11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 847.945.801011/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 Issues11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 River11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 facilities11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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)11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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%11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 TDD11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 impingement11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 loss11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 Canal11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting Page 11 

## Debris Loading at Urbanized Canal and River Stations11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting Page 12 

## Fish Entangled in Debris11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 ft11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 benefits11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 rates11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 compliance11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 fpsImpingement 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%11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 minimisimpingement – Other adverse environmental impacts of the alternative (e.g. returning debris and invasives)11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 high11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 Screens 1 Benefits

2 C: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.11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting Page 21 

## Mitigation Should Not Be Required Where Impacts are Determined to bede 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 impingement11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 arede minimis – Costs are wholly disproportionate to benefits – The alternatives considered by US EPA (i.e., Ristroph, intake of 0.5 fps) are infeasible11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 constraints11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 flow11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 BTA11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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 burdensome11/16/11 EME EPA 316(b) Rule Meeting 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.