### Matuszko, Jan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dorjets, Vlad <VIadik_Dorjets@omb.eop.gov> Tuesday, September 22, 2015 10:20 AM Matuszko, Jan FW: ELG Rule: BATW BMPs and Reuse BATW BMPs and Reuse-c.pdf

Forwarding a letter sent by UWAG for your information

.

From: Aldridge, Elizabeth [mailto:ealdridge@hunton.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 3:51 PM To: southerland.elizabeth@epa.gov; Dorjets, V1 lad <VIadik_Dorjets@omb.eop.gov> Cc: Bulleit, Kristy <kbulleit@hunton.com> Subject: El G Rule: BATW BMPs and Reuse Dear Betsy and Vlad, Here is 

### ashort paper outlining the industry's proposed approach to further regulation of bottom ash transport water, as discussed in earlier meetings. Please don't hesitate to 

### c.al t me or Kristy (202/955-1547) 

### ifyou have any questions

. Regards,
Liz Aldridge

Elizabeth Aldridge Counsel ealdridge@hunton

.com p 804.788.8549 bio 1 vCard Hunton & Williams LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 hunton

.com

1

### Further Regulation ofBATW Based on Existing BPT Limits and Stringent BMPs A. Introduction Regulating bottom ash transport water (BATW) using a combination ofexisting limits and best management practices (BMPs). This alternative approach would ensure significant changes in power plant BATW management and very large reductions in pollutant loadings, while at the same time providing necessary operational flexibility. This approach is being offered even though it is evident on the record that no further regulation ofBATW isjustified using EPA's own cost-effectiveness test. This paper outlines the industry's alternative approach and explains why the approach is environmentally beneficial and yet preserves needed industry flexibility. EPA's proposed rule regarding BATW is flawed for the following reasons:
• EPA's proposed "no discharge" approach to BATW at existing facilities is not feasible. It

### would require absolutely no discharge ofBATW over the life ofthe facility, without any exceptions. That limit is not achievable industry-wide with the two technologies EPA selected as Best Available Technology (BAT) for BATW, Mechanical Drag Systems (MDS) and Remote Mechanical Drag Systems (RMDS). MDS, which is retrofitted under the boiler, is not possible at plants with subsurface boilers or limited space around the boiler. RMDS, which involves sluicing bottom ash from underthe boiler to a remote location for dewatering, cannot meet a "no discharge" limit all ofthe time.

• EPA's proposed anti-circumvention provision subjects any wastewater combined with a "no discharge" wastewater to the no discharge standard. The provision, therefore, essentially prohibits the reuse ofBATW in other plant processes that discharge. For instance, plants currently using BATW as scrubber makeup water, boiler makeup water, and/or service water would have to cease these practices and (I) retrofit to a dry or "closed-loop" system for bottom ash handling; (2) identify a new source ofscrubber makeup, boiler makeup, or service water; and (3) install new piping to get the new source ofwater to the scrubber or boiler, or to the service water system. B. 

### Industry's Alternative Approach The steam electric industry is undergoing rapid transition, which will result in the closure of many coal-fired units and a significant transformation ofthe remaining units. Coal-fired plants are already undergoing extensive water balance evaluations associated with implementation of the final Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) rule and associated ash pond closures. In order to close these wastewatertreatment systems, wastewater must be directed away from the ponds to other treatment systems. Facilities are in the process oftightening their water balances to withdraw less water so that less water has to be treated prior to discharge. 

### Jn addition, the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) will force closure ofmultiple coal-fired plants in the 2022 to 2029 time period as C02 emission reductions are phased in by State Implementation Plans. EPA's 

### JPM model (as adjusted to account for the CPP rule) predicts a large number ofclosures in the 2016 to 2022 time period based on the implementation ofMATs, CCR, § 316(b), and CSAPR final rules. This alternative approach for BATW makes practical and economic sense in terms ofthe future operation ofcoal-fired power plants
. It provides the flexibility needed to continue to operate the remaining coal-fired plants during a transitional period prior to bringing new generation (natural gas, nuclear and renewables) online to service the nation's electricity needs. This flexibility is needed to provide reliable and affordable power to customers ofall ranges ofincome across the country. The industry proposal consists ofthe following elements:

• Remove any "no discharge" provisions for BATW ( 1) for existing facilities (including any associated "anti-circumvention" provisions) and (2) in Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).

• For existingfacilities with coal-fired generating capacity greater than 50 MWs and less than or equal to 1,000 MWs, the existing BPT limits should continue to apply (Total Suspended Solids (TSS), oil and grease and pH). See 40 C.F.R
. 

### § 423.12 (b)(4).

• For existing facilities with coal-fired generating capacity greater than 1,000 MWs, in addition to the BPT limits for blowdown, maintenance or emergency overflows, the regulation would provide for best management practices (BMPs) to control BATW discharges. As explained below, BMPs can be structured to provide significant environmental benefits. 

### Best Management Practices Under the approach offered here, the regulation would require the permittee to conduct a study to determine how to minimize BATW blowdown and to develop, based on the study and other available information, a draft best management practices (BMP) plan, based on site-specific factors. The study would include an evaluation ofa variety ofpractices and technologies, including, but not limited to, recycling ofBATW, reuse ofBATW in other processes, and available and feasible technologies, such as dewatering bins, MDS, RMDS, and other systems, to determine the BMPs for the facility. The plan could include a combination ofthese practices and/or technologies, including existing practices and/or technologies already implemented by the plant. The study and BMP plan would be submitted to the permit writer by the next permit renewal application deadline that is at least 3 years after the effective date ofthe ELG rule. The study and BMP plan would consider the following factors:

• Age and expected life span ofthe facility's coal-fired generating units and related equipment.

• Announced retirement date ofthe facility and/or its capacity factor.

2• Reuses ofBATW (both existing and potential) within facility processes, including use as FGD makeup, boiler water makeup, cooling tower makeup and for service water. Reuse ofBATW for other plant processes is environmentally beneficial. Itreduces the amount ofwater facllities must withdraw from source waterbodies.

• Operation and maintenance ofBATW systems, including any anticipated need to discharge BATW as part ofroutine maintenance, or to allow for repair or upgrade ofany portion ofthe BATW system. • Emergency overflows and handling ofsame to reduce BATW discharges.

• Costs and cost-effectiveness ofany potential equipment or operational measures to reduce BATW discharges
. • Engineering feasibility ofapproaches to minimize BATW blowdown, including, but not limited to, space limitations. The permit writer, on the basis ofthe study and BMP plan and any other available information, will evaluate and establish BMPs for minimizing BATW blowdown from the facility
. 

### C. Justification for Industry Alternative Approach l. EPA's "No Discharge" BATW Limit is Not Feasible EPA assumed an array ofmodel technologies for compliance with a "no discharge" standard, including remote mechanical drag chain systems (RMDS). During the proposal stage, EPA assumed that 149 plants would comply with the standard by installing RMDS. However, it is erroneous to assume that an RMDS can operate for years and never discharge. The RMDS systems in place in the industry do discharge. They may discharge for maintenahce activities, or after major storm events, or to prevent build-up ofcorrosive fines within the system. For example, TVA's Bull Run Station, a single unit with an average generating capacity of881 MW, installed an RMDS for handling bottom ash in 2012. Two trains, consisting oftwo submerged flight conveyors, two clarifiers, silos for dewatering, and a flow equalization tank, were installed to dewater and ultimately landfill bottom ash on-site. Redundant trains were built to ensure continuous operation for reliable generation. Significant boiler bottom modifications had to be made to retrofit the system even though it is a remote system. While the plant recycles a significant quantity ofBATW, it has not been designed for a "no discharge" requirement. A significant upgrade to more corrosive-resistant materials ofconstruction and a treatment system to address fines, corrosive anions (chlorides, sulfates) and scale forming constituents (e
.g., calcium, iron, and sodium) would be required, and this upgrade would be extremely expensive. 

### In its shortperiodof operation, BullRun hasalready experiencedseveral unanticipated problems which have requiredthe discharge of BATW from the system. While operating in the recycle mode, a system blowdown was required to address excess polymer used in treating solids
. Also, the system had to be drained after a rake failure in the clarifier. There was also an unanticipated low pH excursion that necessitated a discharge to prevent potential corrosion even 3though the system has a pH control system in place. Several leaks have occurred due to pipe ruptures that could have been problematic with a "no discharge" limit. To build an RMDS that would never discharge would be a significant challenge, and may be infeasible at some plants. Also, it would require equipment far beyond the technology EPA evaluated and costed out. EPA only included a pH control system in its costs. At a minimum, the system would require softening, tines removal equipment, and corrosion control. EPA did not account for these necessary steps in its model technologies. An MDS system- because it must be installed directly under the boiler- is infeasible for many existing units. There are numerous boilers that are partially subsurface and constructing an MDS underneath these boilers would be cost-prohibitive
. Also, some units do not have adequate space around the boiler for this type ofconstruction. 

### 2. A 1,000 MW Threshold For BATW 

### is Justified 

### by the Record Under Option 4a, EPA proposed a threshold that would require dry handling/closed loop for all units greater than 400 MWs and existing BPT limits for units equal to or less than 400 MWs. EPA recognized that "the potential costs associated with compliance with a zero discharge standard for discharges ofbottom ash transport water would be substantial ifapplied to all facilities" and thus chose to develop the 400 MW option. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,470. EPA said its analysis showed that units less than orequal to 400 MWs were "more likely to incur compliance costs that are disproportionately higher per MW than those incurred by larger units." 

### /d. EPA specifically invited comments on 

### all potential thresholds for BATW: EPA solicits comment on the proposed 400 MW threshold applicable to discharges ofbottom ash transport water under Option 4a, 

### includingwhether this or another thresholdmaybe more appropriate
. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,471 (emphasis added). Therefore, all commenters were on notice that EPA would consider other potential BATW thresholds, and had an equal opportunity to commenton other thresholds. The industry recommends a 1,000 MW plant-level threshold because it is more appropriate than a 400 MW unit-level threshold for the foHowing reasons:
• Since release ofthe proposed rule in June 2013, companies have retired, converted to gas, or announced retirements for 248 units less than or equal to 400 MWs. Many, ifnot all, small units wiII be retired orconverted to gas due to the Clean Power Plan. A 400 MW threshold would apply only to a small number of remaining units.

• Based on EPA's IPM final modeling results for the CPP, on a national level, 87 Gigawatts ofcoat-fired generation will be retired by 2025. This projection is based on implementation ofMATS, CSPAR, CCR, and 316(b) rules (70 4**~- --** **----------- ----**  ---

Gigawatts) and the CPP rule (an additional 17 Gigawatts based on mass-based compliance). This is approximately 30 percent ofthe coal-fired generation in the country. The coal-fired steam electric plants that survive these rulemakings will be the cleanest, most expensively controlled, most efficient, and most essential coal-fired generating facilities in history. Any further limits EPA imposes on them must be both achievable and cost-effective.

• Larger facilities are better able to manage the costs associated with additional regulatory requirements. They will be better positioned to absorb the costs of implementing BMPs
. Plants with less than 1000 MW ofcoal-fired generation will incur compliance costs that are disproportionately higher per MW than those incurred by larger plants. 

### 3. EPA's Anti-Circumvention Provision Would Prohibit Reuse ofBATW EPA proposed three types ofprovisions it terms "anti-circumvention" measures. One ofthe provisions is ofgreat importance to BATW. It requires that a wastestream subject to a "no discharge" limit cannot be combined with any other process wastewater without subjecting the entire combined stream to a "no discharge" requirement. See proposed 

### § 423.13(k)(1 ). The anti-circumvention measure means that current reuses ofBATW in other processes would be completely impractical, as it would increase the amount ofwastewater subject to the no discharge restriction. Plants currently reusing BATW would have to cease that reuse and segregate the BATW from all other wastestreams. 1 In addition, the anti-circumvention provision is contrary to EPA' s traditional goal ofencouraging centralized treatment. The 1974 Preamble to the steam electric guidelines said: It is also recognized by EPA that, due to the economies ofscale, combining similar waste streams for treatment to remove the same pollutants is generally less costly than separate treatment ofthese waste streams. The employment ofcost-saving alternatives in meeting the effluent limitations should not be discouraged. 39 Fed. Reg. 36, 186, 36,196, col. 3 (Oct. 8, 1974)
. Likewise, EPA's 1980 Proposed Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category said "[c]onsolidation ofwaste streams to a centralized treatment system is permitted and encouraged." 1980 Development Document at 470. The anti-circumvention provision also makes no sense from a water conservation perspective
. If a plant cannot reuse BATW in other processes, it will have to withdraw more water from the
1 It is not clear that EPA accounted for costs ofsegregating BATW from all other flows. For instance, for plants that reuse BATW as FGD makeup water, it is not clear that EPA allotted costs ofrerouting the BATW and providing for a new source ofmakeup water to the scrubber.
5

### source waterbody. This is contrary to EPA's policies supporting use ofgrey water for industrial purposes. For example, EPA's 

### 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse (EPA/600/R-12/618) encourage the industrial reuse ofreclaimed water, by which the Agency means treated municipal wastewater. The Guidelines specifically encourage use ofreclaimed water in cooling towers and as boiler feed water. Guidelines, pp. 3-20 through 3-22. 

### If EPA is encouraging use of reclaimedwater for these functions at industrialsites such aspowerplants, itshouldalso encourage the reuse of BATW for allplant functionsfor which it may besuited, either with or without treatment. For this reason, EPA should refrain from setting a "no discharge" prohibition for BATW, and it should allow BATW to be used in other processes within the facility, even ifthose processes eventually discharge. 

### D. BATW ReuseWithin the Industry BATW can be reused in many plant processes, including FGD makeup, boiler feed water and service water. It reduces the amount ofwater facilities must withdraw from source waterbodies. EPA encourages the use ofreclaimed municipal water for power plant uses such as cooling water and boiler feed water. IfEPA seeks to encourage reuse, then it makes no sense to prohibit the reuse ofBATW in other plant processes. In particular, any BATW used as scrubber makeup water will be subject to stringent new FGD wastewater limits prior to discharge
. It 

### is also feasible to use BATW as boiler feed water. In this type ofreuse, BATW must be treated before it is reused, and the treatment process results in a very significant reduction in pollutant load. For example, in a drought-prone area ofthe country, a facil ity draws offBATW pond water for use as boiler makeup water. The pond receives a mix ofwastewaters, including BATW, stormwater and scrubber wastewater. The combined pond water must be treated before use in the boiler. The plant uses ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and a demineraJizer to treat the pond water down to 5 micromoles. The treated water is then used as boiler makeup water and eventually discharged as low volume waste. Similarly, BATW may be used as cooling tower make-up or service water iftreatment is feasible or the water chemistry is acceptable. In some cases, service water and cooling tower blowdown may be treated priorto discharge to meet water quality standards. In these cases, it would be acceptable to reuse BATW in these processes. In summary, acceptable reuses ofBATW should not be limited to FGD scrubber makeup water only. At a minimum, BATW reuse should be encouraged in systems where it is treated either before or after its reuse.

6