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, V1lad <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 a short 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.a lt me or Kristy (202/955-1547) if you 

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 of BATW Based on Existing BPT Limits and Stringent BMPs 

A. Introduction 

Regulating bottom ash transport water (BATW) using a combination of existing limits and best 

management practices (BMPs). This alternative approach would ensure significant changes in 

power plant BA TW 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 of BATW is justified 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 BA TW 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 of BATW over the life of the facility, 

without any exceptions. That limit is not achievable industry-wide with the two 

technologies EPA selected as Best A vail able Technology (BAT) for BA TW, 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 under the 

boiler to a remote location for dewatering, cannot meet a "no discharge" limit all of the 

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 of BA TW in other plant processes that discharge. For 

instance, plants currently using BA TW 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 of scrubber 

makeup, boiler makeup, or service water; and (3) install new piping to get the new source 

of water 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 of the 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 wastewater treatment systems, wastewater must be directed away from the ponds to 

other treatment systems. Facilities are in the process of tightening 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 of multiple 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 of 
closures in the 2016 to 2022 time period based on the implementation of MATs, CCR, § 316(b ), 

and CSAPR final rules. 

This alternative approach for BATW makes practical and economic sense in terms of the future 

operation of coal-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 of all ranges of income across the 

country. 

The industry proposal consists of the following elements: 

• Remove any "no discharge" provisions for BA TW ( 1) for existing facilities (including 

any associated "anti-circumvention" provisions) and (2) in Pretreatment Standards for 

Existing Sources (PSES). 

• For existing facilities 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 BA TW 

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 BA TW 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 of a variety of practices and technologies, 

including, but not limited to, recycling of BA TW, reuse of BA TW 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 of these 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 of the 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 of the facility and/or its capacity factor. 

2 
• Reuses of BA TW (both existing and potential) within facility processes, including use as 

FGD makeup, boiler water makeup, cooling tower makeup and for service water. Reuse 

of BA TW for other plant processes is environmentally beneficial. It reduces the amount 

of water facllities must withdraw from source waterbodies. 

• Operation and maintenance of BA TW systems, including any anticipated need to 

discharge BA TW as part of routine maintenance, or to allow for repair or upgrade of any 

portion ofthe BATW system. 

• Emergency overflows and handling of same to reduce BA TW discharges. 

• Costs and cost-effectiveness of any potential equipment or operational measures to 

reduce BA TW discharges. 

• Engineering feasibility of approaches to minimize BA TW blowdown, including, but not 

limited to, space limitations. 

The permit writer, on the basis of the 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 of model 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 of corrosive fines within the system. 

For example, TVA's Bull Run Station, a single unit with an average generating capacity of 881 

MW, installed an RMDS for handling bottom ash in 2012. Two trains, consisting of two 

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 of BATW, it has not been designed for a "no discharge" requirement. A 

significant upgrade to more corrosive-resistant materials of construction 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 short period of operation, Bull Run has already experienced several unanticipated 

problems which have required the 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 

3 
though 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 of construction. 

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 of bottom ash transport water would be substantial if applied 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 or equal 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 BA TW: 

EPA solicits comment on the proposed 400 MW threshold 

applicable to discharges of bottom ash transport water under 

Option 4a, including whether this or another threshold may be 

more appropriate. 

78 Fed. Reg. at 34,471 (emphasis added). 

Therefore, all commenters were on notice that EPA would consider other potential BA TW 

thresholds, and had an equal opportunity to comment on 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 of the proposed rule in June 2013, companies have retired, 

converted to gas, or announced retirements for 248 units less than or equal to 400 

MW s. Many, if not all, small units wi II be retired or converted 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 of coat-fired generation will be retired by 2025. This projection is 

based on implementation of MATS, 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 of the 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 of coal-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 of BATW 

EPA proposed three types of provisions it terms "anti-circumvention" measures. One of the 

provisions is of great 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 of BA TW in other processes would 

be completely impractical, as it would increase the amount of wastewater subject to the no 

discharge restriction. Plants currently reusing BA TW would have to cease that reuse and 

segregate the BA TW from all other wastestreams. 1 

In addition, the anti-circumvention provision is contrary to EPA's traditional goal of encouraging 

centralized treatment. The 1974 Preamble to the steam electric guidelines said : 

It is also recognized by EPA that, due to the economies of scale, 

combining similar waste streams for treatment to remove the same 

pollutants is generally less costly than separate treatment of these 

waste streams. The employment of cost-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 of waste 

streams to a centralized treatment system is permitted and encouraged." 1980 Development 

Document at 4 70. 

The anti-circumvention provision also makes no sense from a water conservation perspective. If 

a plant cannot reuse BA TW in other processes, it will have to withdraw more water from the 

1 It is not clear that EPA accounted for costs of segregating BA TW from all other flows. For 

instance, for plants that reuse BATW as FGD makeup water, it is not clear that EPA allotted 

costs of rerouting the BA TW and providing for a new source of makeup water to the scrubber. 

5 
source waterbody. This is contrary to EPA's policies supporting use of grey water for industrial 

purposes. 

For example, EPA's 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse (EPA/600/R-12/618) encourage the 

industrial reuse of reclaimed water, by which the Agency means treated municipal wastewater. 

The Guidelines specifically encourage use of reclaimed water in cooling towers and as boiler 

feed water. Guidelines, pp. 3-20 through 3-22. If EPA is encouraging use of reclaimed water 

for these functions at industrial sites such as power plants, it should also encourage the reuse 

of BA TW for all plant functions for which it may be suited, either with or without treatment. 

For this reason, EPA should refrain from setting a "no discharge" prohibition for BA TW, and it 

should allow BATW to be used in other processes within the facility, even if those processes 

eventually discharge. 

D. BATW Reuse Within the Industry 

BA TW can be reused in many plant processes, including FGD makeup, boiler feed water and 

service water. It reduces the amount of water facilities must withdraw from source waterbodies. 

EPA encourages the use of reclaimed municipal water for power plant uses such as cooling water 

and boiler feed water. If EPA seeks to encourage reuse, then it makes no sense to prohibit the 

reuse of BA TW in other plant processes. In particular, any BA TW used as scrubber makeup 

water will be subject to stringent new FGD wastewater limits prior to discharge. 

It is also feasible to use BA TW as boiler feed water. In this type of reuse, BA TW 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 of the country, a facility draws off BA TW 

pond water for use as boiler makeup water. The pond receives a mix of wastewaters, 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, BA TW may be used as cooling tower make-up or service water if treatment is feasible 

or the water chemistry is acceptable. In some cases, service water and cooling tower blowdown 

may be treated prior to discharge to meet water quality standards. In these cases, it would be 

acceptable to reuse BA TW in these processes. 

In summary, acceptable reuses of BA TW should not be limited to FGD scrubber makeup water 

only. At a minimum, BA TW reuse should be encouraged in systems where it is treated either 

before or after its reuse. 

6