calculate surface water concentrations for the

majority of receiving waters (e.g., lakes and streams). The water quality model, however, is not

designed to account for the complex hydrodynamics found in estuarine or large lake settings

(e.g., varying inputs from upstream freshwater and downstream saltwater bodies). This

memorandum describes an alternative, site-specific estuary dilution analysis for estimating

pollutant concentrations in receiving waters that are estuaries or Great Lakes. ERG

recommended using critical dilution factors (CDFs) to model surface water concentrations of

these systems. This approach is based on the methodology used for modeling surface water

concentrations of estuaries and bays in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed

ELGs for the centralized waste treatment industry (U.S. EPA, 1998).

ERG examined baseline conditions and four regulatory options (see Table 1-1) for four

evaluated waste streams (flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, fly ash transport water,

bottom ash transport water, and leachate). ERG evaluated the following metals in this analysis:

total arsenic, total cadmium, total chromium VI, total copper, total lead, total mercury, total

nickel, total selenium, total thallium, and total zinc.

Table 1-1. Regulatory Options Evaluated in the Site-Specific Estuary Dilution Analysis a



# Waste Stream First Option Second Option Third Option Fourth Option

FGD Wastewater Chemical

Precipitation Chemical

Precipitation +

Biological

Treatment Chemical

Precipitation +

Biological

Treatment Chemical Precipitation +

Biological Treatment

Fly Ash Transport

Water Same as baseline Same as baseline Dry handling Dry handling

Bottom Ash

Transport Water Same as baseline Same as baseline Same as baseline Dry handling/closed loop

# Memorandum

April 19, 2013

Page 2

Table 1-1. Regulatory Options Evaluated in the Site-Specific Estuary Dilution Analysis a



# Waste Stream First Option Second Option Third Option Fourth Option

Leachate Same as baseline Same as baseline Same as baseline With FGD wastewater :

Chemical Precipitation +

Biological Treatment

Without FGD wastewater :

Chemical Precipitation

a – The regulatory options evaluated as part of this anal ysis have since been revised for the proposed ELG. This

table presents the four draft options evaluated for this an alysis, which do not directly correspond to the regulatory

scenarios evaluated in the final EA. See the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report) (DCN

SE01995) for the proposed regulatory options and EA results.



# 2.0 M ETHODOLOGY



# Based on survey responses, ERG identified 24 1 

# plants discharging an evaluated waste

stream to either an estuary or one of the Great Lakes. ERG used Equation 2-1 below to calculate

a site-specific CDF for each plant/receiving water combination for these 24 plants. This

calculation is based on the dissolved concentration potential (DCP) of a water body. A DCP

value is a measure of the potential concentration of a dissolved pollutant throughout the entire

estuary under well-mixed steady-state conditions. A high DCP value generally suggests an

estuary is likely to concentrate a dissolved pollutant loading whereas a low DCP suggests an

estuary has a high probability of diluting the po llutant loading due to either large estuarine

volumes and/or flushing ability from tidal or riverine influences. EPA obtains DCPs for estuaries

and bays from the Strategic Assessment Branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)’s Ocean Assessments Division (EPA, 1998 and Versar Inc., 1992).

Based on these values, ERG identified a receiving water specific DCP value for 16 of the 24

plants [See Table A-1 in Attachment A].The DCP values ranged from 0.0042 milligrams per liter

(mg/L) to 0.52 mg/L.

EQUATION 2-1

CDF= BL·CF1

DCP·OD·FF·CF2

where:

CDF

= Critical dilution factor (unitless) Output from

Equation 2-1

BL

= Benchmark load (tons/year) Assumed value of

10,000 tons/year a



# DCP

= Dissolved concentration potential (mg/L) U.S. EPA, 1998 b 

# ;

Versar Inc., 1992 b



# OD

= Power plant operation (days/year) Assumed value of

365 days/year

1 

# At the time of this analysis, the number of potentially regulated facilities that discharged to an estuary or Great

Lake was 24. In the final EA, the number of potentially regulated facilities that discharged to an estuary or Great

Lake fell to 20.

# Memorandum

April 19, 2013

Page 3

FF

= Effluent flow from power plant (gallons/day [gal/day]) Survey data

Question A2-5

(U.S. EPA, 2013a)

CF1

= 907.185 (kg/ton) Conversion factor

CF2 = 2.64 x 10

- 7 

# (kg • gal/mg • L) = 10

- 6 

# (kg/mg) × 0.264 (gal/L) Conversion factor

a - NOAA calculates the water body DCP based on an assumed annual pollutant load of 10,000 tons

(Versar Inc., 1992).

b - The DCP values are based on an average across th e water body and do not represent the concentration

in the immediate discharge zone.



# Next, ERG used Equation 2-2 to calculate a total pollutant concentration for each water

body using baseline and regulatory option loadings.

EQUATION 2-2

C

es 

# = FF CF

CDF

where:

C

es 

# = Receiving water pollutant concentration (milligrams per liter

[mg/L]) Output from

Equation 2-2



# L total 

# = Total metal loading to receiving water from steam effluent

(grams per day [g/day]) Calculated for this

analysis (see

Tables A-3

through A-12) a



# FF

= Effluent flow from power plant (gal/day) Survey data,

Question A2-5

(U.S. EPA, 2013a)

CDF

= Critical dilution factor (unitless) Calculated in

Equation 2-1

CF3

= 264 (mg • gal /g • L) = 10 3 

# (mg/g) × 0.264 (gal/L) Conversion factor

a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.

These were interim loadings that do not correspond to the final loadings values used in support of the

proposed ELGs; however, ERG determined that the change in loadings did not warrant revision of the

analysis, because the conclusions would remain the same.



# The tables presented in Attachment A present the input values used for Equations 2-1 and

2-2. The tables presented in Attachment B present the output values calculated using Equations

2-1 and 2-2.

After calculating the total pollutant concentrations in the identified estuarine or Great

Lake receiving waters, ERG compared the concentrations at baseline conditions and following

the implementation of the four regulatory options to the following benchmarks:

 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) for Fresh Water Chronic

Aquatic Life Criteria for total selenium;

# Memorandum

April 19, 2013

Page 4

 NRWQC for Human Health – Organism Only Criteria for total arsenic, total nickel, total

selenium, total thallium, and total zinc;

 NRWQC for Human Health – Water & Organism for total arsenic, total copper, total

nickel, total selenium, total thallium, and total zinc; and

 Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for total arsenic, total cadmium,

total chromium 2 

# , total copper, total lead, total mercury, total selenium, and total thallium.

The benchmarks are presented in Table C-1 in Attachment C.

3.0 R ESULTS AND 

# C ONCLUSIONS



# The results of the analysis are presented in Attachment B. Tables B-2 through B-11

present the receiving water pollutant concentrations for the baseline and regulatory options for

each pollutant for the 16 plants included in the an alysis (DCP values were not available for the

other 8 plants that discharge to estuaries or the Great Lakes). It is important to note that this

analysis served as a screening tool to determine if discharges of the evaluated waste streams

result in elevated surface water pollutant concentrations throughout the receiving water body

(i.e., concentrations that exceed various benchmarks used in the EA). At this screening level,

ERG made simplifying assumptions that potentially overestimate the calculated concentrations.

Despite these assumptions, calculated concentrations are well below all identified benchmarks.

This result is not unexpected as the analysis co nsiders only steam electric discharges and does

not account for other point, non-point, and background sources and pollutant concentrations.

Based on the results of this analysis, ERG and EPA determined that the impact of steam electric

power plant discharges on estuary and Great Lake systems would be better evaluated by

comparing their discharges to other industrial and point source discharges to these systems. The

EA Report compares the pollutant loadings from steam electric plants to other point source

discharges into the Chesapeake Bay (estuary) watershed and the Great Lakes watershed.

4.0 R EFERENCES



# U.S. EPA. 1998. Environmental Assessment For The Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, And New Source Performance Standards For The Centralized Waste

Treatment Industry. EPA 821-R-98-017. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2009a. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Washington, DC. DCN

SE01908.

U.S. EPA. 2009b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 816-F-09-004.

Washington, DC. (May). DCN SE01909.

2 

# For this analysis, ERG estimated the concentration of chromium VI in the estuary and compared that value to the

total chromium MCL.

# Memorandum

April 19, 2013

Page 5

U.S. EPA. 2013a. Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database. Washington, DC. DCN

SE01958.

U.S. EPA. 2013b. Site-Specific Estuary Dilution Analysis Documentation Database.

Washington, DC. DCN SE02152A1.

Versar, Inc. 1992. Mixing Zone Dilution Factors for New Chemical Exposure Assessments.

Draft Report. Contract 68-D9-0166. Task 3-35. Springfield, VA.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-1Attachment A: Inputs for Equations 2-1 and 2-2Table A-1. DCP Values for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to the Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameReceiving Water TypeDCP (mg/L)SourceB L England Great Egg Harbor Estuary ----Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico Estuary 0.46U.S, EPA. 1998Tampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough Bay Estuary ----Ashtabula Power Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Avon Lake Power Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Bay Shore Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Dunkirk Generating Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Eastlake Power Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998JR Whiting Power Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Lake Shore Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Monroe Power Plant Lake Erie Great Lake 0.2U.S, EPA. 1998Harbor Beach Power Plant Lake Huron Great Lake ----Edgewater Generating Station Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.3U.S, EPA. 1998JH Campbell Power Plant Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.0042U.S, EPA. 1998NIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.0042U.S, EPA. 1998NIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.0042U.S, EPA. 1998Oak Creek Power Plant Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.3U.S, EPA. 1998Pleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake Michigan Great Lake 0.3U.S, EPA. 1998Waukegan Station Lake Michigan Great Lake ----AES - Somerset Lake Ontario Great Lake ----Presque Isle Power Plant Lake Superior Great Lake ----Brayton Point Station Mount Hope Bay Estuary 0.52Versar, Inc., 1992DE Karn Power Plant Saginaw Bay Estuary ----JC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw Bay Estuary ----Source: U.S. EPA, 2013b.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-2Table A-2. Effluent Flows for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameEffluent Flowa(gal/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[Confidential Business Information (CBI) has been removed fromthis document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis,ERG used the November 17, 2011 effluent flows.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-3Table A-3. Total Arsenic Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Arsenic Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-4Table A-4. Total Cadmium Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Cadmium Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-5Table A-5. Total Chromium VI Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging to the Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Chromium VI Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.N/A – Chromium VI loads were not calculated for this plant.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-6Table A-6. Total Copper Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Copper Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-7Table A-7. Total Lead Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Lead Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-8Table A-8. Total Mercury Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Mercury Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-9Table A-9. Total Nickel Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Nickel Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-10Table A-10. Total Selenium Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Selenium Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-11Table A-11. Total Thallium Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Thallium Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment AApril 19, 2013Page A-12Table A-12. Total Zinc Loadings for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Zinc Loada(g/day)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionB L England Great Egg Harbor[CBI has been removed from this document.]Crystal River Energy Complex Gulf of MexicoTampa Electric - Big Bend Station Hillsborough BayBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieAshtabula Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieHarbor Beach Power Plant Lake HuronNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganWaukegan Station Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganAES - Somerset Lake OntarioPresque Isle Power Plant Lake SuperiorBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BayJC Weadock Power Plant Saginaw BayDE Karn Power Plant Saginaw BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For the site-specific estuary dilution analysis, ERG used the November 17, 2011 pollutant loadings.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-1Attachment B: Outputs from Equations 2-1 and 2-2Table B-1. CDF Values for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameCDFBaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – For these plants, effluent flow rates of the evaluated waste streams are zero under the fourth option. This results in a CDF of infinity.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-2Table B-2. Total Arsenic CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Arsenic Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total arsenic Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for totalarsenic: human health water and organism NRWQC (0.000018 mg/L),human health organism NRWQC (0.00014 mg/L),and drinking water MCL (0.01 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any of the benchmarks.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-3Table B-3. Total Cadmium CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Cadmium Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total cadmium Cesvalues were compared to the drinking water MCL for total cadmium (0.01 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed this benchmark.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-4Table B-4. Total Chromium VI CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and GreatLakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Chromium VI Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total chromium VI Cesvalues were compared to the drinking water MCL for total chromium (0.005 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed this benchmark.N/A – Chromium VI loads were not calculated for this plant.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-5Table B-5. Total Copper CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Copper Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total copper Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for total copper: human health water and organism NRWQC (1.3 mg/L) and drinkingwater MCL (1.3 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any of the benchmarks.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-6Table B-6. Total Lead CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Lead Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total lead Cesvalues were compared to the drinking water MCL for total lead (0.015 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed this benchmark.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-7Table B-7. Total Mercury CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Mercury Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total mercury Cesvalues were compared to the drinking water MCL for total mercury (0.002 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed this benchmark.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-8Table B-8. Total Nickel CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Nickel Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total nickel Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for total nickel: human health water and organism NRWQC (0.61 mg/L) and humanhealth organism NRWQC (4.6 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any of the benchmarks.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-9Table B-9. Total Selenium CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Selenium Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total selenium Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for total selenium: freshwater chronic NRWQC (0.005 mg/L), human health waterand organism NRWQC (0.17 mg/L), human health organismNRWQC (4.2 mg/L), and drinking water MCL (0.05 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any ofthe benchmarks.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-10Table B-10. Total Thallium CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Thallium Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total thallium Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for totalthallium: human health water and organism NRWQC (0.00024 mg/L),human health organism NRWQC (0.00047 mg/L),and drinking water MCL (0.002 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any of the benchmarks.Attachment BApril 19, 2013Page B-11Table B-11. Total Zinc CesValues for Plants Directly Discharging Evaluated Waste Streams to Estuaries and Great LakesPlant NameReceiving Water NameTotal Zinc Ces(mg/L)BaselineFirstOptionSecondOptionThirdOptionFourthOptionCrystal River Energy Complex Gulf of Mexico[CBI has been removed from this document.]Ashtabula Power Plant Lake ErieBay Shore Plant Lake ErieAvon Lake Power Plant Lake ErieEastlake Power Plant Lake ErieLake Shore Plant Lake ErieJR Whiting Power Plant Lake ErieMonroe Power Plant Lake ErieDunkirk Generating Plant Lake ErieNIPSCO Michigan City Generating Station Lake MichiganNIPSCO Bailly Generating Station Lake MichiganJH Campbell Power Plant Lake MichiganPleasant Prairie Power Plant Lake MichiganEdgewater Generating Station Lake MichiganOak Creek Power Plant Lake MichiganBrayton Point Station Mount Hope BaySource: U.S. EPA, 2013b.a – The total zinc Cesvalues were compared to the following benchmarks for total zinc: human health water and organism NRWQC (7.4 mg/L) and human healthorganism NRWQC (2.6 mg/L). The Cesvalues did not exceed any of the benchmarks.Attachment CApril 19, 2013Page C-1Attachment C: Benchmarks for Comparison to Calculated CesValuesTable C-1. NRWQC and MCL BenchmarksPollutantFreshwater ChronicNRWQCa(mg/L)Human Health Water andOrganism NRWQCa(mg/L)Human Health OrganismNRWQCa(mg/L)Drinking WaterMCLb(mg/L)Total Arsenic- 0.000018 0.00014 0.01Total Cadmium- - - 0.005Total Chromiumc- - - 0.1Total Copper- 1.3 - 1.3Total Lead- - - 0.015Total Mercury- - - 0.002Total Nickel- 0.61 4.6 -Total Selenium0.005 0.17 4.2 0.05Total Thallium- 0.00024 0.00047 0.002Total Zinc - 7.4 26 -a – National Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Washington, D.C. [U.S. EPA, 2009a].b – National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 816-F-09-004. May. Washington, D.C. [U.S. EPA, 2009b].c – For this analysis, ERG estimated the concentration of chromium VI in the estuary or Great Lake and compared that value to the total chromium MCL.