Utility Water Act Group 

August 19, 2015 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. Vlad Dorjets 

Office of Information and Reguiatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dear Mr. Dorjets, 

Steering! Audit Committee 

Alan R. Wood, P.E., Chairman 

Raymond Averitt 

C. Richard Bozek 

Russe ll J. Furnari 

Donna B. Hill 

Claudette B. Horn 

David M. Lee 

Robert Matty 

Jennifer A. Stenger, P.E. 

Keith Stephens 

Thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss the ramifications of EPA's proposed 

Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rule. This letter describes in more detail our issues with 

EPA's proposed limits for FGD wastewater and our recommendations for a more feasible and 

cost-effective approach. 

I. UWAG's Cost Effectiveness Analysis 

As we explained at our recent meeting and in our 2013 comments, only 

physical/chemical treatment is cost effective for FGD wastewater. UW AG estimated the costeffectiveness of applying physical/chemical treatment to all units above 50 MW s at $311 per 

TWPE ($1981 ). The cost-effectiveness of incremental biological treatment, in contrast, is $1346 

per TWPE ($1981). See UWAG 2013 Comments, Attachment 14, p. 16. Incremental biological 

treatment, therefore, is more than three times higher than EPA's highest ever cost per TWPE 

($404 per TWPE, for the Electrical and Electronic Components industry) (as referenced in the 

proposed Steam Electric Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504). 

There are several reasons why EPA's TWPEs and costs per TWPEs for FGD wastewater 

are different from UW AG's, and we wanted to highlight the most important ones, as described 

below. 

11. EPA Counted TWPEs for Pollutants not Removed by the Biological Portion of the 

Treatment System 

As we noted in our 2013 Comments, using the EPA sampling data, the TWPE reductions 

for boron, magnesium, manganese, cadmium, and cyanide account for 87% of the TWPEs 

removed by biological treatment. But those TWPEs are not accurate. The apparent removal is 

Hunton & Williams LLP • Counsel to UWAG • 2200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20037 
,-----------------------

v~·' n~ Utility Water Act Group 

Mr. Vlad Dorjets 

August 19, 2015 

Page 2 

caused by EPA's mismatching of influent to, and effluent from, the biological treatment system. 

EPA used average concentration values from the physical/chemical effluent for three facilities, 

Hatfield, Keystone, and Miami Fort, and applied these values as if they were actual influent 

concentrations to the biological treatment systems at Allen and Belews Creek. See UW AG 2013 

Comments, pp. 132-4 7. EPA did this despite having actual characterization data for the influent 

to the biological portion of the treatment systems at Allen and Belews Creek. 

EPRI also commented on this issue, noting that "plants used for CP [chemical/physical] 

evaluation have much higher average concentrations of manganese, cyanide, magnesium, and 

boron than the two plants [Allen and Belews Creek] used for Biological Effluent. This leads to 

the false appearance of constituent removal." EPRI 2013 Comments, p. 4-10. EPRI provides the 

following table illustrating the correct percentage removals at Allen and Belews Creek for four 

parameters based on EPA sampling data: 

Evaluation of True Biological Removal of Four "Artifact" Constituents at Allen and Belews 

Creek 

Parameter Allen Belews Creek 

Biological Biological Removal Biological Biological Removal Influent Effluent (%) Influent Effluent (%) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) 

Magnesium 675 ,500 676,000 --- 702,500 739,000 ---

Cyanide 1 88 104 --- 33.4 33.0 I 

Manganese 1,279 1,072 16 2,701 2,844 --

Boron 94,717 78,616 17 164,431 168,000 ---

EPRI 2013 Comments, p. 4-11 (based on EPA SER data). 

In addition to the mismatches for magnesium, cyapide, manganese, and boron, UW AG 

also identified cadmium as a constituent for which EPA erroneously claimed levels of removal 

1 All ofEPA's cyanide data are questionable. UWAG commented that EPA's cyanide 

data which it used to calculate FGD TWPEs were invalid because of the potential interferences 

with the chosen analytical method, 4500 CN E. In fact, all of EPA's cyanide data was qualified 

by its laboratory due to analytical issues such as: (I) inadequate preservation of samples; 

(2) measurements were less than the MDL, (3) measurements were less than the RL; (4) matrix 

spikes and/or matrix spike duplicates were not within laboratory control limits; or (5) cyanide 

was found in the blank. See UWAG 2013 Comments, pp. 141-44. 
.J 

utility Water Act Group 

Mr. Vlad Dorjets 

August 19,2015 

Page 3 

within the biological portion of the treatment system due to mismatched data. UW AG 2013 

Comments, pp. 133-34. Therefore, EPA's method of estimating FGD wastewater removals was 

not scientifically valid, as is evident from EPA's own data, when the Allen and Belews Creek 

physical/chemical effluent is compared to the Allen and Belews Creek biological effluent. 

III. EPA Did Not Evaluate Incremental Biological Treatment 

Another major difference between EPA's and UWAG's approach to FGD TWPEs and 

cost per TWPE arises from EPA's choice to assess pollutant removals and costs collectively for 

physicat/chemical and biological treatment. In contrast, UW AG separately examined the 

pollutant removals and resulting TWPEs for physical/chemical treatment and incremental 

biological treatment. UWAG's approach is supported by EPA and OMB guidelines, which 

recommend assessing incremental costs and benefits for regulatory alternatives. 2 Because 

physical/chemical treatment is so effective and removes a large majority of the pollutants, EPA's 

combined TWPEs are high in comparison to UWAG's for incremental biological treatment. 

Based on EPA's flawed approach, UW AG' s experts estimated EPA's cost per TWPE for 

physical/chemical plus biological to be $61 per TWPE ($1981 ). This is very low compared to 

UW AG's for incremental biological treatment ($1346 per TWPE ($1981)). 

IV. UWAG's Analysis of FGD Thresholds 

As one of its preferred options, EPA proposed to apply limits based on physical/chemical 

treatment plus biological to plants with a total wet scrubbed capacity greater than 2000 MWs, 

and "best professional judgment" limits below that threshold. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,458. UW AG 

proposes a similar option. UW AG proposes that EPA promulgate adjusted mercury and arsenic 

limits consistent with physical/chemical treatment only for plants with a total wet scrubbed 

capacity (not including dry scrubber units or other scrubbed units that do not discharge, such as 

those with solid fixation processes, spray dryers or those which evaporate FGD wastewater and 

use the concentrate to condition ash prior to landfilling) below 2000 MWs. For plants equal to 

2000 MWs or greater total wet scrubbed capacity (again, not including dry scrubbers or other 

scrubbed units that do not discharge), UWAG proposes that EPA promulgate adjusted mercury, 

arsenic and selenium limits based on physical/chemical treatment plus biological treatment. 

2 See U.S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, p. ll-5 (2010). Also, 

OMB Circular A-4 (p. 5) states: "Once an agency identifies the least burdensome tool for 

achieving its regulatory objective, measuring the incremental benefits and costs of successively 

more stringent regulatory alternatives will allow an agency to identify the alternative that 

maximizes net benefits." 
• 

--.) 

Utility Water Act Group 

Mr. Vlad Dorjets 

August 19,2015 

Page 4 

UW AG has carefully studied the industry's fleet of scrubbed units. We started with the 

released ICR data and then collected additional and updated data on scrubbers during the 

comment period. We used the updated data (which included some technology upgrades not 

reported in the ICR) to define the universe of plants with wet scrubbers and the individual plants' 

levels ofFGD wastewater treatment. We used EPA's FGD characterization data (adjusted to 

address false removals, as discussed above) to develop TWPE estimates and costs per TWPE. 

Attachment 37 to the UW AG 2013 Comments documents our analysis. 

Based on that analysis, if EPA applies mercury, arsenic, and selenium limits based on 

physical/chemical and biological treatment to those plants with a total wet scrubbed capacity 

above 2,000 MWs, and applies limits for mercury and arsenic based on physical/chemical 

treatment only for plants between 50 MWs and 2000 MWs, the approach will remove 92% of 

total TWPEs that would be removed if the combined physical/chemical and biological treatment 

were applied to all plants. 

As we discussed, EPA's proposed limits for arsenic, selenium, and mercury are not 

feasible as industry-wide standards. EPA's failure to consider whether physical/chemical plus 

biological treatment is appropriate for plants burning Powder River Basin coal is a serious gap in 

the record. Moreover, as coal-fired units react to new market and regulatory conditions, they 

need the flexibility to adjust coal blends and will move from baseload to peaking units. These 

transitions will affect the operation of biological treatment units. 

Again, thank you for meeting with us and please contact me (205-257-5234) or Kristy 

Bulleit (202-955-1547) if you have any questions about UWAG's recommendations. 

Very truly yours, 

Is/ 

Donna B. Hill 

UW AG Effluent Guidelines Chair 

•