EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 1

EPA and EME Meeting on Proposed 316(b) Rule

November 16, 2011

Bill Constantelos, email: bconstantelo@mwgen.com, phone: 630.770.7829

Julia Wozniak, email: jwozniak@mwgen.com, phone: 630.771.7880

Mark Gerath, email: mark.gerath@aecom.com, phone: 978.905.2217

Erik Heinen, email: erik.heinen@aecom.com, phone: 651.367.2305

Greg Seegert, email: gseegert@eaest.com, phone 847.945.8010
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 2

Edison Mission Energy– Input on Draft 316(b) Rule

• Introduction to EME

• EME 316(b) comments submittal

– Comment submitted by Basil G. Constantelos, Managing Director,

Environmental Services, Midwest Generation, Edison Mission Energy, LLC -

Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-2245

• Achieving impingement mortality (IM) limitations unlikely at many

facilities

– As structured, no credit for measures that reduce impingement rates

– Importance of site-specific factors

• Redundant impingement mortality requirements

• Variances from impingement mortality requirements

• Proposed Changes

• Other Issues
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 3

EME Overview – Total Generation = 9,852 MW

• Fleet consists of wind, gas-fired, and coal-fired

• Seven steam electric power plants covered by rule in

Illinois and Pennsylvania

Facility

Rated Capacity

(MW) Cooling System Source Water

Powerton 1538 Closed Cycle (Cooling Pond) Illinois River

Homer City 1884 Closed Cycle (Cooling Towers) Two Lick Creek

Waukegan 681 Open Cycle Lake Michigan

Fisk 326 Open Cycle South Branch of Chicago River

Crawford 532 Open Cycle Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Will County 761 Open Cycle Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Joliet 9 & 29 1350 Open Cycle Lower Des Plaines River
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 4

Concern: Impingement Mortality Limitations Likely to be

Unachievable at Many Facilities

• Some common species have high mortality following

impingement on modified travelling screens

– Directors are likely to consider these “species of concern” in some

cases

• Site-specific factors are likely to reduce the performance of

Ristroph modified travelling screens

• No apparent alternatives to achieving compliance under

proposed rule at reasonable cost for many facilities
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 5

Data Used By EPA Demonstrates that IM is Highly

Species-Specific

• Mortality following impingement on modified travelling

screens is highly dependent on species

– The three plants selected by EPA happened to have poor

representation of sensitive species. Therefore, the aggregated

survival rate is high. Other plants will have much lower aggregated

survival.

Species Name

# Impinged

That Died

# impinged

That Survived

Total #

Impinged

% Impingement

Mortality

Alewife 298 184 553 67%

Atlantic herring 336 100 436 77%

Gizzard shad 324 3837 4446 14%

Emerald Shiner 344 14841 15249 3%

Rock bass 4 676 684 1%

Threespine stickleback 2 1517 1519 0%

1. Data obtained from Exhibit 11C-1. Impingement Data Used to Develop the Proposed Limitations (EPA-821-R-11-001)
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 6

Data Used By EPA Demonstrates that IM is Highly

Species Specific (continued)

• IM exceeds 12% (the proposed annual limitation) for 18 of

67 species evaluated by US EPA when developing

standards

– Some of these species are commonly impinged and represent a high

proportion of impinged species at many plants

• EPRI 2003: “Species type appears to be the primary

biological factor influencing impingement survival.”

– Latent IM on modified traveling screens rotated continuously

exceeded 12% for 50 of 88 species

Species Name EPA Data EPRI Data

Alewife 67% 93%

Atlantic herring 77% na

Gizzard shad 14% 52%

Emerald Shiner 3% 10%

Rock bass 1% 4%

Threespine stickleback 0% 7%
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 7

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Dominance of Species with Sensitivity to Handling Stress

• Example: EME’s Waukegan facility:

• Data from EPRI, 2003 put weighted IM above 90%

• Compliance with IM limits may not be feasible with

modified traveling screens

– No clear path to compliance under the proposed rule with other

feasible/reasonable cost alternatives

Species Proportion IM1 Weighted IM

Alewife 97% 67% 65%

Spottail Shiner 0.90% 4% 0.03%

Threespine Stickleback 0.30% 0% 0.00%

Gizzard Shad 0.90% 14% 0.10%

Total 99.4% 65%

1. Species specific impingement mortality calculated with data

from Exhibit 11C-1 of EPA’s TDD
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 8

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Species of Concern (SOC)

• Alewife and other forage species that are sensitive to

handling stress are likely to be considered SOC by NPDES

Directors in some areas (for example, Lake Michigan)

• The inherent sensitivities of clupieds suggest that, in many

cases, measures that limit impingement are more

appropriate than measures that attempt to limit mortality

following impingement
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 9

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Debris Loading:

• High debris loads are common and occur year-round in

canal and river systems

– Trash, CSO wastes, algae, aquatic plants, leaves, etc.

• Debris loads likely to significantly increase IM

– Aquatic organisms likely to become entangled in debris, making

separation infeasible

• Potential that significant numbers of organisms may be retained with

debris and not returned

– Smothering effect and potential for increased abrasion and scale

loss
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 10

Debris Loading at EME’s Facilities on Chicago Sanitary

and Ship Canal

• Facilities on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Lower

Des Plaines River impinge large amounts of trash, debris,

and vegetation

– Crawford Facility ~ 60 tons annually

– Will County Facility ~ 60 tons annually

– Fisk Facility ~ 60 tons annually

– Joliet 29 ~ 30 tons annually

• Debris to fish (weight/weight) ratios of approximately 45:1

at EME’s plants on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 11

Debris Loading at Urbanized Canal and River Stations
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 12

Fish Entangled in Debris
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 13

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Placement and Operation of Fish Return

• The ability of long fish returns to effectively return viable organisms is

questionable.

– Operation in hot or cold weather climates given long distances

• Adverse impacts of rapid temperature changes on survival

• Potential for freezing of water within the return

– Return to ice covered water body

• Return to zone of hydraulic influence of intake (at canal plants)

~2,800 ft
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 14

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Implications:

• Investment in technology without confidence that

compliance can be achieved

– EME sees few opportunities to optimize performance of Ristroph

screens

• No clear alternative to achieving compliance under the

proposed rule if IM performance is not achieved

– Lack of feasible alternatives to meet performance goals

– Achieving intake velocity <0.5 fps is not feasible in all locations;

costs extremely high in others

• Lack of alternative could drive some states to require

closed cycle cooling to achieve IM compliance

– Severe space limitations

– Extremely high cost to benefit ratio

– Significant adverse impacts relative to minimal benefits
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 15

Achieving IM Limitations Not Feasible at All Facilities –

Implications

• Limited alternatives that have potential to achieve IM compliance; options

infeasible at many plants (see Table A-1 of Comment Letter).

– Lack of credit for measures that reduce impingement significantly limits

alternatives

Alternative

Potential to Achieve Compliance

Under Proposed Rule? Basis

Variable speed pumps No

Operational flow reduction No

Re-location of intake structure No

Deterrents (e.g., acoustics louvers) No

Barrier Net Limited

Potential to be compliant based on intake velocity <0.5 fps if deployed year

round. However, debris, ice loading, ship traffic make alternative infeasible in

many situations. Applicability of monitoring requirements unclear.

Velocity Cap No No impact on mortality following impingement. Reduces impingement rates

Aquatic filter barrier Limited

Potential to be compliant based on intake velocity <0.5 fps if deployed year

round. However, not feasible at large plants, operationally challenging when

feasible. Applicability of monitoring requirements unclear.

Cylindrical wedgewire screens Limited

Potential to be compliant based on intake velocity <0.5 fps. However, not

feasible in many situations due to water depth, obstruction to navigation, etc.

Applicability of monitoring requirements unclear.

Expand intake structure to achieve

intake velocities <0.5 fps Limited Space constraints limit feasibility in many cases. When feasible, costs

extremely high.

Closed Cycle Cooling Limited Not feasible at some locations. Extreme costs relative to benefits, significant

adverse impacts.

No impact on mortality following impingement. Reduces impingement rates
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 16

Proposed Alternative IM Requirements

• Facilities that install pre-approved BTA (including Ristroph

screens with fish return) should be deemed fully compliant

with rule’s IM requirements – technology “safe harbor”

– Quantitative IM limitation not applicable

– Include requirements to monitor operations and ensure best

practices implemented

– More effective measures allowed as alternative

• Advantages:

– Consistent implementation

– Benefits of modified traveling screens widely realized, particularly for

species less sensitive to handling stress

– Significantly reduced burden on permitting agencies

– Clear path to compliance
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 17

Redundant Requirements for IM Unwarranted

• Measures that independently achieve high reductions in IM have very small

incremental benefit

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ristroph Screens Ristroph Screens with CCC Ristroph Screens With CCC and

<0.5 fps

Impingement Mortality Reduction

Ristroph Screens

<0.5 fps intake

velocity

Closed Cycle

Cooling

For illustration purposes, I/IM reductions by technology:

Closed cycle cooling ~ 90%

Less than 0.5 fps intake velocity: ~90%

Modified travelling screens with a fish return: ~80% - Highly site-specific

80%

8%

0.8%
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 18

Variances Should be Allowed for Supported SiteSpecific Considerations:

• EPA should allow variances for fundamentally different

factors as allowed under the effluent guidelines program

• Site-specific factors are critical to determining feasibility

and performance of alternatives for reducing IM and EM

– Complex interaction of organisms with technology and other site

specific factors (e.g., debris loading)

– Site specific factors have greater impact on performance, costs, and

feasibility of alternatives for reducing IM and EM than technologies

considered under Effluent Guidelines Program (i.e., reduction in

chemical concentration)

• Factors to be considered:

– Feasibility of technology considered BTA by EPA

– Costs relative to benefits including de minimis impingement

– Other adverse environmental impacts of the alternative (e.g.

returning debris and invasives)
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 19

Mitigation Should Not Be Required When Invasive or

Exotic Species Dominate Impingement

• EME Facilities on Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

impinge primarily invasive and/or exotic species

– Significant investment in controlling these species within the canal

through non-selective methods (e.g., Federally funded electric fish

barrier; widespread removal efforts, fish kills conducted by state

natural resources agencies, etc.)

– Expenditure on fisheries protection at odds with water body specific

eradication programs – removal of exotics and invasives are a net

environmental benefit

• Facility specific costs relative to benefits of proposed rule

are very high
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 20

Variances Should be Allowed for Supported SiteSpecific Considerations: Costs Relative to Benefits

• Site specific cost to benefit ratio can be extremely high

Facility

Annualized Cost of

Modified Screens1Benefits2C:B Ratio

Crawford $ 550,000 $ 3,400 160

Fisk $ 220,000 $ 1,900 120

Joliet 29 $ 380,000 $ 46,000 8

Will County $ 480,000 $ 18,000 27

Waukegan $ 450,000 $ 13,000 35

Estimated Cost to Benefit Ratio for the Installation of Modified Ristroph

Screens and Fish Return

Note: 1. Annualized costs developed consistent with procedures in proposed rule.
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 21

Mitigation Should Not Be Required Where Impacts are

Determined to be de minimis

• NPDES director is most likely to understand the full

perspective and should maintain discretionary authority

• Factors that Might be Considered:

– Low overall impingement rates

– Impingement of species of concern

– Comparison to recreational and/or commercial capture

– Value of impinged species

– Prevalence of exotic or nuisance species

– Dominance of low value forage species

– Absence of threatened and endangered species

– Size of nearby populations of species of concern relative to rates of

impingement
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 22

Summary of EME Proposed Changes in Final Rule

• Designate Ristroph modified screens as pre-approved BTA

– Quantitative IM limitation not applicable

– Allow implementation of any alternative demonstrated to be higher

performing, based on site-specific considerations

• Either closed cycle or <0.5 fps intake velocity should be

fully compliant

• Clearly define species of concern (SOC) and limit

application of any performance standards to them

– Exempt those species known to be sensitive to handling stress

• Provide variances from IM requirements when

– Impacts are de minimis

– Costs are wholly disproportionate to benefits

– The alternatives considered by US EPA (i.e., Ristroph, intake of 0.5

fps) are infeasible
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 23

Other Issues

• Very tight implementation schedule – strongly suggest

phasing as in Phase II:

– Availability of agency and peer review resource likely to be

insufficient to meet rule requirements

– Schedule likely to lead to require facilities to initiate monitoring

before agency has reviewed/approved sampling plans

– IM monitoring plan required before alternative technologies are

necessarily installed

• Allow credit towards any numeric performance goals for

alternatives measures, including those that reduce

impingement rates, e.g.,

– Flow reduction

– Deterrents

– Intake location

• Peer review requirements are unnecessary and

burdensome – very likely to lead to delays and constraints
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 24

Other Issues (continued)

• The definition of closed cycle cooling should be based on

the engineering of the cooling system and not include

minimum cycles of concentration or flow reduction

• Impingement mortality monitoring requirements are

unclear, excessive, and difficult to apply

– Standard methods for assessing latent mortality following

impingement have not been developed; logistical issues with small

numbers of fish

– Results should not be reported in DMRs

• Impingement rate (enumeration) monitoring does not

provide useful information given the proposed reliance on

IM

• The thresholds for inclusion in the rule should be based on

actual intake flow rather than design intake flow
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 25

Other Issues (continued)

• Requiring estimation of intake velocity at low water is

overly burdensome – potential impacts best estimated by

conditions most common over long-term

• Intake flow threshold of 2 MGD is too low – results in great

inefficiencies and very poor cost to benefit ratio

• Concept of entrapment is not well defined. The level of

impact is not clear and approaches to mitigation uncertain

as well as uncosted

– Real ambiguity with intakes that might exhibit intake velocity < 0.5

fps

• EME endorses EPA’s conclusion that closed cycle cooling

is not nationwide BTA
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 26

Summary

• The IM limitations in the proposed rule are not feasible to

meet in many cases

• There are not clear alternatives to comply when this is the

case

• The final rule should include pre-approved technologies

that are compliant with the IM requirements without

meeting any numeric performance standards

• The final rule should allow variances when site specific

factors make compliance infeasible or unduly burdensome
EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 11/16/11 Page 27

EME PROPOSED FLOW

CHART FOR

ALTERNATIVE RULE

PRESENTED IN

COMMENT DOCUMENT.

FULL SIZED VERSION IN

HAND OUT PACKAGE.

Please Note in Comment

EME’s Letter: Appendix

A is summary of EME’s

plants’ circumstances

and Appendix B is

proposed changes to

regulatory language.