Clean Water Action’s analysis of supporting documents for the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category1 confirms that power plant discharges to surface water often 

include contaminants that experts consider to be “contaminants of concern” when found in 

drinking water. For example, arsenic, lead, selenium and mercury are all commonly found 

in power plant discharges to water, and all are contaminants of long-standing concern in 

drinking water. Other common power plant discharge contaminants, such as vanadium and 

bromides, are emerging more recently as drinking water challenges. All of these contaminants 

pose public health risks and present challenges for Public Water Systems. This situation 

highlights the importance of controlling pollution such as these power plant discharge 

contaminants whose presence in source water can 

lead to increased drinking water treatment costs 

and higher water bills for consumers. EPA has the 

opportunity to protect drinking water sources when 

the Proposed Rule, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating 

Category is finalized.

Steam Electric Power Plants are responsible for more 

than half of the toxic pollutants discharged directly 

into waters of the United States, more than the other 

nine top polluting industries combined.

2 Despite the 

scope of this pollution problem, existing standards 

have not been updated since 1982 and fail to set 

discharge limits on dangerous pollutants. According 

to EPA’s Proposed Rule, this failure is a factor in more 

than 160 water bodies not meeting state water 

quality standards, 185 waters with fish consumption 

advisories and the degradation of 399 water bodies 

across the country that serve as drinking water supplies.3 The Clean Water Act requires 

states to set strong discharge standards for polluters in the absence of federal standards.4

Unfortunately, most state permitting agencies have failed to set discharge permit limits for 

individual plants to require the best available treatment technology and protect water quality. 

Affordable technology exists to eliminate the toxic discharges from the seven waste streams 

addressed by the Proposed Rule, and many coal plants are using these technologies.5 EPA has 

an obligation under the Clean Water Act to address this pollution. A strong final rule will 

reduce public health risk from drinking water and save Public Water Systems and their 

consumers money.

Putting Drinking Water First:

Time to Curb Power Plants’ Toxic Pollution
Four contaminants illustrate the threats power plants pose for drinking water. There is 

an important opportunity to protect drinking water sources from these contaminants up 

front, rather than relying on our nation’s Public Water Systems to clean-up power plant 

pollution after the fact:

Arsenic: Arsenic is a contaminant of long-standing concern in drinking water. Arsenic has 

been linked to several types of cancer including of the bladder and lungs and to non-cancer 

effects including of the circulatory system.6 Recent science suggests that arsenic has endocrine 

disrupting characteristics that may be related to diabetes, obesity and other diseases.7 When 

EPA updated the federal drinking water standard or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for 

arsenic in 2002, it estimated that more than 4,000 Public Water Systems would need to install 

treatment to comply with the MCL.8 This treatment has been costly for many communities. 

Much of the arsenic found in drinking water sources is naturally occurring, and pinpointing 

the relative contribution of power plants or other human activity sources on a nationwide scale 

is difficult. However, the arsenic discharges to surface water from power plants estimated by 

EPA (79,200 pounds annually) are significant.9 A 2007 EPA assessment of coal combustion waste 

damage cases found several instances where arsenic levels exceeded drinking water standards 

in ground water near combustion residuals surface impoundments, one of the waste streams 

at issue in the Proposed Rule.

10 Available information suggests that arsenic discharges from 

power plants have increased public health risks from drinking water and have most likely 

led to increased drinking water treatment costs for some communities.

Nutrients: According to EPA, power plants discharge 30 million pounds of nitrogen and 682,000 

pounds of phosphorous annually into surface waters.11 Nutrient pollution is related to drinking 

water challenges in several ways. Nitrogen discharges from industrial sources contribute 

to the development of nitrates in drinking water sources. Children under six months of 

age are particularly susceptible to the effects of nitrates in drinking water, which include 

respiratory problems and methemoglobinemia or “blue baby syndrome.”12 Additional drinking 

water treatment for nitrates has led to significant increased costs for PWS and consumers. 

Nitrogen in drinking water sources can increase formation of disinfection byproducts in 

water treatment plants, resulting in treatment complications and increased costs to prevent 

byproduct development in order to meet SDWA regulations and protect public health.

Nutrient pollution also increases growth of cyanobacteria (blue–green algae), which release 

cyanotoxins. Exposure to cyanotoxins can cause a variety of symptoms and can affect the 

nervous system and the liver.13 The presence of cyanotoxins in rivers and lakes can result 

in bans on recreational use and has been known to harm wildlife and livestock. Presence of 

cyanotoxins in source water can result in community-wide “do not drink” advisories. Three 

cyanotoxins (Anatoxin-a, Microcystin–LR and Cylindrospermopsin) are on the third version 

of EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3).14 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires 

EPA to periodically develop a list of contaminants that may require future regulation. A 

contaminant’s presence on the CCL list is significant because it indicates that the contaminant 

has undergone a screening process which determined that there is enough information about 

occurrence and health effects to merit further research. The third version of the CCL, finalized 

in 2009, includes 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants which 

are known or anticipated to occur in public water and which have the potential to present 

health risks through drinking water exposure.
Nutrient pollution’s wider ecological impacts have implications for drinking water sources 

and treatment and for the operations of Publicly Owned Treatments Works (POTW’s/sewage 

treatment plants.) Nutrient pollution leads to dead zones, algal blooms and other ecological 

threats. Nutrients pollution has caused disastrous consequences in the Chesapeake Bay. 

According to EPA, power plant discharges to water are responsible for 30% of the nitrogen 

loadings and 5% of the phosphorous loadings to the Chesapeake Bay watershed from permitted 

direct sources.15 Sewage treatment plants are required to meet significant reductions in 

nutrient discharges. Addressing power plant nutrient discharges into the Chesapeake Bay 

and other surface waters is a common-sense way to protect precious resources and ensure 

that all contributing sources are cleaning up their pollution.

Vanadium: Vanadium is a metal widely present in the earth’s crust and in most coal and 

petroleum crude oils. EPA estimates that power plants discharge 158,000 pounds of vanadium 

annually.16 Inclusion of vanadium on the CCL3 list indicates that there is enough information 

about its occurrence and health effects to merit further research to determine if regulation 

is warranted.17 Consequently, Public Water Systems are now monitoring for vanadium under 

the third version of the SDWA Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) finalized in 

2012. Every five years, SDWA requires EPA to develop a list of no more than 30 contaminants 

for monitoring by Public Water Systems under the UCMR. This monitoring is an important part 

of the information needed for any future regulatory actions.18 The presence of vanadium on 

both CCL3 and UCMR3, two key aspects of the SDWA regulatory process, indicates that it is a 

concern in drinking water. Upstream sources of vanadium should be addressed as aggressively 

as possible rather than relying on drinking water treatment to address this contamination. As 

is the case with arsenic, much of the vanadium found in water is naturally occurring, but with 

vanadium, a federal drinking water standard (MCL) is not currently in place. Identifying and 

eliminating industrial sources of vanadium contamination wherever possible will not only 

reduce public health risks from drinking water, but could potentially help communities 

avoid water treatment costs should a federal standard be set in the future.

Bromides: Bromide is a halogenated element found in the coal burned in power plants. 

Bromides can also be introduced during power plant operation. There is evidence that power 

plants discharge large quantities of bromides.19 Bromides are of increasing concern to drinking 

water experts because of chemical reactions that can occur during the water treatment process 

to form “disinfection byproducts” known to cause cancer. Recent scientific research suggests 

that some of these byproducts merit increased attention.20 Other research is increasing 

the understanding of bromides sources and their impact on water treatment, including 

increased costs incurred by Public Water Systems to control byproduct formation.21 Given 

the emerging science on bromides, reducing discharges that can lead to drinking water 

source contamination is of the utmost importance in order to reduce public health risks and 

relieve potential burdens on Public Water Systems and their consumers.

EPA’s Proposed Rule and supporting documents confirm that power plant pollution is directly 

responsible for toxic discharges which cause contamination in drinking water supplies. In the 

Benefits and Costs Analysis document for the Proposed Rule, EPA did not monetize benefits of 

improved surface water quality in terms of drinking water consumption because Public Water 

Systems are required to meet federal standards and thus are eliminating most of the health 

risks posed by any SDWA-regulated contaminant present in power plant discharges.22 This is a 
 

NOTES

1 78 Fed.Reg at 34,432 – 34,543

2 EPA, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category 3-14 (April 2013) 

3 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm

4 33 U.S.C. § 1314 (b); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a)(1), 123.25, 125.3

5 Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Earthjustice and Waterkeeper Alliance, Closing the Floodgates: 

How the Coal Industry is Poisoning Our Water and How We Can Stop It (2013), available at http://cleanwater.org/files/

publications/closing-floodgates.pdf

6 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm

7 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~toxmetal/research-projects/arsenic-endocrine-disruptor.html

8 EPA, Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Monitoring Rule: A Quick Reference Guide, EPA 816-F-01-004 

(January 2001)

9 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm

10 EPA, Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments, July 9, 2007

11 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm

12 http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm

13 EPA, Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: Information for Drinking Water Systems, EPA 810F-11001, July 2012

14 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ccl3.cfm

15 EPA, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category, 3-30 (April 2013)

16 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm

17 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ccl3.cfm

18 http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ucmr/ucmr3/

19 Fed. Reg at 34,505

20 Environmental Health Perspectives, Disinfection By-products: A Question of Balance, Rita Schoeny, November 2011

21 Journal – American Water Works Association, Marcellus Shale drilling and brominated THMs in Pittsburgh, PA, drinking water, 

Stanley States et al, 2013

22 EPA, Benefit and Cost Analysis for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Point Source Category, 2-4, (April 2013)

1444 Eye Street NW, #400, Washington DC 20005-6538 | 202.895.0420 | www.cleanwater.org

CLEAN WATER ACTION | CLEAN WATER FUND

September 2013

powerful fact. It indicates that in terms of regulated contaminants, PWS and their consumers 

are essentially footing the bill to reduce the public health risks from power plant water 

discharges. While this benefits public health and is a testament to modern drinking water 

treatment, it is not an efficient way to control industrial pollution. Eliminating contaminants 

at their source is vastly more appropriate than relying on our nation’s Public Water Systems to 

clean up the toxic waste stream from a polluting sector of the economy.

The strongest possible final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric 

Power Generating Point Source Category is justified and will reduce drinking water public 

health risks from, prevent drinking water challenges and save communities, Public 

Water Systems and their consumers money.