United States Office of Water Environmental Protection Washington, DC 20460 September 2015 Agency



# Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Part 4 of 10Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 1 6. Regulatory Options

Commenter Name: R. W. Greene Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center at George Mason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3411

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
It is important to realize that the ELGs are not enumerated as emissions limits, but rather ar e listings of best practice technologies for handling particular effluents (see table 1

- 2 in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposals). 4 The cost and other impacts analyzed in the rulemaking stem from modeling estimations of the impact of applying these technologies.

4 US Environmental Protection Agency, "Regulatory Impact Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category," EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 005 (Washington: April2013): 1

- 3.
Comment Response:

T he commenter is referring to a table in the proposed RIA that specified the technologies that form the bases of the proposed regulatory options. See the final RIA for a similar table that reflects the final rule. The commenter is correct that the final rul e does not establish numerical limitations for air emissions at is establishes nationally applicable technology based limitations for discharges of pollutants in certain wastestreams from steam electric power plants to surface waters. The commenter is corr ect that the final ELGs do not require application of a certain technology. For example, the final rule establishes numeric effluent limitations guidelines and standards for FGD wastewater and gasification wastewater. For these wastestreams, although EPA h as based the numeric limitations and estimated costs and impacts on the performance of specific technology bases, the final rule does not prescribe a specific type of treatment.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public He aring Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 152 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 2 Comment Excerpt:
I think that the physical space is a critical iss ue because all of the technologies that EPA is looking at require physical space.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that the technology options that form the bases of the final rule require physical space. However, EPA’s analyses have found that plants generally have available land to construct necessary wastestream controls. EPA based its costs estimates in part on responses provided by industry during the Steam Electric Survey.
In addition, EPA also confirmed survey responses through site visits and discussions with steam electric power plants representatives who have already implemented these technologies. EPA’s determination regarding land requirements for FGD wastewater treatment also appears to be supported by commenters. For example, t he Electric Power Research Institute’s detailed Cost Estimating Summary for Chemical Precipitation of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater (see Appendix A.1 of DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1) does not include estimated costs for acquiring land.
During the public comment period, EPA did receive comments from some specific plants that demonstrated space constraints to retrofit to a mechanical drag system (MDS) due to space constraints underneath the boiler. In these cases, EPA estimated bottom ash compliance costs associated with a remote MDS. See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 14.b and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment Code 16.b for more discussion on EPA’s rationale regarding land cost s for ash handling systems.

Commenter Name: M. Colburn Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4125

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: No
Comment Excerpt:
A technique called annodic stripping could be use to remove contaminates in the water before discharging
Comment Response:
EPA is not familiar with the use of anodic stripping for wastewater treatment, or its potential applicability to steam electric power plants generated wastestreams. Furthermore, the commenterEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 3 has not provided any information or data indicating its applicab ility or performance for steam electric power generation wastestreams for EPA’s use in evaluating this technology.

Commenter Name: Leonard F. Hopkins Commenter Affiliation: Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4309

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In trying to set standards for flow from an FGD wastewater system, EPA states “Such effluent limitations shall not allow the quantity of pollutants in FGD wastewater to exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow of FGD wastewater times the concentration” and goes on to list the parameter and associated concentrations. Without defining the units of flow, this requirement is meaningless. Such multiplication would yield very different answers depending upon whether one multiplies gallons per minute or millions of gallons per minute.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that its regulatory language is ambiguous. EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR § 122.45(f)(1) stipulate that all pollutants limited in permits must have limitations, standards, or prohibitions expressed in terms of mass (with certain exceptions). Calculation of the allowable mass discharge (for example, lbs/day) can include any reasonable measure of flow determined by the permit writer (for example, millions of gallons per day) by incorporating the appropriate units conversion factors. The resulting calculated mass discharge does not vary by the type of measure of flow, provided use of appropriate units conversion factors. Note that the final regulation also provides permit authorities discretion in expressing the quantity of pollutant allowed to be discharged as concentration

- based limits instead of mass

- based limits. In this case, concentration limitations are those concentrations specified in the final rule. See EPA’s NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual.

Commenter Name: Lisa C. Messinger Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4317

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 4 The rule should allow for the co

- management of "like" waste waters in a single treatm ent system. Specifically, some plants, such as our A.B. Brown Station, have landfills that only accept FGD solids. The leachate from landfills that contain only FGD solids should be allowed to be co

- managed with t h e FGD waste water for treatment in a s ingle system. To meet discharge requirements in our current NPDES permit, we are in the process of installing a treatment system that will combine the waters from the landfill and FGD system to a single treatment system that will be operational in 20l4. Neither waste water flow was significant enough in volume to justify individual treatment systems. As described above, the scrubbers at our A.B. Brown plant are unique in the electric generating industry and do not have the same purge volumes that are typi cal in limestone based gypsum scrubbers.
Comment Response:
The final rule does not prohibit comingling but requires that each wastestream meet the requirements of the rule. See preamble section VIII for a discussion of the anti

- circumvention provision an d the reuse of ash transport water. The final rule does not require internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d.

Co mmenter Name: Lisa C. Messinger Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4317

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment E xcerpt:
Misrepresentation of Treatment Costs and the Industry as a Whole

-- EPA must acknowledge the impact that air regulations and natural gas discoveries have and will continue to have on the coal fired utility industry between 2010

- 2017 and make prope r adjustments to pollutant r emoval calculations and associated cost justification analysis.
In section 4.2 of the Technical Development Document EPA describes the demographics of the Electric Utility industry based on out of date information. The most re cent ICR from which information was obtained included data which was relevant through 2009. Since then there have been significant numbers of coal fired generating units that are either retired or planned to be retired before the July 1, 2017 effective d ate of this rule, driven primarily by air regulations such as MATS, and the influx of low natural gas as a fuel source. By our analysis of various public sources of information on unit retirements, over 330 coal fired units have or will be retired or

con verted to a non

- coal fuel source between 2010

- 2017. Many or these units are older and/or smaller units that can not justify the added cost or compliance for air regulations such as MATS. Additional regulations pertaining to ELG, 316(B) and CCRs are furthc r pulling into question the future of t he smaller, uncontrolled units. Those units that remain in service after 2017 will beEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 5 fully compliant under air regulations (or through a longer negotiated timeframe if under a Consent Decree) and will be the "clean est" of the current coal fired fleet of generating units.
The tables in section 4.2 of the Technical Dcvclopment Document do not reflect the reality of the electric generating industry. The information in these tables is the basis for the various cost just ification formulas in the "Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category". If the information going into the calculations is flawed, so will be the outputs. Particularly troubling, is statement by EPA in the Technical Development Document (pp 9

- 10) that under the four preferred options (3, 3a, 3b, and 4), at most, only 200 facilities will require upgrades. The vast majority of coal fi red generating stations over 50 MWs could not meet all of the requirements of the preferred options without some modifications. Even the plants that were sampled during the EPA site visits h ave expressed concern with their a bility to consistently meet th e requirements as described in the preferred options. The undercounting of facilities that will incur compliance costs and the inclusion of facilitics already destined for retirement or repowering to natural gas shows a lack of understanding by EPA of th e current state of th e steam electric generating industry as a whole.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees that the tables in Section 4 of the TDD from proposal do not reflect retirements, fuel conversions, and ash handling conversions that were not specified i n responses to the Steam Electric Survey. However, that does not mean that EPA did not take them into account when conducting the analyses for this rulemaking, including costs and impacts. Throughout this rulemaking, EPA continued to revise its profile of the steam electric power generation industry to account for retired or announced and planned to be retired stream electric generating units, converted or planned conversions of units to a different fuel source, and altered or plans to alter wastewater trea tment or ash

- handling practices. To the extent possible, EPA adjusted its analyses of costs, pollutant loadings, non

- water quality environmental impacts, environmental assessment, and benefits for the final rule to account for these actual and anticipated changes. EPA also made every effort to appropriately account for other rules in its many analyses for this rule. See preamble section V.

Commenter Name: P. J. Becker Commenter Affiliation: City Water, Light and Power (CWLP) Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4349

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 6 USEPA should include additional compliance time and costs for land acquisition and landfill

con struction, given the potential for dry fly and/or bottom ash resulting from this proposed rule, along with the concerns expressed as to biological treatment technology.
Comment Response:
See responses to Comment Code 26.b and 27.e regarding implementatio n timing and landfills with respect to dry handling ash transport systems. In addition, see responses to Comment Codes 16.b and 14.b regarding costs for landfills associated with dry handling conversions. Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 11 in Comment Code 27.e. For more information, see preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Thoma Commenter Affiliation: Otter Trail Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4446

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We are particularly concerned that the proposed changes could be applicable to internal effluents that are not discharged (including the proposal to impose Best Management Practices for surface impoundments); that the proposed rule does not differentiate between bottom ash and boiler slag; and that the rule is unclear with regards to combustion residual leachate.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 64 in Comment Code 27.e regarding BMPs for surface impoundments. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1, Excerpt Number 46 in Comment Code 6.g.ix regarding bottom ash and boiler slag. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 18 regarding combustion residual leachate.

Commenter Name: Jacob G. Smeltz Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4450

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 7 EPGA members are concerned that the proposed standards are set too low and therefore, notwithstanding effort to comply, will result in non

- compliance. Additionally, EPGA is concerned that even if compliance were achievable, the cost estimates provided by EPA are severely understated.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the limitations are too low and will res ult in non

- compliance. See TDD Section 13 for the data sources, data selection, and statistical methodology used to calculate the limitations for the final rule. Also, see TDD section 13.5.3 for a discussion of EPA’s expectation that plants are capable of complying with the limitations at all times by properly operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies. Note that certain numeric limitations have been revised upward for the final rule based on additional data received since proposal

. EPA also disagrees that its compliance cost estimates are understated. As discussed in preamble section V.D, and in greater detail in the TDD, the final cost estimates reflect updates from proposal to account for specific comments, where appropriate, rel ated to costs.

Commenter Name: Jacob G. Smeltz Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4450

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Revie w Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s use of such a limited data set and its failure to meet the requirements of the feasibility and availability of treatment options, as required under the Clean Water Act, should give rise to

concerns about the many assumptions that the Proposal makes relative to compliance and cost. EPGA encourages EPA to seek additional information relative to these two important components so that the agency can be fully informed in its rulemaking and promulgate a f inal rule that can meet these statutory requirements.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4450

- A1, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 23Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Preferred Options Relative to Risk
In its comments above, Consumers Energy commented on four wastestreams: fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, leachate, and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes. Our additional comments on the preferred options are limited to the options as they apply to these wastestreams only.
In general, the prefe rred options (3a, 3b, 3, and 4a) reflect a lower perception of risk as evidenced in the draft ELG EA than the level of risk anticipated in Options 4 and 5. We believe this is appropriate given the data presented in the draft ELG EA. However, as noted in our comments above, we feel that even this level of risk is overstated in the draft ELG EA, and we again urge EPA to appropriately assess this risk, and thereby provide a basis for the reconsideration of risk and benefit/cost and the determination of which options should be preferred.
Comment Response:
The perception of risk referred to in this comment relates to another excerpt from this commenter (DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2, Excerpt Number 9 in Comment Code 6.a) regarding identification and selecti on of pollutants and source water contributions of pollutants. ELGs are nationally applicable technology based requirements to control pollutant discharges to surface waters. They reflect technologies that are available, affordable and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts, and they are not based on risk.
Unlike water quality

- based effluent limitations, which are calculated to ensure that water quality standards for the receiving water are attained, technology

- based limitations and standar ds are derived to reflect the performance of specific model technologies that EPA is required by statute to identify. In identifying these technologies, EPA is directed to consider several factors, including the process employed and the engineering aspects of applying various types of control techniques. See CWA Sections 304(b)(2)(B), 306(a)(1), 307(b) & (c). Indeed, EPA’s regulations must identify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of BAT

- level process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other control measures and practices for the category or subcategory be ing regulated. CWA Section 304(b)(2)(A). Limitations established in this rule represent the degree of effluent reduction that EPA has determined is attainable by the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model technologies. Thus, they are consistent with the long

- reco gnized principle that technology

- based limitations are intended to reflect, for each industrial category or subcategory, the “base level” of technology (including process changes) and to ensure that “‘in no case . . . should any plant be allowed to discha rge more pollutants per unit of production than is defined by that base level.’” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977), quoting S. Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st Session 50,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 9 reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollutio n Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 1468 (1973).

For the role of benefit

- cost in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e.

Commenter Name: Jessica Wicha Commenter Affiliation: Gypsum Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4456

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

VI. EPA SHOULD CONSIDER THE IMPACT O F THE CHOSEN ELG REGULATORY APPROACH ON FGD GYPSUM SUPPLY
The Gypsum Association is not taking a position on which of the eight proposed regulatory options EPA should select in this ELG rulemaking. However, because FGD gypsum is a significant raw material source, the Agency should take that fact into account in this rulemaking to ensure that there is an appropriate supply of material for FGD gypsum manufacturing going forward.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4456

- A1, Excerpt Num ber 5 in Comment Code 6.g.xi.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA presents eight options in the proposed rule, with four being identified as preferred. Each of the options contains treatment alternatives for seven different waste streams. EPA’s method of prese nting the options makes it difficult to select a single option. To more accurately recommend a treatment option, Raven Power recommends the follow options for the seven waste streams:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 10 o FGD Wastewater: Chemical Precipitation (as Proposed under EPA’s Option 1 )

o Bottom Ash Transport Water: Wet Handling (as Proposed under EPA’s Options 1, 3a, 2, 3b, and 3)

o Combustion Residual Leachate: Continue to classify as a low

- volume waste.

o Nonchemical Metal Cleaning Waste: The definition should exclude nonchemical metal cle aning waste regulated as low volume waste sources defined at Section 423.11(b) that are currently regulated at Section 423.12(b)(3) and/or the proposed exemption should be applied to all nonchemical metal cleaning waste streams currently not subject to cop per and iron limits.
Comment Response:
See preamble section VIII for information related to the selected regulatory options for the final rule.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1, Excerpt Number 32 in Comment Code 9 regarding FGD wastewater.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e regarding bottom ash transport water.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 18 regarding combustion residual leachate.

See r esponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22 regarding non

- chemical metal cleaning wastewater.

Commenter Name: Jared Morrison Commenter Affiliation: Westar Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4469

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

NUTRIENT TRADING
Another concern regarding the Proposed Effluent Guidelines is the complete lack of consideration or menti on within the guidelines for any kind of water quality trading. EPA notes that “water quality trading is an innovative approach to achieve water quality goals more efficiently” (EPA website). EPA goes on to note that trading programs allow facilities with high costs of pollution control to comply with effluent regulations by instead, reducing pollutants atEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 11 other facilities that may be suitable for lower cost alternatives in pollutant reduction. EPA notes trading is most effective when the following conditi ons are met:

 There is a "driver" that motivates facilities to seek pollutant reductions, usually a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or a more stringent water quality

- based requirement in an NPDES permit

 Sources within the watershed have significantly different costs to control the pollutant of

concern

 The necessary levels of pollutant reduction are not so large that all sources in the watershed must reduce as much as possible to achieve the total reduction needed

– in this case there may not be enough surplus reductions to sell or purchase

 Watershed stakeholders and the state regulatory agency are willing to try an innovative approach and engage in trading design and implementation issues
All of the above conditions are met in this case, making JEC an i deal candidate for participation in a trading program for nitrates/nitrites. Trading of nitrates/nitrites is of great interest to Westar Energy, given the significant farming industry in the State of Kansas. Our belief is we could partner with those in the agriculture industry to reduce nitrates/nitrites from others who are discharging into the Kansas River, at less cost than we could accomplish the same reduction at the Jeffrey Energy Center.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 26.f.

Commenter Name: Jared Morrison Commenter Affiliation: Westar Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4469

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review In corporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

 Water quality trading programs should be considered as a viable option to meet numeric limits.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 26.f.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 12 Com menter Name: Thomas W. Curtis Commenter Affiliation: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4478

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respo nse: No
Comment Excerpt:
USEPA has a responsibility in crafting pollution control regulations to ensure that it does not create unacceptable risks. In finalizing the proposed effluent guideline, the Agency has a responsibility to craft standards that:

1. Gu ide steam electric power plants to use air pollution control technologies that do not produce wastewater high in bromide. 2. Ensure that power plants located upstream of drinking water supplies, employ wastewater treatment sufficient to protect downstream wat er systems from regulated contaminants, bromide, and other factors that exacerbate drinking water treatment challenges and create potential non

- compliance with drinking water regulations.
Comment Response:

The final ELGs are not based on the concentratio ns needed to protect drinking water. Instead, as required by CWA, they are based on the performance of well

- designed and well

- operated control and treatment technologies. As explained in Section IV.B of the final preamble, Congress passed the CWA to "resto re and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). In order to achieve this objective, the Act has, as a national goal, the elimination of the discharge of all pollutants into the nation’s waters. 3 3 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting our nation’s waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S., except as authorized under the CWA. Und er section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, discharges may be authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Unlike water quality

- based effluent limitations, which are calculated to ensure that water quality standards f

or the receiving water are attained, technology

- based limitations and standards are derived to reflect the performance of specific model technologies that EPA is required by statute to identify. In identifying these technologies, EPA is directed to conside r several factors, including the process employed and the engineering aspects of applying various types of control techniques. See CWA Sections 304(b)(2)(B), 306(a)(1), 307(b) & (c). Indeed, EPA’s regulations must identify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of BAT

- level process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other control measures and practices for the category or subcategory being regulated. CWA Section 304(b)(2)(A). Limitations established in this rule r epresent the degree of effluent reduction EPA that has determined is attainable by the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model technologies. Thus, they are consistent with the long

- recognized principle that technology

- based limitations are intended to reflect, forEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 13 each industrial category or subcategory, the “base level” of technology (including process changes) and to ensure that “‘in no case . . . should any plant be allowed to discharge more pollutants per unit of production than is defined by that base level.’ ” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977), quoting S. Rep. No. 414, 92d Cong., 1st Session 50, reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 1468 (1973).

To serve as the basis for the technology

- based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA to establish national technology

- based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for discharges from categories of point sources (such as industrial, commercial, and public

sourc es) that occur directly into waters of the U.S.
While the final rule does not reflect drinking water requirements, depending on site

- specific conditions and applicable water quality standards, it may be appropriate for permitting authorities to establish w ater

- quality based effluent limitations on bromide or TDS discharges, especially where steam electric power plants are located upstream from a drinking

- water intake. See preamble section XVI for more discussion. In addition, the use of air pollution contro l technologies is outside the scope of the effluent guidelines program and the final rule.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
New Discharge Limits. Revised BAT, BADCT (NSPS), PSES, and PSNS for the seven listed streams provide a treatment challenge that E PA has underestimated. The proposed limits and chosen BAT, etc., for some streams are not sustainable over the long term operations and variable nature of operations at a power plant combined with the recognized challenge of operating complex biological wa stewater systems with highly variable wastestreams. This is complicated further because the rule prohibits the use of other wastestreams as part of the treatment process (e.g., for pH adjustment, thermal reduction). By disallowing commingling of select was te water streams, the rule significantly increases the cost of water treatment.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the limitations are not sustainable. For further information related to the data sources, data selection, and statistical methodology use d to calculate the limitations for the final rule, see TDD Section 13. In addition, for a discussion of EPA’s expectation that plants are capable of complying with the limitations at all times by properly operating and maintaining their processes and treat ment technologies, see TDD Section 13.5.3. Note that the numericEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 14 limitations have been revised upward for the final rule based on the additional data received since proposal.
See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 107 in Comment Code 10.a regarding biological treatment and variability in plant operations and wastestream characteristics.

The final rule does not establish an anti

- circumvention provision that would have required internal monitoring to demonstrat e compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
There is also concern that physical/chemical s ystems will not be able to meet the low levels for Hg and As proposed for some of the wastestreams such as leachate and FGD blowdown.
The proposed discharge limits are tied to loadings that are based on flows for each selected wastewater stream that EPA id entified and collected information about. Unfortunately, it appears the proposed regulation does not consider scenarios associated with stormwater runoff from CCR storage, coal pile run

- off, or CCR management sites. The management of these flows could bec ome very expensive in terms of property and impoundment storage capacity as well as managing biological treatment systems for selenium and having the system function properly.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the limitations for mercury and arsenic a re not achievable. For further information related to the data sources, data selection, and statistical methodology used to calculate the limitations for the final rule, see TDD Section 13. In addition, for a discussion of EPA’s expectation that plants are capable of complying with the limitations at all times by properly operating and maintaining their processes and treatment technologies, see TDD section 13.5.3. Note that the numeric limitations have been revised upward for the final rule based on the add itional data received since proposal.
EPA focused this rulemaking on revisions to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for specific wastestreams generated and discharged from steam electric power plants. EPA identified the specific wastestrea ms included in this rulemaking based on the results from its detailed studyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 15 that was completed in 2009. Low volume wastes such as stormwater runoff co

- mingled with exposed CCR materials such as outdoor storage piles and coal pile runoff are not covered in this rulemaking and remain subject to the existing requirements for low volume waste.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 22 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Consider daily loads and not concentration based permit conditions.
Comment Response:

This comment is related to the commenter’s statement that EPA allows for commingling of wastestreams and that EPA’s proposal could set daily and monthly loads in permits, instead of requiring measurements of streams prior to commingling. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4309

- A1, Excerpt Numb er 8 regarding the use of load

- based permit conditions.

The final rule does not establish an anti

- circumvention provision that would have required internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See preamble se ction VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Commen t Excerpt Number: 86 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For New Source Performance Standards, EPA proposes option 4 in Table VIII

- 1:

Wastestream Pollutant Proposed Limits

FGD Wastewater Arsenic, total 8 6Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 1 6 Mercury, total

Selenium, total

Nitrate/nitrate as N 242 119

16 10

0.17 0.13 Fly ash transport water No discharge Bottom ash transport water No discharge FGMC wastewater No discharge

Gasification wastewater Arsenic, total
Mercury, total

Selenium, total

TDS 4

1.76 1.29

453 227

38 22

Combustion residual leachate Arsenic, total
Mercury, total 8 6

242 119

Nonchemical metal cleaning wastes TSS
Oil and grease
Copper, total

Iron, total 100.0 30.0

20.0 15.0

1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0

See 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,436 col. 2

- 3, 34,536 col. 3, 34,540. Thus EPA proposes biological treatment for FGD wastewater, dry handling for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and FGMC wastewater, and chemical precipitation for arsenic and mercury in combustion residual leachate.
EPA explains its rationale for this choice at 78 Fed. Reg. at 34, 475 col. 2

- 3. EPA says five plants operate fixed

- film anoxic/anaerobic biological treatment systems for FGD wastewater and one a suspended growth biological system for selenium. EPA says 83% of coal

- fired plants built within the last 20 years do not disch arge bottom ash transport waters. For leachate, EPA says chemical precipitation is a well

- demonstrated technology. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,476 col. 1. The cost of these technologies, EPA says, poses no barrier to entry, citing the case of installing the equipm ent and EPA’s Integrated Planning Model analyses. EPA also says that, since non

- water quality impacts for option 4, in its analysis, are acceptable for existing sources, they should also be acceptable for new sources.
EPA’s rationale for new sources, in sh ort, depends heavily on its analyses for existing sources (BAT). Because of the many problems and shortage of data for those BAT analyses, EEI doesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 17 not think they are reliable for BAT and thus are not reliable for NSPS either.

Comment Response:
EPA agr ees with the commenter that EPA’s rationale for new sources makes use of its analyses for existing sources. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter that there are many problems and a shortage of data for existing sources, making the data not reliable for new sources. Although EPA has made every effort to respond to specific comments on the steam electric effluent guidelines rulemaking, this comment notes that BAT analyses have “many problems and shortage of data” but no specific details were provided, mak ing it too generalized; therefore, EPA cannot respond.
For information on the data used by EPA to characterize FGD wastewaters and its treatment, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment code 8.c. Also, for information on the data used by EPA to characterize bottom ash, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and for information related to the data used by EPA to characterize gasification wastewaters and its treatment, see r esponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 167 in Comment Code 23. Also, see preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Becky Hayat Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4 490

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Water is a major input in the generation of power at steam electric generating facilities. Besides cooling, large amounts of water are used by many steam electric power plants for handling solid waste, such as bottom ash and fly ash, and for operating wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubber systems. The demand for water by power plants can present a major challeng e for water managers in regions with limited surface water resources, especially during times of drought. In the analysis supporting this proposed rule, EPA estimated the reductions in water use associated with each of the regulatory options. At the most s tringent levels (Options 4 and 5), EPA calculated that power plants would reduce water use by 153 billion gallons per year, or about 419 million gallons per day (MGD). 1 Although power plant withdrawals of cooling water are substantially greater than this a mount, the amount of process water that can be saved by these effluent guidelines is nearly as much water as is supplied to residential customers by all the water utilities in North Carolina 2 , and thus a significant amount of water to save with any single regulatory measure.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 18 Under Options 4 and 5, the recommended technology basis for discharge limits on water used for transporting fly ash is dry handling. With respect to bottom ash, the recommended technology basis under Options 4 and 5 is dry handling or a closed loop system. 3 Dry handling of ash will significantly reduce or eliminate water use associated with current wet transport systems. The technology basis for FGD wastewater under Option 5 (chemical precipitation and vapor compression evaporation) will significantly reduce water use because the condensed vapor can be recycled back into the FGD process or used in other plant operations (explained further below). 4 In contrast, the technology treatment for handling FGD wastewater under Option 4 would not b e expected to reduce the amount of water used unless plants recycle FGD wastewater as part of their treatment system; however, as discussed further below, few plants are likely to recycle treated FGD wastewater, thus the potential for water savings under O ption 4 is somewhat lower than the potential savings under Option 5.
Under Options 4 and 5, EPA would establish a zero discharge effluent limitation requirement for discharges of pollutants in fly ash transport water, based on the use of dry fly ash handli ng technologies. 5 As a result, in order to comply with either option, plants that currently use wet transport systems to handle fly ash are likely to convert to dry handling methods, since the regulatory measure will prohibit all discharges of pollutants i n fly ash transport water. Hence, significant reductions in water use will result when plants are no longer sending fly ash to surface impoundments.

..... If plants were to comply with the zero discharge requirement pursuant to Options 4 and 5, they would most likely convert to dry handling methods, which may be entirely dry and avoid all use of water, or in some cases may include a water bath at the bottom of a boiler in which the bottom ash is dropped and cooled, from which the bottom ash is then mechanic ally dragged out of the boiler along a conveyor belt and deposited in a pile adjacent to the building housing the boiler. 12 Regardless of which method a plant employs, significant amounts of water will be saved as a result of the plants having to comply wi th the zero discharge standard under Options 4 and 5.

1 U.S. EPA, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category , 12

- 13

– 12

- 14 (April 2013) (“TDD”).

2 Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A., 2009, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 134, available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir1344

.

3 U.S. EPA, Proposed Rule, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category , 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432, 34,461

- 34,462 (June 7, 2013) (“ELG s”).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 19 4 U.S. EPA, Incremental Costs and Pollutants Removals for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, 6

- 106 (April 2013) (“Incremental Costs and Pollutants Removals”).

5 ELG s at 34,461.

12 This residual water that collects in the storage area as the bottom ash continues to dewater is typically completely recycled back to the quench water bath. Moreover, EPA does not consider this wastewater to be transport water because the t ransport mechanism is the drag chain, not the water. See TDD, pg. 4

- 21.
Comment Response:
EPA acknowledges reductions in water withdrawals resulting from the technology options that form the basis for the final rule. See preamble section XII and Section 12.4 of the TDD for EPA’s estimates for the final rule, which includes zero pollutant discharge requirements based on dry handling or closed

- loop system for fly and bottom ash transport water.
EPA does not agree with the commenter that limits reflecting ch emical precipitation plus evaporation versus limits reflecting chemical precipitation plus biological treatment will necessarily lead to reduced water withdrawals.
EPA did not finalize a zero discharge of pollutant limitation for FGD wastewater. See resp onse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1, Except Number 23 in Comment Code 6.i.iii.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Exceptions provided for pH within the PSES and PSNS sections do not make sense for pretreatment because pH is not required to be monitored. These exceptions should either be clarified or removed to avoid any possible confusion. See 40 C.F.R. § 423.16(e)(2) with reference to 40 C.F.R. 423.16 § (e)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 423.16 (i)(2) with reference to 40 C.F.R. 423.16 § (i)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 423.17(b)(6)(ii) with reference to 40 C.F.R. § 423.17(b)(6)(i); and 40 C.F.R. § 423.17(b)(9)(ii) with reference to 40 C.F.R. § 423.17(b)(9)(i).
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 20 The final rule does not require internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certai n numeric limitations and standards. See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d. Because of this change, the proposed regulatory language referenced by the commenter, and its associate d exceptions provided for pH, are not incorporated into the final rule.

Commenter Name: Cecile M. Conroy Commenter Affiliation: International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (IBB) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4557

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number : 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Although generally supportive of EPA's proposed ELG rule, IBB notes that EPA has proposed eight regulatory options that represent a range of treatment levels and associated costs. Some options will require significant infrastructure upgrades and installation of wastewater treatment systems, often at a considerable expense. For example, EPA has proposed zero discharge limits for fly ash, bottom ash, and FGMC. By contrast, other EPA regulatory options appear to optimize technology treatment capabilities and cost impacts, while greatly increasing environmental performance at the fleet of affected electric generating facilities.
This wide range of t reatment levels and associate costs means that EPA must strike the correct regulatory balance in setting final ELGs for the seven wastewater streams at affected facilities. Some of the regulatory options proposed by EPA are significantly more appropriate a nd reasonable than others for a diverse national fleet of electric generating units with different designs and plant configurations . To maximize cost

- effectiveness of the proposal, EPA should therefore focus the new ELG requirements on waste streams that are new or significantly changed and thus may not be well controlled by the current ELG standards. Notable examples where further controls may be appropriate include the treatment levels that would require:

 dry handling of fly ash;

 chemical precipitation for removing the solid particles, including mercury and other air toxic pollutants in the soluble form;

 surface impoundments for controlling the total suspended solids and other conventional pollutants in the bottom ash transport water; and

 surface impound ments for limiting the discharge of conventional pollutants from combustion residual leachate.

.....Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 21 IBB urges EPA to carefully examine the benefits and costs of each control and adopt a balanced final regulatory program that allows for the continued deliv ery of low cost

- electricity while protecting the environment.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that dry handling for control of fly ash transport water discharges a nd dry handling or closed

- loop systems for control of bottom ash transport water discharges represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

fired generating units). For controlling discharges of combus tion residual leachate, EPA determined that surface impoundments represent BAT. For controlling discharges of FGD wastewater (excerpt for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units), EPA determined that chemical precipitation and biological trea tment represent BAT. These technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).

Al though not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B an d in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirem ents in other industries. However, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion to use cost

- effectiveness as the sole basis for regulatory decisions.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h.
EPA agrees that dry handling of fly ash is an appropriate technology basis for fly ash transport water for units that are greater than 50 MW and that are not oil

- fired. See preamble section VIII.

See r esponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1, Excerpt Number 32 in Comment Code 9 regarding EPA’s selected regulatory options for FGD wastewater.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e regarding EPA’s selected r egulatory options bottom ash transport water.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 18 regarding EPA’s selected regulatory operations for combustion residual leachate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 22 Commenter Name: Dorothy Kellogg and Mich ael Leitman Commenter Affiliation: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4565

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response : No
Comment Excerpt:
The UWAG analysis also demonstrates that such costs would be disproportionally borne by smaller units. (See Figures 2 and 3 below and UWAG comments section IV. EPA’s Cost

Effectiveness Analyses) and for specific waste streams (See especially UWAG comments section V. BAT for Bottom Ash Transport Water, section VI BAT for Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater, and section IX BAT for Fly Ash Transport Water.)
Figure 2: TWPE and $/TWPE Using UWAG Bottom Ash Transport Water Data 4 (Less the Source Water Contribution)

*The highest TWPE removed is aluminum at 75% of the total TWPEs.
Figure 3: TWPE and $/TWPE Using Cardinal Fly Ash Transport Water Data 5 (Including Source Water Contribution 6 )Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 23 4 UWAG comments section V.J. UWAG’s Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis for Bottom Ash)

5 UWAG comments section IX.F. UWAG’s Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis for Fly Ash)

6 Fly ash transport water TWPEs should be adjusted to account for source water pollutants. Unfortunately, EPA did not collect source water samples, so source water contribution cannot be removed.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4 379

- A1, Excerpt Number 96 in Comment Code 5.c and other responses to comments in Comment Code 5.c regarding regulatory relief for small units. See responses to Comment Code 6.h regarding cost

- effectiveness.

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affili ation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
LPPC has strong intere st in EPA’s proposed regulatory approach in the ELG rule. The proposed rule would apply to wastewater discharges from steam generating electric facilities through incorporation into National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits issued by EPA or authorized states. 2 The proposal considered a number of regulatory options for each of seven waste streams that may occur at steam EGUs: flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustion res idual leachate, flue gas mercury control (FGMC) wastewater, gasification wastewater, and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes. EPA’s proposed options include zero discharge limits for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC. It is likely that EGUs will be subject to several different standards based on which waste streams they possess, leading to significant increases in costs.
For existing units, EPA has proposed four preferred options (3a, 3b, 3, 4a), of which one (4a) is a “lead option ” for which regulatory text is proposed. Presenting a range of options is helpful for examining the regulatory alternatives for the waste streams in question. However, some of the regulatory options proposed by EPA are more appropriate and reasonable for n ew units

– where effluent controls can be part of original design and construction. For existing units, some waste streams may warrant consideration of additional control, while others remain well

‐ controlled with current practices and should not be subject to additional regulation. For existing units, EPA should focus the ELG revisions solely on waste streams that are new or significantly changedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 24 and thus may not be well controlled by the current ELG standards. If EPA chooses to regulate waste streams that currently have adequate controls, EPA should consider the operational and cost considerations, and the recommendations provided below.

2 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432, 34,522 (June 7, 2013).
Comment Response:
EPA carefully considered costs and operational consi derations as demonstrated by the TDD and the supporting information for the rule. See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4557

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Some facilities have unique configurations, includin g an existing combined wastewater treatment system, that preclude upstream monitoring and may affect compliance achievement. Because of the significant expense of requiring these facilities to completely reconfigure their existing operations, the final rul e should provide facilities with existing combined wastewater treatment with an alternative option for setting its effluent discharge limits.
Under this approach, a qualifying facility would have the option, at its election, to undertake a BPJ process with their state regulator to set the plant

‐ specific effluent limitations based on a number of factors, including the ELGs otherwise applicable to the facility and the unique operational and technical limits that preclude the facility to comply with the ELGs t hrough the existing combined wastewater treatment system. The BPJ process would incorporate cost and cost

‐ effectiveness considerations to fashion a reasonable solution for plants with fundamentally different processes. It is our understanding that the numb er of facilities with this concern is quite small, and a BPJ option will provide an adequate process for addressing both monitoring and compliance concerns on a case

‐ by

‐ case basis, without imposing a significant additional burden on the permitting authorit y.
Sources with unique design considerations that affect compliance should be given an alternative BPJ process that would assist in finding the most reasonable compliance option.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 25 The final rule does not require internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d.
EPA generally does not rely on BPJ permitting where it has sufficient data to set uniform, nationally applicable limitations at plants across the nation. Assuming sufficient data to develop appropriate numeric limitations, EPA would generally prefer numeric limitations because BPJ permitting places a burden on permitting au thorities, many of whom are states, to conduct a complex technical analysis that they may not have the resources or expertise to complete. Some states commented to this effect in this rulemaking.
BPJ permitting may also unnecessarily burden the regulated i ndustry because of associated delays and uncertainty with respect to permits. See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 in Comment Code 6.j.i for more discussion on the use of BPJ.

Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affi liation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 40 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:



### I. New Option 6 Recommendation for Steam Electric ELGs
Based on the preceding comments and the currently EPA proposed alternatives, TVA is proposing that EPA consider another option and has designated it as Option 6 to minimize confusion. The proposed conditions are shown in Table II below:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 26 Comment Response:
See preamble Section VIIII for EPA’s option selection rationale and its basis for rejecting other regulatory options.
See preamble section XI and Section 13 of the TDD, and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1, Excerpt Number 12 in Comment Code 31.h for use of the 95 th percentile upper confidence limit for developing limitations for FGD wastewater.
Regarding site

- specific exemptions, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment Code 8.
EPA agrees that dry handling of fly ash is an appropriate technology basis for fly ash transport water for units that are greater than 50 MW and that are not oil

- fired. See preamble section VIII for more information.
Regarding bottom ash tra nsport water, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e.
Regarding flue gas mercury control waste, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 88 in Comment Code 21.a.
Regarding leachate, the final rule establishes a BAT limitation equal to previously established BPT limitation on TSS in low volume waste sources. See preamble Section VIII.
In addition, see responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22 for EPA’ s rational regarding non

- chemical metal cleaning waste and to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 18 regarding combustion residual leachate.
Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 92 in Comment Code 5.a for details about the applicability of the final rule to steam electric power plant retired units. For a summary and rationale of the final rule, see preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Pamela Ritger Commenter Affiliation: Clean Wisconsin D ocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4632

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Impacts of Steam Electric Power Generation Pollution on Human and Wil dlife HealthEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 27 In its detailed study of the steam electric power generating industry, conducted in 2005, the EPA found that the use of wet systems for flue gas desulfurization (FGD), and to transport fly ash and bottom ash all created significant levels of m etals, including arsenic, selenium and mercury, as well as other pollutants. 11 As coal

- fired power plants are typically the largest source of each of the following toxic pollutants, strong federal standards on steam electric power plants could drastically reduce the amount of pollutants that are spewed into our nation’s waters and continue to accumulate year after year. 12

11 III. Background, D. Steam Electric Detailed Study. Accessed August 21, 2013. Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0068. 12 Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry Is Poisoning Our Water and How We Can Stop It, p. 4 (July 2013). Available
at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_07_23_ClosingTheFlo odgates

- Final.pdf

Comment Response:
EPA notes it updated its est imates of pollutant discharge loadings from steam electric power plants to surface waters. See preamble Section III and the TDD.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
It is not appropriate for EPA to deem a technology the best available technology (“BAT”) if the technology has not been proven successful at pollution removal or has not been in place for a sufficient length of time to determine whether it is effective or not. See, e.g., BP Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 802 (6th Cir. 1996). Moreover, i f EPA evaluates data and technology from only one facility, EPA must demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the technology to the entire industry. See Ass’n of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816

– 19 (9th Cir. 1980); BP Exploration & O il, Inc., 66 F.3d at 802 (rejecting reinjection of drilling wastes as BAT in Alaska because even though an offshore oil platform used reinjection, “the technology is still experimental and is not yet available for application”). In essence, EPA must determ ine a technology is available to the industry as a whole. Ass’n of Pacific Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 816

- 19. Once it has identified available technologies, EPA considers a number of factors to determine BAT, including: the age of equipment and facilities invo lved; the processEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 28 employed; the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques; process changes; the cost of achieving such effluent reduction; and non

- water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements). 40 C .F.R. § 125.3(d)(3) (i)

– (vi). Additionally, EPA takes into account: (1) “the appropriate technology for the category or class of point sources of which the applicant is a member, based upon all available information; and (2) [a]ny unique factors relating to the applicant.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 125.3(c)(2)(i)

– (ii); 125.3(d)(3); 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).

EPA must consider each of the factors in 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d)(3), and a failure to consider one factor deems EPA’s effluent limits arbitrary and capricious. See, e.g., Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 934

– 35 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that a failure to consider the age of the equipment and the facilities involved when determining BAT would constitute an abuse of discretion); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027, 1048 (3d Cir. 1975) (remanding effluent limits because EPA did not consider the age of the facilities involved and the impact that age would have on the cost and feasibility of retrofitting older facilities). Not one factor is determinative; instead, EPA must balance all of the factors in determining BAT. Moreover, it would be incorrect to assert that BAT must be based on the “best single performer” in the industry. “To the contrary, the [Clean Water Act’s (“CWA”)] requirement that EPA choose the ‘best’ technology does not mean that the chosen technology must be the best pollutant removal. Obviously, BAT . . . must be acceptable on the basis of numerous factors, only one of which is pollution control.” BP Exploration & Oil, 66 F.3d at 796.

EPA ’s analysis of the BAT factors and its determination that all BAT limits are economically and technologically achievable must be reasonable. Id. at 794. Further, EPA bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable basis for its conclusion that the regulatio ns are achievable, and a failure to do so renders the regulations arbitrary, capricious, and “not the result of reasoned decisionmaking.” Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 820; Chem. Mfr’s Ass’n v. EPA, 885 F.2d 253, 265 (5th Cir. 1989). When EPA sets e ffluent guidelines based on BAT, the effluent limits “cannot stand” if they are “based on a flawed, inaccurate, or misapplied study.” Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 935. Likewise, if EPA fails to demonstrate the effectiveness of the chosen BAT, the eff

luent limitations must be remanded back to EPA for further consideration. Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 819; Chem. Mfr’s Ass’n, 885 F.2d at 265.
One BAT factor is the consideration of cost to implement and maintain the proposed technology, or attain the proposed effluent limits. Indeed, the CWA specifically recognizes that the BAT must be economically achievable, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A)(i), and requires the “cost of achieving such effluent reduction,” 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d)(3), be similarly evaluated . See Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n 161 F.3d at 934 (noting that cost refers to a consideration of the cost of the technology itself). Therefore, the cost determination is two

- fold: cost must be considered in the six

- factor BAT analysis, and the effluent limits mu st be economically achievable. See Ass’n of Pacific Fisheries, 615 F.2d at 819

- 20 (finding that EPA’s failure to adequately consider the cost of land acquisition in the determination of whether a technology is an achievable technology is an example of unre asonable decision

- making). EPA must consider the costs of the technology and the benefits received from the technology because of the duty to consider all of the factors in the BAT analysis.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 29 Additionally, the final BAT limits that are established must be economically achievable for the source. Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n, 161 F.3d at 934. EPA cannot rely solely on the fact that a facility or the public can “afford” a treatment technology as a basis for determining whether it is cost

- effective. It makes sense th at cost is such an important factor in the BAT analysis given the very name of this standard: the best available technology economically achievable. Thus, EPA is permitted to “balance factors such as cost against effluent reduction benefits.” BP Exploratio n & Oil, 66 F.3d at 796. Indeed, courts have upheld EPA’s decision to reject a technology based on high economic impacts that might otherwise have been the most effective pollution control technology. See e.g. id. (rejecting a technology as BAT, in part, b ecause of the cost of the technology).
Comment Response:
EPA’s selection of BAT for the final rule was conducted in accordance with these requirements and factors. See preamble section VIII for a summary and rationale of the final rule. After a careful review of all of the information in the rulemaking record, EPA found that the technology bases for the final rule are technologically available, economically achievable and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts.
While EPA agrees ELGs must be affordable to the industry as a whole, for the role of cost

effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h. Also, see the RIA for details on how EPA determined t hat the final rule is affordable.

For the role of cost

- benefit in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public S ervice Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 44 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

PSNH would be remiss if it di d not at least point out the disparity between the metal effluent limitations advanced in the Proposed Rule and those imposed upon other point source categories developed or revised within the recent past. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 444 (2000) (Waste Combus tors Point Source); 40 C.F.R. Part 445 (2000) (Landfills Point Source Category). EPA has provided no reasoning as to why such overly stringent effluent limitations have been offered in the Proposed Rule when it promulgated the aforementioned reasonable, an d less controversial, limitations for the same pollutants not long ago. Has technology for the treatment of these related waste waters improved that much in the past decade? Perhaps, instead, EPA is attempting toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 30 utilize its assertions that the steam elect ric power generating point source category purportedly accounts for over half of all pollutants discharged to surface waters as a mandate to attempt to impose more onerous standards on the industry. In truth, treatment technology has not advanced much sinc e the aforementioned effluent standards were promulgated for these other point source dischargers and the more appropriate limitations set out in those regulatory standards only further highlight the faults and erroneous conclusions upon which the agency h as based the proposed effluent limits set out in the Proposed Rule.
Comment Response:
EPA developed the final rule in accordance with the statutory factors required by the CWA. The technology bases for the final rule are available, affordable to the stea m electric power industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. The commenter correctly notes that it is quite common for EPA to establish different ELGs for the same pollutant depending on the industrial category. EPA de rives effluent limitations for different industries based on the performance data for the technologies specified as the technology bases for the rule. The statistical methodology that EPA used in this rule is consistent with the methodology it has used in many effluent guidelines since the late 1980s and upheld in CMA v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989), National Wildlife Federation v. EPA , 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and Am. Coke & Coal Chemicals Inst. v. EPA, 452 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2006). See the TDD and preamble to the final rule.
EPA notes that, based on public comments, it revised the final effluent limitations. See preamble and the TDD.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Num ber: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 186 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For New Source Performance Standards, EPA proposes Option 4 in Table VIII

- 1. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,458. The limits applying to this option are as follows:

Wastestream Pollutant Proposed Limits

FGD Wastewater Arsenic, total 8 6 Mercury, total 242 119 Selenium, total 16 10 Nitrate/nitrite as N 0.17 0.13 Fly ash transport water No dischargeEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 31

Wastestream Pollutant Proposed Limits Bottom ash transport water No discharge FGMC wastewater No discharge

Gasification wastewater Arsenic, total 4 Mercury, total 1.76 1.29 Selenium, total 453 227 TDS 38 22

Combustion residual leachate Arsenic, total 8 6 Mercury, total 242 119

Nonchemical metal cleaning wastes TSS 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease 20.0 15.0 Copper, total 1.0 1.0 Iron, total 1.0 1.0

See 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,536, 34,540. Thus EPA proposes biological treatment for FGD wastewater, dry handling for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and FGMC wastewater, and chemical precipitation for arsenic and mercury in combustion residual leachate.

EP A explains its rationale for this choice at 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,475 col. 2

- 3. EPA says five plants operate fixed

- film anoxic/anaerobic biological treatment systems for FGD wastewater and one a suspended growth biological system for selenium. EPA says 83% of coal

- fired plants built within the last 20 years do not discharge bottom ash transport waters. For leachate, EPA says chemical precipitation is a well

- demonstrated technology. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,476 col. 1. The cost of these technologies, EPA says, p oses no barrier to entry, citing the case of installing the equipment and EPA’s Integrated Planning Model analyses. EPA also says that, since non

- water quality impacts for Option 4, in its analysis, are acceptable for existing sources, they should also be acceptable for new sources.
EPA’s rationale for new sources, in short, depends heavily on its analyses for existing sources (BAT). Because of the many problems and shortage of data for those BAT analyses, UWAG does not think they are reliable for BAT and thus are not reliable for NSPS either.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 86.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 225Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 32 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

XXXVIII. EPA’s Description of the Electric Utility Industry Should Be More Objective
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA emphasizes the environmental harm supposedly done by electric power plants, particularly those burning coal. Thus EPA starts by reporting “there are numerous documented instances of environmental impact associated with these power plant discharges, such as harm to human health, harm to aquatic life, contamination of sediment, and detrimental impacts to wildlife.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,435 col. 2; see also, id . 34,439

- 40, 34,504. Similarly, EPA says discharges from s team electric power plants contribute 50 to 60% of the reported toxic

- weighted pollutant loadings of the combined discharges of all industrial categories. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,505 col. 2. EPA’s contractor, ERG, provides a short explanation of how it compar ed steam electric loadings to those of other industries in a memorandum on the record. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232. See also page 3 of Attachment 28 (“more than half of all toxic pollutants ... linked to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological damages...”).
Not surprisingly, advocacy groups have picked up this theme and emphasized the amount of pollution allegedly created by the coal industry. See Waterkeeper Alliance et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry is Poisoning Our Water and How We C an Stop It (2013). 89 Early comments by environmental groups have taken advantage of EPA’s description. See Comments of Environment Council of Rhode Island, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034 (Sept. 11, 2013) at 1.
As explained earlier in these comments, however, U WAG’s analyses show that EPA has vastly overstated the amount of pollutants being discharged. As we have shown based on additional sampling and analysis (see Attachment 5 to these comments), sulfides are generally not present in ash pond discharges, so th e huge amount of sulfide TWPEs that EPA figures into industry loadings should be removed.
Also, the loadings attributable to use of the old, unreliable 1970s data from the 1982 Development Document should be removed and replaced with better quality data t hat actually reflects wastewater discharges at today’s plants. Based on our suggested corrections and use of better data, we calculated a revised total baseline loading of 1.97 million TWPEs. Substituting that value into EPA’s formulas 90 for calculating the industry percentage produces the following:

Total TWPEs (all industries):

1.97 million lb

- eq/yr (steam electric) + 5.3 million lb

- eq/yr (non steam electric)=7.27 million lb eq/yr total TWPEs.
Steam electric percentage of total:
1.97 million lb eq/y r (steam electric) ÷ 7.27 million lb eq/yr (total, all industries) = 27%Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 33 UWAG has not been able to assess all the data underlying EPA’s industry loadings calculations. We suspect that EPA has used erroneous flow rates for ash pond discharges in many cases , but the relatively short comment period (particularly as to the loadings data which became available to UWAG only about a week before the comments were due) has not allowed us to develop full evidence of that discrepancy. Therefore, while use of UWAG’s present loadings numbers indicate that the steam electric industry produces no more than 27% of total TWPEs, it is very likely that the percentage is much lower than that.
There are additional factors which also affect the loadings calculations and assess ment of their impact. Those factors include the following.

 When a pollutant is not detected, EPA assumes it is present at the highest possible level, given the detection limit.

 EPA assumes that exceeding a water quality criterion means that fish in the w aterbody are harmed.

 EPA mischaracterizes scientific literature as proving harm to the environment when there was no evidence of damage.

 EPA relies heavily on old data, including data from before Clean Water Act requirements took effect.

 EPA used a faulty means of calculating pollutant loadings, making its estimate of loadings from ash ponds six times too high.
Details about these biases are found in the attachments to these comments by AKRF (Attachment 1) and Gradient (Attachment 2).
In light of these shor tcomings, EPA would do well, with the final rule, to describe the industry more objectively and avoid alarming descriptions of pollutant loadings. Since it appears EPA has overstated the percentage of TWPEs attributable to the steam electric industry by a t least a factor of two, UWAG requests that EPA make every effort to correct the record on this point.

89 http://earthjustice.org/documents/report/pdf/closing

- the

- floodga tes

.

90 The formulas are presented in ERG’s memo of April 19, 2013 titled “Comparison of Steam Electric Industry Toxic Loadings to Other Industrial Dischargers.” EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232.
Comment Response:
EPA notes that, in response to comments, it updated its estimates of pollutant loadings for the final rule. See preamble section III and the TDD.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 149 in Comment Code 6.h. In addition, regarding other specific comments raised in the commenter’s letter, such as issues raised in the attachments by AKRF (DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1) andEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 34 Gradient (DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 4655

- A2)), see responses to comments in Comment Codes 6.f, 25.b and 29.b in this comment response document.

Also, see re sponse in DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Katherine Rubin Commenter Affiliation: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4658

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
From the proposed Rule, it appears that the USEPA prefers four out of eight options for handling wastewater of various types at ge nerating stations that are primarily fueled by coal (although other types of generating stations are covered, such as natural gas fired). LADWP agrees with UWAG and LPPC's comments in that there may be different options appropriate for different situation s, even those options not identified as "preferred." This is because existing generating stations have unique flow paths and other plant design considerations with process

- related, feasibility, or economic issues.
Comment Response:

The final rule establi shes national effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on best available technologies economically achievable. EPA notes this commenter did not provide specific information on any unique flow paths or plant specific considerations that would dem onstrate the selected technology bases are not available to them. Additionally, facilities are not required to use the selected technology bases. Rather, they are required to meet the limitations and standards. Facilities have the flexibility to determine their approach to comply with the final rule limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Bradley Coyle Commenter Affiliation: Big Rivers Electric Corporation (BREC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4664

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 Externa l Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 35 We urge EPA to conduct additional evaluation of the proposed rules and to collect additional data that is more reflective of the steam electric power genera tion industry in order to develop final ELGs. We believe that the proposed ELGs lack sound science and present operational impracticalities that many not be met by many utilities and thus cause a significant increase in the expenditures incurred by an utility

– and thus resulting in additional and unnecessary costs being passed on to the end users.
Comment Response:
For the final rule, EPA incorporated the use of additional data in its effluent limitations guidelines and standards development, pollut ants of concern identification, and pollutant loadings estimates. EPA subjected the new data to its data quality acceptance criteria and, as appropriate, updated its analyses accordingly. See Section 3 of the TDD for additional information on the data sour ces used in the development of the final rule.
EPA disagrees that the ELGs lack sound science and present operational impracticalities and result in unnecessary additional costs. See preamble section VIII of the preamble for a summary and rationale of EPA’ s final rule.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 9 in Comment Code 27 regarding EPA’s evaluation of the cumulative effect of regulations on the electric power sector.
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4303

- A2, Excerpt Nu mber 14 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4348

- A2, Excerpt Number 3 regarding legacy wastewaters, both in Comment Code 26.c.
For further information regarding coordination efforts between the CCR final rule and the ELGs, and their implementation timing, see resp onses in Comment Code 27.e.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4664

- A2, Excerpt Number 4 in Comment Code 6.c for EPA’s response related to the selenium and mercury discharge standards.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthju stice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: Legal External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Although Options 4 and 5 would eliminate most toxic water pollution from coal plants, the proposed rule does not designate them as “preferred” options. Instead, the EPA’s proposalEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 36 includes so

- called “preferred” options that would do next to nothing to curb dangerous pollution from FGD wastewater discharges and would leav e other major waste streams unregulated

– including large amounts of toxic bottom ash waste.
It appears that the expressed preference for these weak options does not actually reflect the views of EPA. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (“OM B”) took the highly unusual and improper step of writing new weak options into the draft rule prepared by the EPA’s expert staff during the inter

- agency review process established by executive order. 9 A redline of the rule, showing the original EPA versi on and OMB’s version reveals the changes: OMB refused to let EPA choose more protective options as “preferred” regulatory paths and inserted weaker options instead. 10 The result is that EPA’s original two preferred options

— Options 3 and 4

— were replaced with four preferred options: Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a, three of which were created by OMB. OMB’s elimination of Option 4 as a preferred option represented a position directly contrary to the views of EPA staff. 11 All of the preferred options that OMB in serted into the proposed rule are weaker than Option 4, meaning that OMB’s intervention shifted the proposal away from the stringent controls that EPA has repeatedly recognized to be available and critical to achieving the Clean Water Act’s goal of elimina ting discharges. 12 If EPA finalizes any of these weaker options (or is forced to do so by OMB), it will fail to control billions of pounds of pollution, possibly for decades to come. It will also fail to exercise the duty

— delegated to EPA alone by Congre ss

— to develop standards based on its own expertise and judgment.

9 EPA, Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 (June 2013), Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- LW

- 2009

- 0209 2237.

10 See generally id.

11 See id. at 137, 144, 213

- 214, 226

- 227; see also Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates at 12

- 13.

12 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,458, 34,485

- 34,486.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric po wer generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that technologie s in Regulatory Option D represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units) because they are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, a nd have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 37 Also, see responses to comments in Comment Codes 6.iii, 6.i.v and 6.i.viii.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Ea rthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 45 External Review Flag: Legal External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

D. EPA MUST FINALIZE ELGS THAT REFLECT STATE

- OF

- THE

- AR T TECHNOLOGIES AND PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BY MAY 22, 2014.
EPA signed the current proposal on April 19, 2013 as a condition of a consent decree to resolve litigation brought to compel the agency to undertake overdue revisions of the ELG s. 120 EPA’s proposal to set critically needed standards contains multiple options, including strong standards that would require the elimination of the majority of coal plant water pollution using technologies that are available and affordable. The strong est of these options

— Option 5

— would eliminate almost all toxic discharges, reducing pollution by more than 5 billion pounds a year. Option 4, the next strongest option, would eliminate new coal ash discharges and apply rigorous treatment requirements for F GD wastewater. By eliminating or significantly reducing toxic discharges from coal plants, a strong final rule would create hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits every year in the form of improved health and recreational opportunities for all America ns, in addition to the incalculable benefits of clean and healthy watersheds. 121 EPA estimates that ending toxic dumping from coal plants would cost less than one percent of annual revenue for most coal plants and at most about two pennies a day in expens es for ordinary Americans, if the utilities passed some of the cleanup costs to consumers. 122

Although Options 4 and 5 would eliminate most toxic water pollution from coal plants, the proposed rule does not designate them as “preferred” options. Instead, the EPA’s proposal includes so

- called “preferred” options that would do next to nothing to curb dangerous pollution from FGD wastewater discharges and would leave other major waste streams unregulated

– including large amounts of toxic bottom ash waste.

EPA has recognized for years that the 1982 ELGs are not adequate to protect the public, especially because they fail to control toxic metals in FGD wastewater, among other wastewater streams . 123 This recognition is directly at odds with the proposal of weak regulatory options, and it appears that the expressed preference for these options does not actually reflect the views of the agency. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) took the highly unusual and improper step of writing new weak options into the draft rule prepared by the EPA’s expert staff during the inter

- agency review process established by executive order. 124 A redline of the rule, showing the original EPA version and OMB’s version reveals theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 38 changes: OMB refused to let EPA choose more protective options as “preferred” regulatory paths going forward, and inserted weaker options instead. 125 The result is that EPA’s original two preferred options

— Options 3 and 4

— were replaced with four preferred options: Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a, three of which were created by OMB. Through its revisions to the proposed rule, OMB eliminated Option 4 as a preferred option, taking positions directly contrary to those developed by EPA staff. 126 All of the preferred options that OMB inserted in to the proposed rule are weaker than Option 4, meaning that through OMB’s intervention the proposal has shifted away from the stringent controls that EPA has repeatedly recognized to be available and protective. 127 If EPA finalizes any of these lesser opt ions (or is forced to do so by OMB), it will fail to control billions of pounds of pollution, possibly for decades to come.

120 See Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA , No. 1:10

- cv

- 01915

- RWR (D.D.C. filed Nov. 8, 2010).

121 BCA at 12

- 2.

122 See 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,501, table XI

- 9 (noting that the average annual cost to ratepayers for the most stringent option is $6.46).

123 See, e.g. , Memorandum from James Hanlon, EPA, Director of the Office of Wastewater Management to EPA Water Division Directors, Regions 1

- 10 & Attachment A: Technology Based Effluent Limits, Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) at Steam Electric Facilities (June 7, 2010) (explaining that EPA is conducting a rulemaking to “address” this wastestream and that current controls are not adequate); 74 Fed. R eg. 55,837, 55,839 (Oct. 29, 2009).

124 U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866.

125 See generally EPA, Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 (June 2013), Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- LW

- 2009

- 0209 2237.

126 See id. at 137, 144, 213

- 214, 226

- 227; see also Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates, supra note 96, at 12

- 13.

127 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,458, 34,485

- 34,486.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 3.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 151Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 39 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: N o
Comment Excerpt:
The rulemaking record makes clear that compliance costs for Options 4 and 5 can be reasonably borne by the industry, notwithstanding EPA’s failure to select either option as preferred. EPA did not propose Option 4 as a preferred option “because of concerns expressed above associated with the projected compliance costs associated with zero discharge requirements for bottom ash for unit equal to or below 400 MW.” 644 EPA rejected Option 5 on different grounds. EPA eliminated Option 5 from consideration at a very early stage of the rulemaking, based on screening

- level analyses, and thus never conducted the full set of economic analyses for Option 5. “EPA did not select Option 5 as its preferred option for BAT because of the high tota l industry cost for the option ($2.3 billion/year annualized social cost) and because of preliminary indications that Option 5 may not be economically achievable.” 645 Additionally, “certain screening

- level economic impact analyses indicated that complianc e costs may result in financial stress to some entities owning steam electric plants.” 646

644 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,473. EPA rejected Option 4 for the additional reason that, in EPA's view, Option 4’s proposal to treat leachate with chemical precipitation is not warranted at this time. “Because of the relatively low level of pollutants in this way stream, and because EPA believes this is an area ripe for innovation and improved cost effectiveness, EPA is not putting forward this option as a preferred optio n.” Id.

645 Id. ; see also id. at 34,477 (rejecting Option 5 as a preferred option for NSPS “because of its high costs, which are substantially higher than the costs for Option 4 and the other options evaluated for NSPS.”).

646 Id. at 34,473.
Comment Respon se:
See the preamble to the final rule for an explanation of the reasons EPA selected the options contained in the final rule. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 15 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46 in Co mment Code 6.i.iv

.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 40 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller, and chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate
The selection of Option 4, as compared to Option 4a, would require plants wit h capacities equal to or less than 400 MW to implement zero

‐ discharge dry handling for bottom ash transport water. This one additional requirement impacts on conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants (see Table 10). Option 4 also includes the add ition (as compared to Option 4a) of chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate. The greater stringency of Option 4, as compared to EPA’s preferred options, is demonstrated by its additional removal of pollutants over and above Option 4a. Option 4 removes 6,665 million lb

‐ eq whereas Option 4a removes only 5,092 million lb

‐ eq.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that technologies in Regulatory Option D represe nt Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units because they are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water qual ity environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII). For units that are greater than 50 MW and that are not oil

- fired, BAT for bottom ash transport water is dry handling or closed loop systems.

EPA did not select chemic al precipitation as BAT for combustion residual leachate for the reasons specified in preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt N umber: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 41 The environmental controls eliminated with the exclusion of Options 4 and 5 are all technologically achievable.
Dry handling of bottom as h transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller
The Federal Register directly states that dry handling of bottom ash transport water is technologically achievable for plants of any size:
[A]ll plants, regardless of size, are capable of insta lling and operating dry handling or closed

‐ loop systems for bottom ash transport water, and the costs would be affordable for most plants... 134

Chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate
The Federal Register also states that chemical precipita tion has been shown to be technologically achievable for the pollutants in combustion residual leachate, and for other industries with similar pollutants:
Physical/chemical treatment systems are capable of achieving low effluent concentrations of various metals and are effective at removing many of the pollutants of concern present in leachate discharges to surface waters. The pollutants of concern in leachate have also been identified as pollutants of concern for FGD wastewater, fly ash transport wastewat er, bottom ash transport water, and other combustion residuals. This is to be expected since the leachate itself comes from landfills and surface impoundments containing the combustion residuals and those wastes are the source for the pollutants entraine d in the leachate. Given the similarities present among the different types of wastewaters associated with combustion residuals, combustion residual leachate will be similarly amenable to chemical precipitation treatment. The treatability of pollutants suc h as arsenic and mercury using chemical precipitation technology is also demonstrated by technical information compiled for ELGs promulgated for other industry sectors. 135

Vapor

‐ compression evaporation systems in Option 5

Vapor

‐ compression evaporation and other zero liquid discharge systems are technologically achievable. These systems are used in a variety of industrial applications, including electric generation, throughout the United States and around the world. In background documents to the proposed s team

‐ electric ELGs, EPA notes that:
Mechanical evaporators in combination with a final drying process can significantly reduce the quantity of wastewater pollutants and volume discharged from certain process operations at various types of industrial plants, including steam electric power plants, oil refineries, and chemical plants. 136
Southwest states including Colorado, Arizona and California require some industrial facility’s waste streams to achieve zero liquid discharge. 137 In most industrial sett ings this typicallyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 42 requires a combination of technologies, commonly evaporation and crystallization units, but may also include thermal/evaporative processes, membrane processes, and spray driers.
The largest manufacturers of zero liquid discharge system s are Veolia, Aquatech, and GE Power and Water. 138 Other vendors of zero liquid discharge technology include Siemens Water Technologies, 212 Resources, AGV Technologies, Aqua

‐ Pure, INTERVAS, and Total Separation Solutions. 139 Veolia has installed zero liqu id discharge in over 700 facilities worldwide across a large range of industries including: power generation, oil and gas, pulp and paper, metals and mining, ethanol/agricultural products/biofuel production, chemical processing, fertilizer manufacturing, s alt production, chlor

‐ alkali production, and soda ash production. 140 Aquatech

— whose representatives were interviewed by EPA staff during the rulemaking process

—has installed over 160 zero liquid discharge systems in of the same industries as Veolia as well as in a few additional industries including petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals.
According to Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, electric generators have successfully applied evaporation and crystallization to achieve zero liquid discharge on “natural

‐ gas combined cycle cooling water, gasification wastewater, and FGD wastewater, and for integrated water and wastewater facilities and [nuclear wastewater] evaporation crystallization.” 141

There are zero liquid discharge in use at power plants in at least three states, Arizona, Missouri, and Illinois. Three Arizona natural

‐ gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants use evaporation and crystallization units to achieve zero liquid discharge for their cooling water blowdown and wastewater systems: APS Redhawk Power Sta tion in Arlington, Arizona (two NGCC units operating 1,060 MW total); 142 Harquahala Generating Project in Tonopah, Arizona (totaling 1,000 MW); 143 and Duke Energy’s Arlington Valley Power station (570 MW), also in Arlington, Arizona. 144 More recently, it was announced that two 758 MW NGCC plants in Texas

— the Temple Power Plant in Bell County and the German Power Plant in Grayson County

— would be retrofitted to achieve zero liquid discharge by 2014. 145

All eight regulatory options of the proposed steam elect ric ELGs, required vapor

‐ compression evaporation systems for IGCC plants. As stated in the proposed ELGs, “EPA is aware of two plants that currently operated [IGCC] units in the United States, and a third plant is scheduled to begin operating an IGCC this year. All three of these plants currently treat or plan to treat the IGCC wastewaters with vapor

‐ compression evaporation systems.” 146 Overseas, zero liquid discharge technology is applied at a number of power plants including at IGCC and coal

‐ fired power plants. The ELCOGAS IGCC power plant in Puerollano, Spain (a 335 MW coal and petcoke facility) uses a number of process units, including evaporation and crystallization technologies, to achieve zero liquid discharge. 147

In 2009, two U.S. coal

‐ fired electri c generation units

— Iatan Station 1 (670 MW) and Iatan Station 2 (850 MW) in Weston, Missouri

— began treating FGD wastewater with a vapor

‐ compression evaporation system. 148 According to a case study released by a zero liquid discharge manufacturer, the Sprin gfield, Illinois Dallman Power Station’s four coal

‐ fired units require the use of a falling film evaporator, vapor compressor, and spray dryer to meet Boron permit specifications for their FGD wastewater, resulting in achieving zero liquid discharge. 149 AsEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 43 discussed by EPA, several coal

‐ fired power facilities in Italy have eliminated discharge of FGD wastewater using evaporation and crystallization units. 150

134 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,471

‐ 34,472.

135 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,454.

136 Technical Development Document, p.7

‐ 3.

137 Global Water Intelligence. (2009, December). From zero to hero

– the rise of ZLD. Global Water Intelligence, 10(12). http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/12/market

‐ insight/from

‐ zero ‐ to

‐ hero

‐ the

‐ rise

‐ of

‐ zld.html

.

138 Global Water Intelligence. (2009, December). From zero to hero

– the rise of ZLD. Global Water Intelligence, 10(12). http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/12/market

‐ insight/from

‐ zero ‐ to

‐ hero

‐ the

‐ rise

‐ of

‐ zld.html

.

139 Colorado School of Mines. (2009). An Integrated Framework for Treatment and Management of Produced Water. RPSEA Project 07122

‐ 12. p. 1 http://aqwatec.mines.edu/produced_water/treat/docs/Tech_Assessment_PW_Treatment_Tech.pd f.

140 Veolia Water. (2013). HPD Evaporation and Crystalization. Capabilities Report, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies

. http://www.veoliawaterst.com/vwst

‐ northamerica/ressources/documents/1/32351,HPD

‐ EVAP

‐ 6

‐ 3.pdf

.

141 Veolia Water. (2013). HPD Evaporation and Crystalization. Capabilities Report, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies. http://www.veoliawaterst.com/vwst

‐ northamerica/ressources/documents/1/32351,HPD

‐ EVAP

‐ 6

‐ 3.pdf

.

142 Veolia Water. (n.d.). APS Redhawk Power Station Case Study, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies. http://www.veolianorthamerica.com/info/redhawk.htm

143 Veolia Water. (n.d.). Power Generation Industry Project Profile: Harquahala Generating Project, LCC. Case Study, HPD. http://www.veoliawaterst.com/hpdsystems/ressources/documents/1/2201,HPD

‐ HAR

‐ CS

‐ 9

‐ 3.pdf

.

144 Aquatech. (n.d.). Duk e Energy Selects HERO Membrane Process for ZLD Application. Case Study. http://www.aquatech.com/Portals/0/ProjectProfiles/02Arlington_HERO.pdf.

145 General Electric. (20 13). GE to Provide Water Recycling Technology for Two Texas Power Plants. Press Release, GE Water & Process, Trevose. http://www.genewscenter.com/Press

‐ Releases/GE

‐ to

‐ Provide

‐ Water

‐ Recycling

‐ Technology

‐ for

‐ Two

‐ Texas

‐ Power

‐ Plants

‐ 3d66.aspx

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 44 146 78 Fed. Reg. at 34454.

147 Veolia Water. (n.d.). ELCOGAS Chooses HPD's CoLDTM Process for Spain's First IGCC Power Plant to Attain Zero Liquid Discharge. Press Release, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies, http://www.veoliawaters tna.com/news

‐ resources/press

‐ releases/2011

‐ 08

‐ 24,elcogashpdigcc.htm

.

148 Aquatech. (n.d.). Aquatech Supplies Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment for FGD System at the Iatan Generating Station. Case Study. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/aquatech

‐ supplies

‐ zer o ‐ liquid

‐ discharge

‐ 0001

.

149 Aquatech. (n.d.). Coal Fired Power Plant Achieves ZLD for FGD Wastewater. Case Study. http://www.environ mental

‐ expert.com/articles/coal

‐ fired

‐ power ‐ plant

‐ achieves

‐ zld

‐ for

‐ fgd

‐ wastewater

‐ 194733

.

150 Global Water Intelligence. (2009, December). From zero to hero

– the rise of ZLD. Global Water Intelligence, 10(12). http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/12/market

‐ insight/from

‐ zero ‐ to

‐ hero

‐ the

‐ rise

‐ of

‐ zld.html . Veolia Water. (2013). FGD Scrubber Effluent Treatment

‐ ItalyZero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) System. Power Industry Case Study, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies. http://www.veoliawaterst.com/vwst

‐ northamerica/ressources/documents/1/32351,HPD

‐ EVAP

‐ 6

‐ 3.pdf

. Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of t he Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that technologies in Regulatory Option D represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units) because they are available and economically achievabl e (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII). Except for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units, BAT for bottom a sh transport water is dry handling or closed loop systems.
EPA did not select chemical precipitation as BAT for combustion residual leachate for the reasons specified in preamble section VIII.
EPA did not select chemical precipitation plus evaporation as BAT for FGD wastewater for the reasons specified in preamble section VIII. Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 15 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46 in Comment Code 6.i.iv.
Regarding zero pollutant dis charge standards for FGD, see the preamble to the final rule and responses to Comment Code 6.i.iii

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 45 Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4704

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed rulemaking does not require any control of bottom ash transport waters at uncontrolled units in any option except 4a, 4 and 5. In prefe rred Option 4a, the proposed rulemaking requires zero discharge of bottom ash transfer water at units greater than 400 MW. In not

- preferred Options 4 and 5, zero discharge of bottom ash transport water is required at all units greater than 50 MW. Option 4 is identical to Option 4a, except Option 4 requires zero discharge for bottom ash at all units >50 MW while Option 4a requires zero discharge for bottom ash only for units >400 MW. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,473.
Options 4 and 5 were not selected as "preferred" o ptions due primarily to the claimed cost of zero discharge of bottom ash transport waters in Option 4 and the additional zero liquid discharge for FGD wastewater in Option 5.
Comment Response:
In its selection of regulatory Option D for the final rule, E PA determined that dry handling for control of fly ash transport water discharges and dry handling or closed

- loop systems for control of bottom ash transport water discharges represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharge s from “small” or oil

- fired generating units) because the technologies forming the bases for that option are available, affordable to the industry as a whole and has acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. See preamble section VIII.

EPA did not select a final regulatory option that includes chemical precipitation and evaporation as BAT for FGD wastewater for the reasons stated in preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Lt d. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 46 GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co., Ltd. (GEA EGI) is a company in partnership with United States

- based companies. Collectively, this team designs, builds and installs important equipment for use in the electric power generation industry. One technology that has been successfully deployed (commercially) is the Circumi x Dense Slurry System (DSS) technology. This technology is a unique mixing technology that is being successfully applied to solidify and stabilize coal combustion residuals and wastewater in a single process.

The Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) and C oal Combustion Residuals (CCR) proposed rules contain wording that has created unanticipated and unintentional uncertainty in the industry regarding the regulatory classification of DSS. This regulatory uncertainty has fostered reluctance by industry to a dopt the DSS technology despite the industry’s recognition of this technology’s ability to achieve the goals and objectives of both proposed rules. This reluctance is also despite the fact that costs for applying DSS are less than the benchmark technologie s referenced by EPA.
The regulatory uncertainty referenced above is due to a lack of information about the DSS made available to the EPA at the time the proposed rules were written. This comment provides appropriate technical information about the DSS tec hnology and data that serve to justify a revision of the proposed rules, the goal of which is to alleviate the above

- referenced uncertainty and to recognize DSS as an appropriate and relevant technology capable of meeting the goals and objectives of the pr oposed rules.
Comment Response:
EPA acknowledges the receipt of this additional information regarding the DSS technology and has considered it in its analyses for the final rule. For further details see Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.2 of the TDD.

The commenter proposes that dense slurry systems are one approach for steam electric power plants to achieve zero pollutant discharge limitations and standards. The final rule does not specify a technology, but rather the limitations on pollutant discharges that must be achieved. Therefore, plants can convey ash with dense slurry systems, provided they meet any applicable limitation in this final rule, including the zero discharge limitation for all pollutants in fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and F GMC wastewater.
To the extent that plants elect to comply with the zero discharge limitation for all pollutants in fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wastewater using a dense slurry system, and to the extent that the dense slurry system is less expensive than the technologies EPA used as the bases for its cost estimates associated with the final limitations, EPA acknowledges that it may have overestimated compliance costs for these plants.

EPA notes, however, that the Clean Water Act does not require EPA to make a precise calculation of costs. See, e.g., CMA v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177, 237

- 38 (5th Cir. 1989) (“The Act requires the EPA to ‘take into account’ the costs of BAT; it does not require a precise calculation. The EPA ‘need make only a reasonable cost estimate in setting BAT’; it is sufficient if the EPA develops ‘a rough idea of the costs the industry would incur’” (citation omitted).);Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 47 Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 1979) (EPA has “wide leeway in its

an alysis of costs”); BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle , 598 F.2d 637, 662 (1st Cir. 1979) (upholds using averages in estimating costs); BP Exploration & Oil Inc. v. EPA , 66 F.3d 784, 799

- 800 (6th Cir. 1995) (“The CWA does not require a precise calculation of BA T and NSPS costs.” (citation omitted).); NRDC v. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he Act does not require a precise calculation of BAT costs.”); W eyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“[Congress] left EPA with discretion to decide how to account for the consideration factors, and how much weight to give each factor.”).

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Technology Description
DSS is a high

- intensity mixing process that mixes minimal quantities of water (including wastewater) wi th CCR’s to produce dense, pumpable slurry. This process maximizes the availability of reactive ions in ash products and results in near

- stoichiometric use of the water contained in the slurry. Additives (while not necessary) may be employed to enhance e nd product performance depending upon the chemistry of the ash to be stabilized. Once discharged, the slurry hardens within 24 to 72 hours. Once cured, the product exhibits low hydraulic conductivity, high compressional strength, no wastewater discharge, l ittle or no fugitive emissions and enhanced sequestration of contained metals.
In a single process, the DSS technology facilitates:

1. Effective combined stabilization of ash and wastewater. 2. Reduction of water use by 80% to 90%, as compared to traditional “lean slurry” practice. 3. Zero discharge of transport water. 4. Significant reduction of plant

- wide wastewater volume destined for treatment and discharge. 5. Enhanced protection of ground water by virtue of low hydraulic conductivity (measured 10

- 4 to 10

- 10 cm/se c) and enhanced metals sequestration exhibited by the end product. 6. Elimination of risk of catastrophic releases associated with dike failure and liquefaction due to the solid nature and high compressional strength of the end product. 7. Significant reduction of leachate volumes due to low hydraulic conductivity, high capillary retention, hydration reactions and the minimal amount of water used in the process.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 48 8. Significant reduction of fugitive dust emissions due to the initially wet nature, enclosed transport m edium and later solid nature of the end product. 9. Enhanced land

- use efficiencies for disposal sites because the high compressional strength of the end product facilitates elevated impoundments and landfills. 10. Reduction in the cost of managing CCRs and wastew ater compared to “dry ash” management techniques and water treatment alternatives referenced by EPA in the proposed rules. 11. Reduced energy use and cost for pumping dense slurry compared to “dry ash” management, which typically requires pug mill mixing, haul ing by truck and spreading/compaction by heavy equipment. Support services typically required for dry ash management are not needed (e.g., lighting, manned impoundment security, fuel handling, etc.) 12. Enhanced safety of operations and reduced noise levels, b ecause the dense slurry can be pumped rather than transported by truck and manipulated with heavy equipment. 13. The process can mix fly ash, bottom ash, gypsum and waste water together.
In summary, DSS achieves the goals and objectives of the proposed ELG and CCR rules in a single process by converting wastewater and CCRs into an environmentally stable end product.

Historical Use

DSS is not new. It has been used for decades in Europe and since 2003 in the United States. Table 1 lists the coal

- fired power plan ts currently employing or that have employed DSS technology, including pertinent data on the types and quantities of ash treated (per hour and total), when DSS processing was initiated, etc.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees that dense slurry systems are an a pproach steam electric power plants may elect to use to comply with the final rule’s zero pollutant discharge limitations and standards. However, since the technology does use water as the transport mechanism, and therefore generates ash transport water, p lants using this technology would still need to operate it in a manner that results in zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affilia tion: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 49 Referenced Plants

In EPA’s Final Detailed Study Report (EPA 821

- R

- 09

- 008), reference is made to site visits and sampling activities from plants in the United States, including an evaluation of waste streams and processes associated primarily with coal ash handling operations and FGD air pollution control systems. EPA visited the JEA Northside Power Station in Jacksonville, FL and inspected the DSS system in use there. Information EPA collected in its evaluation of this plant is not reflected or mentioned in the proposed ELG ru le preamble. The JEA Northside Power Station is the only plant in the U.S. where DSS is currently being employed. The presence of only one plant in the U.S. is the likely reason for this technology being omitted in the development of the proposed rule. The technology is, however, being utilized at multiple plants in other parts of the world where it has demonstrated compliance with strict EU environmental regulations.
Comment Response:
EPA acknowledges investigating the only DSS operating in the United St ates, the Jacksonville Electric Authority Northside Generating Station (JEA Northside), during a site visit on April 8, 2014, and has considered the information collected during the site visit in its analyses for the final rule. See Section 7.2.2 of the TD D.
See also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Use and Reference of Foreign Technology
In the preamble of the proposed ELG rule (III, B, 3), EPA discusses Best Available Technology Economically Ac hievable (BAT). In EPA’s discussion, it is recognized that foreign plants may be referenced in part to define BAT. DSS has been used for a long time outside of the United States and has demonstrated favorable environmental performance. Because of this h istory of favorable performance, it is appropriate for EPA to consider the technical merits of DSS for wider deployment in the United States and to also consider it as a viable benchmark BAT technology for the management of wastewater by using the wastewat er to stabilize coal combustion products.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 50 EPA acknowledges the receipt of this additional information regarding the DSS technology and has considered it in its analyses for the final rule. See Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.2 of the TDD.

EPA di d not select DSS as the technology basis for the final rule for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the final rule. DSS is a potentially viable technology for steam electric power plants to transport the ash to the disposal site; however, because the dense slurry process generates transport water, the plant must still meet the no discharge of wastewater pollutant limitations and standards. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 5 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Num ber 13 in Comment Code 6.g.v.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review Externa l Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
BAT & BADCT Technology Reference
In the preamble of the proposed ELG rule (VIII, 1, 2), EPA identified a subset of treatment processes and operational practices that it deemed most promising as candidate BAT/BADCT options. It is clear that these options focus on a process termed “dry ash” management and enhanced water treatment techniques. It is important to note that “dry ash” management techniques discussed in the proposed rule are not truly dry. These techniques typically mix 15

- 20% water with ash to control dust and to facilitate compaction and more is added later (often with sprinklers) at the disposal facility. Thus, the intent of EPA’s use of this “dry ash” terminology is not to imply t hat an ash management system uses no water. Instead, the intent of the use of the “dry ash” terminology refers to ash management techniques that do not produce wastewater requiring treatment or discharge.
DSS achieves zero discharge of transport water whi le producing a solidified ash product exhibiting properties that are clearly superior to the “dry ash” management techniques described in the preamble. In addition, DSS typically uses less energy than traditional “dry ash” management particularly with res pect to ash transport and disposal.
In the final rule, DSS should be considered in EPA’s technology basis in defining BAT/BADCT technology. Such consideration is deserved because DSS: 1) is technically demonstrated and available; 2) is economically achie vable; 3) is a relatively simple process; 4) is energy efficient; 5) is capable of achieving target effluent standards; 6) can often utilize existing plant infrastructure; and 7) has less of an impact on other non

- water quality environmental standards comp ared to traditional “dry ash” management systems. DSS should also be referred to as a “dry ash” management technique in the context of, and consistent with the intent of, the describedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 51 process. This is because DSS results in a solid product and because it exhibits zero discharge of transport water to the waters of the United States.
Comment Response:
As discussed in preamble section VIII, for generating units that are greater than 50 MW and are not oil

- fired, the final rule promulgates as BAT a zero disc harge limitation for all pollutants in fly ash transport water based on use of a dry

- handling system and for all pollutants in bottom ash transport water based on the use of a dry

- handling system or a closed

- loop system. A steam electric power plant with f ly ash or bottom ash systems incorporating the DSS technology would use a dry vacuum or pressure system to convey the ash to a silo, but instead of using trucks to transport the ash to a landfill, the plant would mix the ash with a lower percentage of wate r compared to a wet sluicing system and pump the mixture to the landfill.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 5 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 13 in Comment Code 6.g.v regarding ash transport water as it relates to the DSS system.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Anti

- Circumvention Provisions
EPA describes the proposed Anti

- Circumvention Provisions in the ELG Preamble (page 34465). The intent of the proposed provision is to limit mixing of wastewaters in an e ffort to preclude the practice of diluting a waste stream or otherwise re

- categorizing wastewater for purposes of more easily achieving compliance. DSS is an effective treatment method for FGD and other wastewater by virtue of stabilizing and immobilizing the water in hydration reactions, entraining and trapping suspended solids, and by enhanced sequestration of contained metals. The very low hydraulic conductivity and high capillary forces of the cured slurry product reduces leachate quantities and the en hanced sequestration of metals reduces their concentration in leachate (see Tables 5, 6, 9, &11).
The DSS practice of combining wastewaters for purposes of ash solidification and stabilization results in an overall reduction of water consumption and reduce s the generation of wastewater destined for treatment and/or discharge. Thus, mixing wastewater for purposes of ash solidification and stabilization does not violate the intent of the Anti

- Circumvention Provisions. In fact, this practice enhances the goal s and objectives of the proposed rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 52 Comment Response:
The final rule does not require internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See preamble section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in Comment Code 26.d.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No Externa l Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

In June 2010, representatives of EPA visited the JEA Northside Generating Station in Jacksonville, Florida and observed the DSS system in operation there. The information collected during this visit and any details on the DSS technology being employed there are not reflected in the ELG or CCR proposed rules.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 53 The JEA plant (a fluidized bed petroleum coke plant) employs two DSS mixing systems that collectively process 120 ton s per hour of fly ash and bed ash. Following mixing and discharge of the dense slurry, JEA interrupts the hydration process by excavating and drying the dense slurry. Following additional preparation steps, JEA markets this material for beneficial use as a road construction material with the trade name EZ Base. The JEA ash exhibits favorable chemistry for beneficial use and demonstrates the potential for beneficial use of other types of ash with or without additives designed to enhance end product performan ce.
EZ Base was tested in Florida as a road surfacing material (not an underlayment) and monitored to evaluate its environmental stability. Following baseline sampling and road construction using EZ Base paving material, the soil, ground water, storm water and surface water were monitored for two years by an independent engineering company. The results were reported in November 2011. The results of this monitoring showed that there was no statistical change in any of these environmental media during the two

- year monitoring period. This report is entitled: Year Two Follow

- up Investigation Report, Soil and Water Quality Evaluation, St. Mary’s Shoals Park Roadway Improvements, Baker County, Florida . The report was prepared by Mechling Engineering & Consulting, Inc., Jacksonville, FL and can be obtained from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Comment Response:
EPA included this information in the record for this rulemaking. It continues to be in the docket for the final rule and EPA also inclu ded related information in the final TDD. See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 3 regarding information received during the JEA Northside site visit. See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 6 regard ing use of the DSS process to achieve the zero discharge limitations for fly and bottom ash.

Commenter Name: name illegible Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5252

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The EPA's proposed regulations to strengthen controls on discharge from power plants must include language where technology will, on a reasonable basis, be r e

- evaluated to include the most protective option available.
Like any other scientific evaluation, we must learn inherently the ways of scientific method. We can't simply let red tape and regulatory processes dictate the timeliness of our future and safety

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 54 Standards implemented must be strict and should take into consideration future growth and trends and increased discharge regulation.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that wastewater discharges from industries, including the steam electri c power generating industry, should be periodically re

- evaluated for potential revision. In fact, the CWA requires EPA to review existing effluent guidelines annually. EPA reviews all point source categories subject to existing effluent guidelines and pret reatment standards to identify potential candidates for revision, consistent with CWA sections 304(b), 301(d), and 304(g). Finally, EPA reviews industries consisting entirely or almost entirely of indirect

discharging facilities that are not currently subj ect to pretreatment standards to identify potential candidates for pretreatment standards development under CWA sections 307(b). This annual review precludes the need to include language requiring periodic reevaluation in the regulation.

Commenter Name: W. Creal Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excerpt:
For two of the wastestreams, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and bottom ash transport water, the preferred alternatives vary in the level of control required to attain compliance with the proposed effluent limitations. After reviewing the propos ed treatment controls expected and level of pollutants expected to be removed, Michigan has concerns about the proposed standards for these two wastestreams.

..... Michigan has concerns that BAT standards that were set for FGD and bottom ash wastewaters

m ay not have been sufficiently characterized and evaluated to determine the actual pollutant reduction and costs associated with implementing these standards industrywide.
Comment Response:
For the final rule, EPA incorporated the use of additional data i n its effluent limitations guidelines and standards development, pollutants of concern identification, and pollutant loadings estimates. EPA subjected the new data to its data quality acceptance criteria and, as appropriate, updated its analyses accordingl y. See TDD Section 3 for additional information on the data sources used in the development of the final rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 55 EPA disagrees that the BAT standards for FGD wastewater and bottom ash transport water have not been sufficiently evaluated to determine pollutan t reductions and costs associated with implementing the standards. As discussed in preamble section V.D, and in greater detail in the TDD and the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the S team Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) , EPA has revised its cost estimates in response to comments received on the proposed rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 56 6.a. Regulatory Options

– Identification and Selection of Polluta nts

Commenter Name: Thomas W. Easterly Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5553

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

2. Nitrate/nitrite should not be included in the ELGs for FGD wastewater at this time. Such an inclusion could lead to unintended consequences in both implementation and enforcement of the proposed ELGs.
Comment Response:
EPA selected nitrate/nitrite as regulated pollutants in FGD wastewaters to control their discharge. EPA notes that the commenter did not provide any specific reasons or data as to why limitations on nitrate/nitrite in FGD wastewater sho uld not be included in the final rule. FGD wastewater pollution is controlled directly through numeric discharge limitations for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite, and indirectly for many additional metals, including cadmium and lead, throug h regulation of the indicator pollutants arsenic, mercury, and selenium. See the memorandum FGD Wastewater Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis Methodology [DCN SE05342] for a more detailed description of the pollutants of concern analysis. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 26.f regarding regulation of nitrate/nitrite in FGD wastewaters.

Commenter Name: Jennifer Peters Commenter Affiliation: Clean Water Action (CWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Clean Water Action is particularly concerned that none ofthe four "preferred" options for pre treatment standards or direct discharge standards would require power plants to control for bromide. Bromide in wastewater discharges upstream of drinking water intakes has been linked to the formation of trihalomethanes,or THMs, when it is exposed to disi nfectant processes in water treatment plants. By EPA's own estimate, approximately 37% of all power plants are located near a drinking water intake for surface water.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 57 These disinfection byproducts are known to cause cancer and reproductive and developmenta l health affects, which is why Public Water Systems must comply with regulations to reduce these byproducts. If power plant wastewater contributes to the formation of disinfection byproducts in drinking water treatment plants, that can mean increased expo sure and health risk to those drinking that water. This is by no means an abstract problem if you are a person drinking that water. It is also not an abstract matter to the Public Water System that has to figure out how to adjust treatment that has been thrown out of balance.
Of EPA's eight proposed options, only Option 5 would require power plants to control for bromides, boron and other Total Dissolved Solids. Clean Water Action believes that EPA should require power plants that discharge to POTWs or d irectly to surface water, to control for these pollutants in order to protect the quality of the public's drinking water sources. Technology exists to effectively eliminate nearly all water pollution from power plants, and it is time to end the power plant industries' unlimited permit to pollute, which stands in the way of cleaning up our rivers, streams and lakes.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with that bromides can be of concern in wastewater discharges upstream of drinking water intakes; however, EPA ha s not selected chemical precipitation followed by evaporation (proposed Option 5) as BAT/PSES for FGD wastewater for the reasons stated in Section VIII of the preamble and elsewhere in this record. However, as described in Section VIII.C.13 of the preamble , the rule establishes a voluntary incentives program under which steam electric power plants can choose to be subject to more stringent BAT limitations for FGD wastewater based on evaporation. In addition, as discussed in Section VIII.D of the preamble, E PA concluded that treatment using evaporation represents BADCT for FGD wastewater at steam electric power plants, and the final rule promulgates NSPS based on that technology (specifically, an evaporation step preceded by a chemical precipitation step usin g hydroxide precipitation, sulfide precipitation, and iron co

- precipitation, as well as a softening step).
EPA also provides a discussion in preamble section XVI.D of the site

- specific conditions where it may be appropriate for the permitting authority to establish water

- quality based effluent limitations on bromide or TDS for existing steam electric power plants.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 58 Clean Water Action is particularly concerned that none of the four preferred options for pretreatment standards or di rect discharge standards would require power plants to control for bromide. Bromide in wastewater discharge is upstream of drinking water intakes, has been linked to the formation of trihalomethanes, or THMs, when it is exposed to disinfectants or process es in water treatment plants. By EPA's own estimate, approximately 37 percent of all power plants are located near a drinking water intake for surface water. These disinfection byproducts are known to cause cancer and reproductive and developmental healt h effects, which is why public water systems must comply with regulations to reduce these by products.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliatio n: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
If power plant wastewater contributes to the formation of disinfection byproducts in drinking water treatment plants, that can mean increased exposure and health risk to those drinking that water. This is by no means an abstract problem if you are a person drinking that water. It is also

no t an abstract matter to the public water system that has to figure out how to adjust treatment that has been thrown out of balance.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Tr anscript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 59 Of EPA's eight proposed options, only Option 5 would require power plants to control for bromide or other total dissolved solids. Clean Water Action believes that EPA should require power plants that discharge to POTWs or are directly discharging to surface water to control for these pollutants in order to protect the quality of the public's drinking water sources.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Jamie Rhodes Commenter Affiliation: Environment Council of Rhode Island Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Most of the options proposed by EPA would require existing and new power plants to control scrubber wastewater with a combination of chemical and biological treatment. However, neither of those technological options effectively treat for bromide and other total dissolved solids. Bromide is of particular concern for plants that discharge near drinking water intakes beca

use it can create harmful byproducts when mixed with disinfectants used to treat drinking water. Vapor evaporation technology exists that can reduce scrubber discharges to n ear zero, the only way to eliminate this source of bromides from our drinking water supplies.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affi liation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 135 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Bromides Do Not Justify a ZLD Option for FGD Wast ewaterEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 60 EPA suggests that bromide from FGD wastewater discharges upstream of drinking water intakes may cause formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) when it is exposed to disinfectant processes in water treatment plants. 78 Fed Reg. at 34,477 col. 1. The Age ncy further suggests that, although it did not designate the ZLD option (Option 5) for FGD wastewater as a preferred “New Source Performance Standard” option, “the technologies forming the basis of Option 5 are all technologically available and may be appr opriate (individually or in totality) as the basis for water quality

- based effluent limits in individual or general permits depending on site

- specific conditions.” Id.
First, for the many reasons spelled out in these comments, UWAG strongly disagrees that the Option 5 technology, chemical precipitation followed by a vapor compression/evaporation system, is technologically available for FGD wastewater treatment. There are simply too many technological and operational issues associated with deploying this t echnology to treat FGD wastewater.
Second, we have also demonstrated that ZLD technology is not cost effective, using EPA’s own standards, and therefore it cannot be the basis of national limits. The level of costs associated with ZLD technology would lik ely render it an infeasible option for many individual power plants.
Third, the potential impact of bromide discharges on downstream drinking water systems is a very site

- specific inquiry, and will depend on site

- specific factors such as existing power pla nt treatment equipment and mode and timing of operation, size of the receiving waterbody, distance between the power plant and the drinking water intake, and natural constituents already present in the receiving waterbody, to name a few. Technology

- based limits are not designed to address isolated site

- specific circumstances. Not every issue is best addressed through application of national standards, and this is one that should be addressed at the individual plant level.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1, regarding EPA’s consideration of evaporation as a component of the technology bases for FGD wastewater for the final rule.
EPA disagrees that “there are simply too many technological and operational is sues associated with deploying this technology to treat FGD wastewater.” See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 11.a.
Specific to the commenter’s statements about the impact of bromide discharges, steam electric power plant discharges occur close to more than 100 public drinking water intakes on rivers and other water bodies. However, EPA did not identify evaporation as the basis for BAT limitations for FGD wastewater at all steam electric power plants for the rea sons stated in Section VIII of the preamble and elsewhere in this record. . EPA also provides an incentives program allowing more time for those who choose to meet FGD limitations based on evaporation (as was included in proposed Option 5). For existing so urces, EPA provides a discussion in preamble section XVI.D of the site

- specific conditions where it may be appropriate for the permitting authority toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 61 establish water

- quality based effluent limitations on bromide or TDS for existing steam electric power pl ants.

Commenter Name: James D. Taft Commenter Affiliation: Association of State Drinking Water Administration (ASDWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: Envr Assess External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
There are also recently emerging concerns in some power plant discharges, such as bromide, which need to be addressed. Bromide is of particular concern where power plants discharge wastewaters upstream of drinking water intakes because it can contribute to elevated disinfection byproducts (which are carcinogens) formation during drinking water treatment. The costs borne by local communities to manage disinfection byproducts are already substantial and the addition of significant upstream sources of elevated bromide from power plant discharges can substantially complicate disinfection byproduct control for numerous downstream water systems. The final effluent guidelines should ensure that power plants do no t inadvertently create unintended consequences for downstream drinking water supplies.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Docume nt Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4687

- A10 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

3.0 Bromide and Coal

- Fired Power Plants
Halogens (Cl, Br, I) are trace elements in coal, as mentioned above. Halogen

- based disinfectants can also be found in various cleaning agents and anti

- foulants used at power plants. Further, bromide addition, or the use of brominated sorbents, is a well

- known application for mercury

co ntrol in plants with flue

- gas desulfurization units. The fate of these halogens in coal

- firedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 62 power plants depends significantly on process controls, most notably pollution control systems designed to remove sulfur dioxide from flue gas emissions.

Bromide in Coal
As noted above, bromide is present in coal at trace levels (<0.001 %). Bromide is likely associated with the organic fraction of the coal; however, association with clay minerals and iron oxides has also been reported ( Swaine 1990 ). Coals vary in the concentration of bromide present ( USGS 2006 ), with bituminous coals exceeding subbituminous an d lignite. Halogen content is generally controlled by a source’s surrounding geochemistry, and thus, deeper mined coals generally contain more halogen salts ( Bragg, Finkelman an d Tewalt 1991 ). Details of bromide concentrations for U.S. coals are available in the U.S. Geological Survey Coal Quality (COALQUAL) Database (see http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/dat abases/CoalQual/ ). For example, West Virginia coals generally contain 20

- 40 ppm bromide (μ=23.88, σ=11.47) with low bromide in Pittsburgh and Redstone coal and highest bromide in Sewell Coal (>50 ppm). The USGS also maintains a World Coal Quality Inventor y (see http://energy.usgs.gov/Coal.aspx ). While many analyses have been generated from these databases and trace metals are routinely measured in coal samples, halogen data are less available [see for exam ple:( Tewalt, Willett and Finkelman 2005 ; Hatch, Bullock and Finkelman 2006 )]. Studies specifically focused on mercury removal (see below) have included careful analysis of bromide and chloride concentrations in coal, as this ratio (Br/Cl) affects mercury removal efficiency. An analysis by Kolker et al. ( Kolker, Quick, Senior and Belkin 2012 ) indicates that most coal

- bromide concentrations are below 50ppm, while chloride concentrations are typically below 2000 ppm; an average Br/Cl ratio of 0.02 is reported.
Coal Combustion and Halogens
Chloride (Cl

- ) and bromide (Br

- ) ions present in the coal or added prior to combustion are reduced to chlorine (Cl2(g)) and bromine (Br2(g)) through reaction with oxyg en at high temperatures during the combustion process. This converts the very soluble ions to gases, thus affecting their fate in the system. Chlorine that is formed in this process can be reduced back to chloride through a reaction with SO2, a reaction t hat is largely controlled by the concentration of SO2. Bromine is less susceptible to this reaction in the furnace; however, some bromine can be consumed in a similar reaction with SO2 that can take place at low temperature in wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems.
Bromine and chlorine are strong oxidants that react with other reduced elements present in the coal, most notably mercury (Hg0). Bromine and chlorine can oxidize mercury to Hg2+, while being reduced themselves back to ionic form (Cl

- and Br

- ). Again, this reaction alters the fate of the Cl and Br. The ionic forms are highly soluble, while the gas phase forms otherwise exit in the flue gases. Thus, the chemistry of oxidation and reduction reactions that take place in the furnace and in var ious pollution control units will control the mode of release of chloride and bromide originally present in the coal.

Fate of Bromide from Coal in Power Plant ResidualsEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 63 Coal combustion produces multiple residual streams, including: bottom ash, fly ash, gyp sum, and flue gases. In general, after combustion, 99% of the halogens originally in ionic form in the coal are found as gaseous forms (chlorine, bromine) in flue gas ( Klein, An dren, Carter, Emery, Feldman, Fulkerson, Lyon, Ogle, Talmi, VanHook and Bolton 1975 ; Germani and Zol ler 1988 ). Bottom ash and associated wastewaters from its wet handling do not contain significant halogen residuals. However, the installation of pollution control units for flue gas alters the chemistry of halogens and their ultimate fate in the system.

F lue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems are designed to convert gaseous SO2 to the soluble acid, H2SO4. Although the chemistry is more complex, and affected by the presence of metals (including Hg), the process has a similar effect on halogens, converting g aseous Cl2 and Br2 to their soluble ionic forms (Cl

- and Br

- ). The result of this shift from gas to soluble phase is the capture of chlorine and bromine as chloride and bromide in the FGD wastewater rather than the release of the gases in the stack. A num ber of researchers have reported that wet and dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems remove halogens in coal from the stack gas, and wet systems transfer them to FGD wastewaters [e.g.( Clare and Sloss 1992 ; Sloss 1992 ; Srivastava, Hutson, Martin, Princiotta and Staudt 2006 )]. Thus, the addition of wet FGD will increase discharges of bromide in soluble form (Br

- ) from power plants to the environment, unless FGD wastewater treatment incorporates b romide removal.

Wastewater characterization at coal

- fired steam electric utilities has been undertaken by a variety of industry and regulatory groups. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) released a characterization of residuals in 1987 that includ ed FGD sludge. Chloride and fluoride were measured, but bromide was not ( EPRI 1987 ). EPRI released guidance for wastewater characterization in 2007 that identified 10 sampling l ocations, including FGD blowdown water, but sampling for bromide was not included ( EPRI 2007 ). Although the preliminary results for FGD wastewater characterization ( EPRI 2006 ) did not include bromide, the recommendations made for future research suggested that bromide should be included. Characterization for metals and other anions is reported by a numbe r of sources, but bromide data are scarce.

Wilson et al. ( Wilson, Wang et al. 2013 ), citing data ( E PRI 2007 ; Frank 2011 ) for Pennsylvania, report values in effluent streams (type not identified) as 89 ± 37mg/L, as shown in Figure 1 above. At a national level, EPRI conducted a number of studies for different locations associated with evaluation of co

- management of low volume wastes with high volume coal combustion by

products. The data for this are provided in Table 1 below, with bromide concentrations ranging from below detec tion limits (<0.1 mg/L) to 118 mg/L, with higher values always associated with FGD wastewaters. EPA ( USEPA 2009 ) evaluated waste streams from power plants and reported concentra tion ranges of 43

- 96 mg/L for flue

- gas desulfurization units, and 180

- 260 mg/L for chemical precipitation systems.
The data in Table 1 suggest that FGD wastewaters contain higher bromide levels than most other wastewaters reported from these sites. Further , FGD wastewaters are reported to have higher bromide to chloride ratios than other power plant wastewaters and higher ratios than naturally occurring groundwaters ( EPRI 2007 ). The results indicate “the FGD system adds both chloride and bromide to the water, and the proportion of bromide to chloride added in the FGD system is greater than that added to the bottom ash and low

- volume waste streams.”( EPRI 2007 )Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 64 Specific plant studies have looked at the fate of trace elements in coal

- fired power plants with different air quality control devices ( Meij 1989 ; Meij 1991 ; Meij 1994 ). Results confirm that bromine is present in the vapor phase in the flue gas exiting the furnace (not in the bottom ash), prior to air quality control systems. For example, Zevenhoven and Kilpinen ( Zevenhoven and Kilpinin 2002 ) report 95% removal of bromide in FGD, with most of the halogen products in the FGD wastewater.
While not a focus of the analysis in the current regulatory rule

- making, bromid e concentrations measured in the FGD wastewater screening study ( EPRI 2006 ) were used in load calculations ( Finseth 2009 ). Bromide was reported as 67,300μg/L (67.3 mg/L) in FGD wastewater, and this was used to calculate a small model plant load value of 51,700 lbs/year and a large model plant load value of 177,000 lbs/year. No settling pond data were ev aluated. An evaluation of a different plant using chemical precipitation treatment reported a concentration of 225 mg/L bromide, leading to loads of 173,000 lbs/year for the small model plant and 592,000 lbs/year for the large model plant. While these d ata are quite limited, a reasonable conclusion from them is that power plant treatment systems do not remove bromide, but rather will discharge it in wastewater effluent, which may pose a problem for downstream drinking water plants (see Section 4 below).

Table 1. Bromide Concentrations in Wastewater Effluent from Coal

- Fired Power Plants in the U.S. (Most data from EPRI’s multi

- year study of co

- management of low volume wastes with high volume coal combustion by

- products 2 ).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 65Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 66 2 This study was not focused specifically on all liquid wastewater streams from power plants, and thus, most sites did not analyze cooling waters or cooling tower blowdown. Many sites did not have FGD sy stems or treat and manage FGD waste streams.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA acknowledges that only mechanical evaporation will address the high levels of boron, brom ides, and TDS in FGD wastewater. Based on the mechanical evaporation technology, EPA has proposed an effluent limit for total dissolved solids, which is a category of pollutants that includes bromides, of 24 mg TDS per liter.
Comment Response:

See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A21, Excerpt Number 1.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The preamble of the proposed rule in the June 7, 2013, Federal Register does not discuss why the pollutant sulfate was not considered for regulation of the FGD wastewater. What is EPA'sEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 67 rationale for not considering sulfate for regulation since it is a significant constitute of the FGD waste stream?
Comment Response:
EPA did not select sulfate as a pollutant or concern or regulated pollutant for F GD wastewater for the final rule. According to EPA’s methodology for the final rule (see DCN SE05342), pollutants of concern are identified based on an assessment of whether they are detected at greater than or equal to 10 times the sample reporting limit in at least 10 percent of all untreated FGD wastewater samples. Using the sample reporting limit provides a direct comparison to the sample result because the reporting limit accounts for analytical adjustments made in the determination of the sample resul t. Additionally, using 10 times the sample reporting limit as a screening threshold can facilitate evaluations of treatment system performance and efficacy, since it ensures the influent concentrations are high enough to more readily quantify the degree

o f pollutant removal resulting from treatment processes such as chemical or biological treatment. Although sulfate was detected in 100% of untreated FGD wastewater samples, it was not present in any untreated FGD wastewater samples at a level of 10 times it s sample reporting limit. Accordingly, sulfate was not selected as a pollutant of concern and was not considered in other analyses such as pollutant loadings and removals or for regulation. Even if EPA had selected sulfate as a pollutant of concern for FG D wastewater, it would not have selected it for regulation because regulation could interfere with its use as a treatment system additive in efforts to optimize treatment system operation.

Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Depar tment of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

8. Sulfur and Sulfate
The proposed revis ion to the ELG does not include sulfate as a parameter. The flue gas desulfization equipment installed to meet the SOx requirements under the Clean Air Act, introduces sulfates into the wastewater streams. Chemical precipitation often includes the addition of ferric sulfate or another sulfur compound to reduce metal concentrations. Increased sulfate compounds expected in the waste streams could lead to a water quality issue, as sulfate is toxic to aquatic life. Options 3a and 3b require BPJ for removal of F lue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. Option 3a requires BPJ for all facilities and 3b for facilities less than 2,000 MW, leaving that the majority of Missouri's power plant permits require a BPJ decision for sulfate concentrations and controls. The Department believe that the ELG should include sulfate as a parameter of concern and discourages implementing BPJ for this parameter.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 68 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 regarding EPA’s rationale for not s electing sulfate as a pollutant of concern or regulated pollutant for FGD wastewater. Even if EPA had selected sulfate as a pollutant of concern for FGD wastewater, it would not have selected it for regulation because regulation could interfere with its us e as a treatment system additive in efforts to optimize treatment system operation.
As discussed in preamble section VIII.C.1, EPA decided not to promulgate BAT limitations that would require permitting authorities to establish limitations for FGD wastewat er using site

specific BPJ. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. EPA notes that permitting authorities could still apply water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) for sulfate when appropriate, see preamble section XVI.D fo r more discussion on WQBELs.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
With respect to baseline pollutant loadings for bottom and fly ash, over half of the pollutants (measured as toxic

- weighted pounds equivalent or “TWPE”) that EPA asserts are being discharged to ash p onds are, at best, theoretical, and likely nonexistent. EPA’s analysis of fly ash and bottom ash transport water includes estimated TWPEs for sulfides based on reported values that were almost all below the detection limit. EPA interpreted those results u sing the limit of detection as the actual value, thus creating pollutant loadings that are not supported by the reported values. This plus other data manipulations discussed below resulted in an EPA

developed TWPE for ash ponds that is six times too large . Hence, any reliance on such an analysis is arbitrary and capricious.
Comment Response:
Following proposal, EPA expanded its bottom ash and fly ash characterization datasets. See Section 6.6.4 of the TDD for a description of the characterization data us ed to identify POCs in ash and Section 10.2.2 for a description of ash impoundment data. As described in those sections and shown in Table 10

- 7, both fly ash and bottom ash transport water contains a variety of metals, as well as other pollutants such as n itrogen compounds, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 69 Regarding sulfides, EPA chose not to calculate loadings for sulfides in the analyses for the final rule.
For comments on TWPE calculations for ash transport water, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0 819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 Externa l Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Sulfur is likely to be a pollutant of concern in Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). ACWA recommends that EPA consider establishing PSES and PSNS limits on flue gas de sulfur ization wastewater discharges. Section 10.2.1 of EPA’s Technical Development Document mentions possible treatment standards for sulfate, but the proposed rule does not include any such limits for §§ 423.16

- .17.
Comment Response:

See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1, Excerpt Number 4.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 120 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

L. The Proposed Nitrate/Nitrite FGD Wastewater Limit Is Inappropriate
EPA based its FGD wastewater limits on effluent data from Allen and Belews Creek only. As we have sho wn, the nitrate/nitrite levels in Allen’s and Belews Creek’s influent is very low compared to levels at other plants.
Plants with higher nitrate/nitrite levels in the influent could not operate biological treatment systems in the same manner as Allen and Belews Creek. Because of the increasedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 70 nitrates/nitrites, these plants would be forced to either increase the size of the biological treatment system or increase retention time within the system. They would also have to increase the amount of nutrient fe ed added to the system.
EPA has not accounted for the additional costs of either sizing up the biological treatment system or increasing retention time within the system. It has also not demonstrated that a biological treatment system used to treat an inf luent with high nitrate/nitrite and selenium can meet the proposed limits. For these reasons, EPA should not set any nitrate/nitrite limits for FGD wastewater.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comme nt Code 26.f regarding biological treatment of FGD wastewater containing higher nitrate/nitrite levels.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4181

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Inclusion of nitrate/nittite in the Biological Treatment standard for FGD appears to be for use as

an indicator of how the anaerobic treatment is performing. Inour state, this would be considered a control test but not a permit limit. This inclusion could lead to unintended consequences in both implementation and enforcement of a new ELG and could ultimate ly result in control tests for other industry sectors and municipalities to become permit conditions.
Comment Response:

EPA did not include nitrate/nitrite is as “an indicator of how the anaerobic treatment is performing.” EPA selected nitrate/nitrite as regulated pollutants to control the discharge of nitrate/nitrite of these pollutants (see TDD Section 11).
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 26.f regarding biological treatment of FGD wastewater containing higher nitrate/nitrite levels.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 71 Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Additionally, the inclusion of nitrate/nitrite in the Biological Treatment standard for FGD appears to be included for use as an indicator of how the anaerobic treatment is performing. Such an inclu sion could lead to unintended consequences in both implementation and enforcement of a new ELG.
Comment Response:

EPA did not include nitrate/nitrite is as “an indicator of how the anaerobic treatment is performing.” EPA selected nitrate/nitrite as regul ated pollutants to control the discharge of nitrate/nitrite of these pollutants (see TDD Section 11).
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 26.f regarding biological treatment of FGD wastewater containing higher nitrate/nitrite levels.

Commenter Name: Paul Chu Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The nitrate/nitrite pollutant removals are an incidental benefit of the selenium removal.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 26.f regarding biological treatment of FGD wastewater containing higher nitrate/nitrite levels.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 72 Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 17 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In addition to our concerns about achieving parity with non

- point sources, it is not clear in the record that these limits were correctly set or that the additional costs to meet the nitrate

- nitrite limits were correctly calculated by EPA. Presumably, nitrate

- nitrite limits would have to be met before selenium would be removed by biological treatment.
It appears that the nitrate

- nitrite limits have bee n included solely as an indicator of how the bio

treatment system is performing. This is insufficient justification for implementing a BAT limit. The TWPE loadings for nitrate

- nitrite are relatively insignificant in comparison to the totals for FGD dischar ges. Based on EPA estimates, these chemical species account for less than 5% of the TWPE removed.
Comment Response:
EPA did not include nitrate/nitrite is as “an indicator of how the biotreatment system is performing.” EPA selected nitrate/nitrite as reg ulated pollutants to control the discharge of nitrate/nitrite of these pollutants. EPA notes that TWPE removal is not a criterion for selecting regulated pollutants (see TDD Section 11).
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 26.f regarding biological treatment of FGD wastewater containing higher nitrate/nitrite levels.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: PowerSouth Energy Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Bottom Ash Transport Water Contains Few Pollutants and Requiring Conversion to Dry or Closed Loop Bottom Ash Handling in the Industry Fails Any Rational Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 73 At the outset, it is noteworthy that EPA erroneously concluded that the pollutants of concern are the same for both fly ash and bottom ash transport waters. EPA made this flippant conclusion with out even analyzing available data for bottom ash transport water. Inexplicably foregoing this review, the agency instead made the bald assertion that the surrogate pollutants for both fly ash and bottom ash transport waters are the same because they are “p rimarily derived” from the type of coal burned, with presumably the same chemical constituents found in each of the wastewater streams. See ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, at 10. This assertion is squarely contr adicted by EPA’s own data, however. UWAG provides a complete analysis of this discrepancy in its comments to the Draft Rule, which PowerSouth incorporates as if fully set out herein. See UWAG Comments at Section V., M. Suffice it to say, EPA’s decision to conflate the pollutants of concern for these two distinct waste streams was arbitrary and capricious and mars any additional analysis by the agency founded upon this flawed contention.
Further compounding this fallacy is that the agency did not even follow its established procedure for selecting pollutants of concern in this instance. EPA typically requires a pollutant to be detected in at least three samples before it can permissibly be labeled a pollutant of concern. See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 424, 446 (Jan. 3, 2001) (“EPA reduced the list of 329” analyzed pollutants “to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those pollutants that met the following criteria: EPA detected the pollutant paramete r in at least three samples collected during the MP&M sampling program”); EPA Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA applied the following crite ria to develop a list of pollutants for further evaluation in each subcategory: 1. EPA determined “[a]ny pollutant detected three or more times in the influent at a concentration at or above 5 times the minimum level”). Yet, EPA did not even collect three samples for its analysis of pollutants of concern for ash transport water. See ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, Table 4

- 3 at 8

- 9. Thus, many of the 24 identified pollutants of concern for ash transport waters are erroneously based on scant data that do not even comply with EPA’s standard practices.
EPA also failed to account for, or properly subtract, minerals or treatment chemicals from its list of pollutants of concern when those markers are naturally occurring c ompounds found in water supply sources. The agency has typically done so in the past, see, e.g., EPA Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA excl uded “[p]ollutants that are naturally occurring compounds found in soil or groundwater at landfill facilities or pollutants that are used as treatment chemicals in this industry were excluded from the pollutants of interest list”), and failed to provide a justifiable reason for its failure to do so in this Draft Rule.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in C omment C ode 15.d and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 74 Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt :
Erroneous Methodology Used to Classify Bottom Ash Pollutants of Concern.
We Energies objects to the methodology EPA used to classify the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water. As described in the TDD (emphasis added):

EPA did not collec t data representing fly ash or bottom ash transport water entering an impoundment during the sampling program for the rulemaking. However, during EPA’s detailed study of the industry, EPA collected a wastewater sample representing the influent to a fly as h impoundment

. 2013 TDD at 6

- 10.
EPA sampled untreated fly ash sluice at one plant during the steam electric detailed study. EPA reviewed the untreated fly ash transport water data from this plant ( one sampling point and one sample ) to identify POCs for fly ash transport water...[T]he criterion EPA used as a screening tool to identify pollutants of concern is less applicable in cases where the technology basis results in complete removal of all pollutants present, such as would occur under the technology op tions considered for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC
wastewater. For these “zero discharge” technologies, confirmation that a pollutant is present in the wastestream at quantifiable levels may be sufficient to identify a poll utant as a pollutant of

concern...
Constituents present in ash, and therefore ash transport water, are primarily derived from the type of coal/petroleum coke burned; therefore... EPA expects that the bottom ash transport water will have the same constituents that are found in the fly ash transport water. For this reason, the POCs for bottom ash transport water are identical to those of fly ash transport
water. Id. at 6

- 28

– 6

- 29.
EPA only sampled one fly ash transport water sample from one plant to characterize ash transport water across the entire industry. Further, EPA states that they did not sample a bottom ash transport water sample and made an assumption that bottom ash tran sport water would have the same constituents found in fly ash transport water. Thus, EPA did not confirm that the pollutants in bottom ash transport water were present in the wastestream at quantifiable levels. We Energies believes the methodology EPA use d to classify the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water was flawed. A better approach would be to take samples of bottom ash transport water from several sites across the industry (to ensure that the data is representative) and confirm poll utants are in the wastestreams at quantifiable levels.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 75 Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in C omment C ode 15.d.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4489

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
A. Bottom Ash Transport Water Contains Few Pollutants and Requiring Conversion to Dry or Closed Loop Bottom Ash Handling in the Industry Fails Any Rational Cost

Effectiveness Analysis
EPA’s assumption that the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport waters are the same as those for fly ash transport waters is erroneous. EPA made this assumption without analyzing available data for bottom ash transport water. Instead, the agency based its assumption on the premise that the surrogate pollutants for bot h fly ash and bottom ash transport waters must be the same because they are “primarily derived” from the type of coal burned, with presumably the same chemical constituents found in each of the wastewater streams. See Eastern Research Group, Inc.’s (“ERG”) Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, at 10. This assumption is squarely contradicted by EPA’s own data, as UWAG demonstrates in in its comments to the Proposed Rule. See UWAG Comments at Section V., M. Alabama Power, th erefore, incorporates those comments as if fully set out herein. EPA’s erroneous conflation of the pollutants of concern for two distinct waste streams is arbitrary and capricious and, consequently, undermines the agency’s analysis based upon this flaw.

Fu rther undermining EPA’s analysis of this waste stream is the fact that the agency failed to follow its own, well

- established procedure for selecting pollutants of concern. While EPA typically requires a pollutant to be detected in at least three samples be fore it can permissibly be labeled a pollutant of concern, 1 EPA did not collect three samples for its analysis of ash transport water. See ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 2151, Table 4

- 3 at 8

- 9. Because many of the 24 pollutants of concern for ash transport waters were identified based on scant data that does not even comply with EPA’s standard practices, they cannot be considered.
Another flaw in EPA’s analysis is its failure to account for, or otherwise remove, those minerals or treatment chemicals on its list of pollutants of concern when those markers are naturallyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 76 occurring compounds found in water supply sources. While the agency has typically done this in the past, 2 it failed to provide a justifiable reason for i ts failure to do so in this Proposed Rule.

1 See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 424, 446 (Jan. 3, 2001) ("EPA reduced the list of 329" analyzed pollutants "to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those pollutants that met the following criteria: EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three samples collected during the MP&M sampling program”); EPA Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landf

ills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA applied the following criteria to develop a list of pollutants for further evaluation in each subcategory: 1. EPA determined “[a]ny pollutant detected three or more times in the influent at a concen tration at or above 5 times the minimum level”).

2 See, e.g., EPA Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA excluded “[p]ollutants that are natural ly occurring compounds found in soil or groundwater at landfill facilities or pollutants that are used as treatment chemicals in this industry were excluded from the pollutants of interest list”).
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 081 9

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule , see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Nu mber 27 in C omment C ode 6.h.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 19 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Constituent Concentrations Differ Greatly
It is concerning that EPA did not use readily available data for untreated bottom ash transport water in identifying the pollutants of concern and that EPA conclude d incorrectly that the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water were identical to the pollutants of concernEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 77 identified for fly ash transport water. There were 91 facilities operating bottom ash impoundments. This information is contained in app lications to renew NPDES permits and demonstrate that discharges of bottom ash transport water do not warrant the same level controls as discharges of fly ash transport water.
The 2009 Detailed Study indicates that the constituents present in ash, and ther efore fly or bottom ash transport water, are primarily derived from the type of coal/petroleum coke burned; therefore, as discussed in Section 6.2.3, EPA expects that the bottom ash transport water will have the same constituents that are found in the fly ash transport water. For this reason, the pollutants for bottom ash transport water are “identical” to those of fly ash transport water. This is simply not accurate.
Generally, the primary pollutants included in the proposed ELG for fly ash and bottom ash include:

1. Arsenic (As), 2. Mercury (Hg), 3. Selenium (Se), and 4. Total nitrogen (TN).
It is widely known that the most volatile trace elements in coal during the combustion process are As, Hg, and Se. It is also widely known that the primary source of nitrogen compounds is added to the flue gas in the form of ammonia. Therefore, EPA should expect that these same constituents would be most prevalent in fly ash, not in bottom ash.
A comparison of the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and other TN r esults for fly and bottom ash generated at three NRG stations in 2010, 2011, or 2012 does not support EPA’s expectations.
Fly & Bottom Ash Constituent Comparison

NRG

Plant Fly Ash (mg/l) Bottom

Ash
(mg/l) Fly Ash

(mg/l) Bottom

Ash
(mg/l) Fly Ash

(m g/l) Bottom

Ash
(mg/l) Fly Ash

(mg/l) Bottom

Ash
(mg/l)

As As Hg Hg Se Se TN TN

A 0.08 <0.02 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.02 <0.02 ND ND

B 0.46 <0.02 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.02 <0.02 ND ND

C 0.174 <0.02 0.0003 <0.0002 0.05 <0.02 3.7 NDEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 78 Notes: Not detected (ND): Ammonia Nitrogen, Nitrate Nitrogen, & Nitrite Nitrogen. “Less than” values represent the laboratory quantitation limits.

The table below includes NRG data and data from Table 5

- 9 from the 2009 Detailed Study, which presented the pollutant concentrations re presenting the effluent from fly ash and bottom ash ponds collected during EPA’s sampling program. These plants and impoundments include:

 Widows Creek: combined fly ash and bottom ash pond system.

 Cardinal and Mitchell: fly ash pond systems.

 Homer City: bottom ash pond system.

 Cheswick and Avon Lake: bottom ash pond systems.

Ash Pond Effluent Concentrations

Analyte Widows

Creek (FA & BA) Cardinal

(FA) Mitchell

(FA) Homer City

(BA) Cheswick

(BA) Avon Lake (BA)

Flow 29.9 7.8 7.8 0.453 0.246 0.655 As 34.9 69.8 142 6.52 14 3.3 Hg 0.00157 0.00125 0.00212 0.00511 <0.1 0.002* Se 17.1 45.8 191 5.74 <10 <4.11

(In MGD or μg/l) *Intake water from Lake Erie contributes an average of 0.0015 μg/l of mercury to the bottom ash transport water.

As calculated from the summary in the above table, the metals mass loading concentrations from fly ash pond systems are up to 600 times greater than the mass loading concentrations from bottom ash pond systems. Mercury concentrations are low in either case and can sometimes be

a ssociated with the surface water providing makeup water to the ash sluice system. The quality of these effluents from bottom ash systems may meet the proposed BAT for FGD wastewater.
The 2013 TDD noted that in recent years, physical/chemical treatment syst ems and other more advanced systems have become more widely used in FGD system as effluent limits for metals and other pollutants have been included in permits. As indicated, in nearly all cases this was driven by the need to use such technologies to meet WQBELs established to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving waters. This same advancement in technologies has not occurred for discharges of bottom ash transport water most likely due to the relatively low concentrations.

EPA shoul d carefully review this type of easily ascertainable data before equating bottom ash discharges to fly ash discharges. We believe that after such review, EPA would not seek to establish a zero discharge requirement for bottom ash transport water.

Comment R esponse:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 79 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a. See also Table 10

- 7 in the TDD for the average pollutant concentrations calculated for each type of ash impoundment using EPA’s updated dataset.

Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Paul Carpmone Commenter Affiliation: Tampa Electric Company (TEC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4520

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 Ext ernal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Bottom Ash Data, Assumptions, and Analysis Flawed
For the purposes of this rulemaking, EPA has improperly characterized bottom ash transport water. EPA states that data for bottom ash was not readily available, but
"...because the pollutants found in bottom ash are constituents present in the coal . ..as is the case for fly ash, EPA concluded that the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water are identical to pollutants of concern identified for fly ash transport water." (78 Fed. Reg. at p. 34,455 col 3)
This assumption is invalid since, although the constituents may be similar (not identical), they may exist in different chemical phases and in different concentrations. In general, bottom ash contains fewer pollutants of concern than fly ash and a greater percentage of inerts. Since the majority of the data that EPA used for rulemaking was taken from combined ash facilities, this assumption of identical constituents is convenient for the purposes of analysis, but incorrect.
On page 6

- 10 of the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Cate gory April2013 (Technical Development Document), EPA states that it took "a wastewater sample representing the influent to a fly ash impoundment...." No similar sample was taken to represent influent to a bottom ash impoundment during EPA's "detailed study of the industry" that occurred prior to the sampling period associated with the rulemaking. It is unlikely that a single sample is representative of fly ash ponds or bottom ash ponds industry

- wide. EPA culled the rest of the data used for bottom ash fro m combined ash ponds, which also do not accurately reflect the characterization of bottom ash ponds and would prejudice the analyses used to establish these guidelines.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 80 Bottom ash differs from fly ash (and from combined ash) and to assume that the chemical and physical characteristics of the transport water are the same or that sampling results are equivalent is erroneous, as are the results of any analyses that use these data and assumptions.
The dubious assumptions and the flawed analytical procedures uti lized for the proposed rule call into question the conclusions that EPA has reached and represents serious technical flaws. TEC urges EPA to revisit this portion of the proposed rule and to establish a protocol for obtaining more accurate data prior to mo ving forward.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a. EPA disagrees that bottom ash impoundments contain fewer pollutants of concern; as described in Section 6.6.4 of the TDD, EPA identifi ed 38 POCs for fly ash transport water and 37 POCs for bottom ash transport water.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Compan y of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 47 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
At the outset, it is noteworthy that EPA c oncluded in error that the pollutants of concern are the same for both fly ash and bottom ash transport waters. EPA reached this conclusion without analyzing available data for bottom ash transport water. Inexplicably foregoing this review, the agency inst ead made the assertion that the surrogate pollutants for both fly ash and bottom ash transport waters are the same because they are “primarily derived” from the type of coal burned, with presumably the same chemical constituents found in each of the waste water streams. See ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, at 10. This assertion is squarely contradicted by EPA’s own data, however. UWAG provides a complete analysis of this discrepancy in its comments to the Proposed Rule, which PSNH incorporates as if fully set out herein. See UWAG Comments at Section V., M. Suffice it to say, EPA’s decision to conflate the pollutants of concern for these two distinct waste streams was arbitrary and capricious and mars any additional analysis by the agency founded upon this flawed contention.
To make matters worse, the agency did not even follow its established procedure for selecting pollutants of concern in this instance. EPA typically requires a pollutant to be detected in at leastEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 81 three samples before it can permissibly be labeled a pollutant of concern. See, e.g., 66 Fed. Reg. 424, 446 (Jan. 3, 2001) (“EPA reduced the list of 329” analyzed pollutants “to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of concern or POCs) for further con sideration by retaining only those pollutants that met the following criteria: EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three samples collected during the MP&M sampling program”); EPA Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guideline s and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA applied the following criteria to develop a list of pollutants for further evaluation in each subcategory: 1. EPA determined “[a]ny pollutant detected three or more time s in the influent at a concentration at or above 5 times the minimum level”). Yet, EPA did not even collect three samples for its analysis of pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water. See ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- H Q

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 2151, Table 4

- 3 at 8

- 9. Thus, many of the 24 identified pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport waters are erroneously based on scant data that do not even comply with EPA’s standard practices.
EPA also failed to account for, or prope rly subtract, minerals or treatment chemicals from its list of pollutants of concern when those markers are naturally occurring compounds found in water supply sources. The agency has typically done so in the past, see, e.g., EPA Development Document for P roposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category, EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022, at 7

- 2 (EPA excluded “[p]ollutants that are naturally occurring compounds found in soil or groundwater at landfill facilities or pollutants tha t are used as treatment chemicals in this industry were excluded from the pollutants of interest list”), and failed to provide a justifiable reason for its failure to do so in this Proposed Rule.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0 819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 66 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
M. EPA Incorrectly Concludes that Bottom Ash Transport Water Pollutants of Concern Are the Same as Those for Fly Ash Transport Water
Moving beyond the cost

- effectiveness analysis, we turn to EPA’s decisions on pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water. Since pollutants of concern are those evaluated for theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 82 setting of limits, it is important that EPA’s s election process be valid, and therefore it merits careful review.
EPA’s approach to identifying pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water is arbitrary because it is not based on characterization data for bottom ash transport water. Although EPA had several sources of bottom ash transport water characterization data available to it (including its Homer City sample and the EPRI PISCES Site F data), EPA says it was “unable to obtain readily available data for untreated bottom ash tran sport water for use in identifying the pollutants of concern. . . .” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,455 col. 3. EPA concludes that “the pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water are identical to the pollutants of concern identified for fly ash transport w ater.” Id. EPA believes that the same 24 pollutants of concern it identified for fly ash transport water are appropriate to use as surrogate pollutants of concern for bottom ash. EPA explains this decision in two sentences:
Constituents present in ash, and therefore ash transport water, are primarily derived from the type of coal/petroleum coke burned; therefore, EPA expects that the bottom ash transport water will have the same constituents that are found in the fly ash transport water. For this reason , EPA assumed that the [pollutants of concern] for bottom ash transport water are identical to those of fly ash transport water.
ERG, Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151 at 10.

This conclusion is unwarranted. Even a curs ory glance at EPA’s own data shows that bottom ash transport water is very different from fly ash transport water. EPA published its characterization data for the Homer City power plant bottom ash sample and its sample of fly ash transport water from Card inal power plant in its 2009 Final Detailed Study, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0004, Table 5

- 9 (Detailed Study). As shown in the tables below, the Homer City bottom ash transport water sample and the Cardinal fly ash transport water sample are vastly different.

A nalyte Method Homer City Bottom Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) Cardinal Fly Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) 23,24

Routine Metals

– Total Antimony 200.7 NQ (20.0) 21.2 Arsenic 200.7 NQ (10.0) 77.6 Lead 200.7 ND (50.0) ND (50.0) Mercury 245.1 ND (0.200) ND (0.200) Molybdenum 200.7 19.7 361 Selenium 200.7 6.02 44.5 Vanadium 200.7 NQ (20.0) 104 Routine Metals

– Dissolved Antimony 200.7 NQ (20.0) 20.9 Arsenic 200.7 NQ (10.0) 74.6 Lead 200.7 ND (50.0) ND (50.0)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 83 A nalyte Method Homer City Bottom Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) Cardinal Fly Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) 23,24

Mercury 245.1 ND (0.200) ND (0.200) Molybdenum 200.7 20.2 352 Selenium 200.7 6.10 L 43.8 Vanadium 200.7 NQ (20.0) 99.9

L

– Sample result between 5x and 10x blank result
The Cardinal fly ash transport water effluent is significantly higher in antimony, arsenic, selenium, molybdenum, and vanadium in both total and dissolved metals measured by routine methods, than the Homer City bottom ash transport water. For lead and mercury, the Homer City and Cardinal samples are non

- detects for total and dissolved methods, using routine analytical methods.
Using low

- level methods the result is similar: the Cardinal fly ash effluent is significantly higher in antimony, arsenic, and selenium for both total and dissolved metals than the Homer City sample. For lead and mercury, the results are low and fairly simila r. 25

Analyte Method Homer City Bottom Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) Cardinal Fly Ash Pond Effluent (ug/L) Low

- Level Metals

– Total Antimony 1638 1.09 21.9 Arsenic 1638 6.52 69.8 Lead 1638 NQ (0.250) 0.420 Mercury 1631E 0.00511 0.00125 Selenium 1638 5.74 45.8 Low

- Level Metals

– Dissolved Antimony 1638 0.990 22.4 Arsenic 1638 5.00 68.9 Lead 1638 NQ (0.250) NQ (0.250) Mercury 1631E 0.00141 NQ (0.0005) Selenium 1638 5.16 45.0

EPA has given no sound reason for neglecting to use the available bottom ash transport water data to determine pollutants of concern. Since there is bottom ash transport water available, substituting fly ash transport water is unjustified.
N. EPA Failed to Apply Its Traditional Criteria for Selecting Pollutants of Concern (POCs)

B esides ignoring the available bottom ash transport water data, EPA also deviated from its traditional criteria for selecting pollutants of concern (POCs) in bottom ash transport water.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 84 First, EPA normally requires that a pollutant of concern be detected in at least three samples. See 66 Fed. Reg. 424, 446 col. 3 (Jan. 3, 2001) (“EPA reduced the list of 329” analyzed pollutants “to 132 pollutants (referred to as pollutants of concern or POCs) for further consideration by retaining only those pollutants that met the following criteria: EPA detected the pollutant parameter in at least three samples collected during the MP&M sampling program”); EPA, “Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category,” EPA

- 821

- R

- 97

- 022 (January 1998) (Proposed Landfills TDD) at 7

- 2 (available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/landfills/techdev.cfm ) (EPA applied the following criteria to develop a list of pollutants for further evaluation in each subcategory: 1. EPA determined “[a]ny pollutant detected three or more times in the influent at a concentration at or above 5 times the minimum level...”).
For the ash transp ort water POC analysis, which EPA used to determine POCs for both bottom ash and fly ash transport water, EPA did not even collect three samples. As a result, EPA selected its POCs based on only two samples for 12 metals and only one sample for the remain ing 26 pollutants. ERG POC Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, Table 4

- 3 at 8, 9. Even if EPA had not wanted to rely on its single sample of bottom ash transport water from Homer City, it seems illogical to use the EPRI PISCES Site F bottom ash transport water data to develop TWPEs but to ignore it for purposes of selecting POCs. And, as already noted, EPA could easily have collected additional bottom ash transport water samples if it had wanted to have three or more samples for purposes of the POC determination.
As a result, 15 of the 24 ash transport water POCs are based on detection in a single sample. Id. This is contrary to EPA’s own protocol, arbitrary, and provides a weak foundation for EPA’s POC decisions.
Second, in previous efflue nt guidelines EPA has been careful to remove any naturally occurring

non

- toxic minerals or treatment chemicals from the POC selection. See, e.g. , the Proposed Landfills TDD at 7

- 2 (EPA excluded “[p]ollutants that are naturally occurring compounds found in soil or groundwater at landfill facilities or pollutants that are used as treatment chemicals in this industry were excluded from the pollutants of interest list”). In the MP&M ELG, EPA excluded sodium, calcium, and total dissolved solids because they ar e found in water treatment chemicals. EPA also excluded cyanide when it was not from operations that used cyanide. Similarly chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, and cadmium where excluded. EPA makes no such adjustments to the current ash transport wate r POCs.
Third, EPA apparently bases its POC for nitrate/nitrite on data only from the Cardinal fly ash transport water sample, as the reference for Table 4

- 3 in ERG’s POC Methodology memorandum is to the “Cardinal Sampling Data, [ERG, 2008].” EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

- 2151 at 9. However, EPA failed to analyze the Cardinal nitrate/nitrite sample within the correct holding time. See Detailed Study, Table 5

- 9 at 5

- 20. Therefore EPA’s only value for establishing nitrate/nitrite as a POC for both fly ash and botto m ash transport water is not a valid result. EPA should have thrown out that value rather than using it to establish a POC. Similarly, the Cardinal results for chromium (low

- level metals total and dissolved) should not be used to establish a POC because EPA flagged those data points as “between 5x and 10x blank result.” Detailed Study, Table 5

- 9 at 5

- 20. This calls these data into question. Any questionableEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 85 data should be thrown out and not used for POC selection, particularly when the selection is bas ed on only two samples.

23 We used Cardinal as the reference point for fly ash transport water because the other two plants EPA presents data for in Table 5

- 9 would be inappropriate to use. The results for Widows Creek are for a combined bottom ash and fly ash pond and thus not representative of fly ash transport water. The results for Mitchell would not be representative because Mitchell’s ash pond receives effluent from a coal washing facility and treated acid mine drainage. EPA Final Detailed Study at 5

- 16.

24 Homer City and Cardinal burn different types of coal. Homer City burns Eastern bituminous while Cardinal burns subbituminous. The coal type has an effect on trace metal concentrations in the ash; this is another reason why EPA should have collected more representative samples of bottom ash transport water and fly ash transport water.

25 The low

- level metals analysis in the Final Detailed Study does not include molybdenum or vanadium values. See Detailed Study, Table 5

- 9.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a. In addition, EPA removed the Cardinal data from the final dataset because it did not meet EPA’s requirement that sampling locations represent at least 75% fly ash or bottom ash tra nsport water and not be represented by combined fly ash and bottom ash impoundments or impoundments diluted with other waste streams.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Nancy A. Evans Commenter Affiliation: PPL Services Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4348

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

It should be noted that EPA’s characterization of bottom ash transport water is completely inaccurate. EPA states in the preamble that bottom ash includes the same levels of toxics as fly ash. This is simply not supported by the data. The data EPA used to make this as sumption does not reflect transport water that contained only bottom ash.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 86 Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15. d.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 83 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excerpt:
Proposed Arsenic Limits are Inappropriate
EPA has proposed very stringent limits for arsenic based on chemical precipitation treatment. Those proposed limits are 6 μg/L monthly average and 8 μg/L daily maximum. EPA developed limits based on sam pling data from three plants with chemical precipitation treatment

- Hatfield’s Ferry, Miami Fort and Keystone. Figure 6 provides the dissolved arsenic influent concentrations and the total arsenic effluent concentrations of the chemical precipitation trea tment system for the three plants. The dissolved arsenic concentrations in the influent, ranging from < 4 to 11 μg/L, are very close, if not the same, as the total arsenic in the chemical precipitation effluent. In fact, in most instances (10 out of 12 dat a points), the dissolved arsenic influent is present at concentrations below the proposed limits of 6 and 8 μg/L.
Figure 6: Arsenic Concentrations in Selected Plants

- Influent (Dissolved) and Chemical Precipitation Effluent (Total)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 87 In addition, the sett led arsenic levels (baseline) in the influent to the treatment system is not a pollutant of concern (POC) based on EPA’s own POC criteria. 2013 TDD p. 6

- 24 to 6

- 28. In other words, the influent arsenic levels at the BAT plants are not present at high enoug h concentrations to evaluate the effectiveness of the chemical precipitation treatment system.
According to EPA 34 , it “reviewed the untreated FGD wastewater data for these

seven plants 35 (total of seven sampling points and 28 samples) to identify FGD waste water POCs.” To identify POCs ( i.e. , pollutants that are present in sufficient concentrations to quantify the degree of pollutant removal resulting from treatment processes), EPA applied two criteria:

1. Eliminate from consideration any pollutants that were n ever detected in the untreated wastewater samples, and 2. Identify pollutants detected at greater than or equal to 10 times the basline value in at least 10 percent of all untreated wastewater samples.
EPA used a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L arsenic which is based on an MDL study conducted by EPA 36 . By applying the above criteria to untreated FGD wastewater from the seven plants (28 data points) to a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L arsenic, EPA concluded that arsenic is a POC because 100% of the sample results are greater than 10 times the baseline value. 37
However, based on Southern’s analysis of the same 28 arsenic data points using EPA’s own criteria, arsenic in FGD wastewater is not a POC. Table 18 provides the 28 data points for dissolved, total and settled ars enic in the influent to the chemical precipitation treatment systems. Both the dissolved and the settled arsenic concentrations in the influent do not meet the POC criteria. The settled influent represents the baseline for the industry ( i.e. , effluent from a settling pond). EPA mistakenly used the total arsenic influent data which represents FGD wastewater prior to treatment by a settling pond. Since plants currently treat FGD wastewater at a minimum with a settling pond, the removal of particulate arsenic by settling ponds should not have been included in EPA’s POC analysis. If settled arsenic influent data are used in the POC analysis, then arsenic would not qualify as a POC, and therefore, no limitations or standards would have been proposed. Because arse nic is not a POC by EPA’s own criteria, the proposed arsenic limits for FGD wastewater are invalid, because treatability of settled arsenic at the BAT plants or at any of the seven plants is not demonstrated.
Table 18: Arsenic Pollutant of Concern Analysi s of FGD Wastewater Using EPA’s POC Methodology

Plant Name Sample SP

- 1 Influent Dissolved SP

- 1

Influent Total SP

- 1

Influent Settled ≥ 10 Times

the Baseline Dissolved ≥ 10 Times

the Baseline Total ≥ 10 Times

the Baseline Settled Belews Creek Day 1 2 3 270 4.6 No Yes No Belews Creek Day 2 2 3 230 3.4 No Yes No Belews Creek Day 3 4.8 240 6.9 No Yes No Belews Creek Day 4 4.3 200 6.6 No Yes No Allen Day 1 8.7 120 10.6 No Yes NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 88 Allen Day 2 10 140 11.0 No Yes No Allen Day 3 10 140 12.0 No Yes No Allen Day 4 7.1 140 8.9 No Yes No Dickerson Day 1 2 3 280 4.1 No Yes No Dickerson Day 2 2 3 220 2.6 No Yes No Dickerson Day 3 2 3 190 3.4 No Yes No Dickerson Day 4 2 3 230 3.8 No Yes No Miami Fort Day 1 4.4 937 6.1 No Yes No Miami Fort Day 2 4.9 896 5.8 No Yes No Miami Fort Day 3 6.6 1,310 8.6 No Yes No Miami Fort Day 4 5.5 695 6.6 No Yes No Hatfield’s Ferry Day 1 5.2 2,300 6.5 No Yes No
Hatfield’s Ferry Day 2 11 4,610 13.1 No Yes No
Hatfield’s Ferry Day 3 5.1 2,150 6.1 No Yes No
Hatfield’s Ferry Day 4 7.7 2,830 9.5 No Yes No
Pleasant Prairie Day 1 7.2 150 8.3 No Yes No
Pleasant Prairie Day 2 6.9 160 7.5 No Yes No
Pleasant Prairie Day 3 7.7 140 8.9 No Yes No
Pleasant Prairie Day 4 7 150 8.2 No Yes No Keystone Day 1 2 3 3,080 5.6 No Yes No Keystone Day 2 2 3 2,470 4.6 No Yes No Keystone Day 3 2 3 2,720 6.1 No Yes No Keystone Day 4 2 3 2,560 3.4 No Yes No

1

- All concentrations are in μg/L

2

- Data source: EPA Sampling Episode Reports

3

- Non

- detects = 0.5 μg/L

4

- Reference: EPA 2013 TDD, Section 6: Wastewater Characterization and Pollutants of ConcernEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 89 5

- EPA identified pollutants detected at greater th an or equal to 10 times the baseline value in at least 10 percent of all untreated process water as POCs.

6

- EPA used a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L for arsenic based on EPA’s MDL Study.
The Proposed Nitrate/Nitrite Limit is Not Appropriate
The biological treatment systems that EPA evaluated as BAT

– Belews Creek and Allen Stations

– were designed for selenium removal. Nitrate removal is a precursor reaction that occurs prior to selenium removal in biological systems. Thus, some nitrate removal will occur

w ithin the bioreactor, but it is not understood how much will be removed and how that removal will be impacted by higher nitrate levels going into the bioreactors.
Also, there are very limited data to support EPA’s proposed nitrate

- nitrite limits. As we hav e demonstrated, the nitrate/nitrite levels in FGD wastewater at Belews Creek and Allen are much lower than the levels in other FGD wastewaters. In addition, Belews Creek and Allen did not collect nitrate/nitrite data after the facilities completed the star t

- up modes of their treatment systems. Therefore, there is insufficient data from these two plants for EPA to develop national effluent limitations guidelines for nitrate/nitrite.
In addition, rainwater contains higher nitrate/nitrite level than the limits that EPA proposes. According to an online report 38 , 43 of 51 samples over 31 states in the United States contained nitrate, ranging from 0.13 mg/L to 8.16 mg/L nitrate

- N.

When Southern conducted water conservation tests at Plant Bowen, it found the servic e water contained 0.07

- 0.12 mg/L nitrate

- N (0.3

- 0.5 mg/L nitrate), which basically reflects the background of the river water nitrate

- N level. This is based on a weekly sampling for 10 weeks. Similarly, Wansley service water has nitrate

- N range of 1.26

- 1.3 5 mg/L based on five samples collected in five consecutive days.
Given that similar background concentrations of nitrate/nitrite are likely ubiquitous, it is going to prove very difficult to meet the proposed limits, based only on typical intake concentrat ions.

34 ERG Memorandum to Steam Electric Rulemaking Record, “Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum,” April 19, 2013, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151.

35 The seven plants sampled by EPA include Belews Creek, Allen, Miami Fort, Pleasant Prairie, Hatfield’ s Ferry, Keystone, and Dickerson.

36 Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). 2013. Results of the ICP/MS Collision Cell Method Detection Limit Studies in the Synthetic Flue Gas Desulfurization Matrix (January 16), EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2116.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 90 37 ERG Memorandum t o Steam Electric Rulemaking Record, “Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum,” April 19, 2013, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151

38 Root, E., W. Jones, B. Schwarz, and J. Gibbons. 2004. Rainwater Chemistry Across the United States , available at http://www.people.carleton.edu/~bhaileab/environmentalgeology/RainWater.pdf . November 22

Comment Response:
Regarding arsenic, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 56 in Comment Code 9.a.
Regarding nitrate/nitrite, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 26.f.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
There is no basis in the record to support EPA’s classification of pollutants of concern in bottom ash transport water.

Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliati on: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 122Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 91 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Proposed Arsenic Limits are Inappropriate
EPA has prop osed very stringent limits for arsenic based on chemical precipitation treatment. Those proposed limits are 6 μg/L monthly average and 8 μg/L daily maximum. EPA developed limits based on sampling data from three plants with chemical precipitation treatme nt

– Hatfield’s Ferry, Miami Fort and Keystone. Figure 6 provides the dissolved arsenic influent concentrations and the total arsenic effluent concentrations of the chemical precipitation treatment system for the three plants. The dissolved arsenic conce ntrations in the influent, ranging from <4 to 11 μg/L, are very close, if not the same, as the total arsenic in the chemical precipitation effluent. In fact, in most instances (10 out of 12 data points), the dissolved arsenic influent is present at concen trations below the proposed limits of 6 and 8 μg/L.
Figure 6: Arsenic Concentrations at Selected Plants

- Influent (Dissolved) and Chemical Precipitation Effluent (Total)

In addition, the settled arsenic levels (baseline) in the influent to the treatmen t system is not a pollutant of concern (POC) based on EPA’s own POC criteria. 2013 TDD p. 6

- 24 to 6

- 28. In other words, the influent arsenic levels at the sampled plants are not present at high enough concentrations to evaluate the effectiveness of the c hemical precipitation treatment system or the biological treatment system.
According to EPA, 63 it “reviewed the untreated FGD wastewater data for ... seven plants (total of seven sampling points and 28 samples) to identify FGD wastewater POCs.” 64Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 92 To identif y POCs ( i.e. , pollutants that are present in sufficient concentrations to quantify the degree of pollutant removal resulting from treatment processes), EPA applied two criteria:

(1) Eliminate from consideration any pollutants that were never detected in t he untreated wastewater samples, and

(2) Identify pollutants detected at greater than or equal to 10 times the baseline value in at least 10 percent of all untreated wastewater samples.
EPA used a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L arsenic which is based on a me thod detection limit (MDL) study conducted by EPA. 65 By applying the above criteria to untreated FGD wastewater from the seven plants (28 data points) to a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L arsenic, EPA concluded that arsenic is a POC because 100% of the sample results are greater than 10 times the baseline value. 66
However, based on UWAG’s analysis of the same 28 arsenic data points using EPA’s own criteria, arsenic in FGD wastewater is not a POC. The table below provides the 28 data points for dissolved, total and settled arsenic in the influent to the chemical precipitation treatment systems. Both the dissolved and the settled arsenic concentrations in the influent do not meet the POC criteria. The settled influent represents the appropriate baseline for the industry ( i.e.
, effluent from a settling pond). EPA mistakenly used the total arsenic influent data which represents FGD wastewater prior to treatment by a settling pond. Since plants currently treat FGD wastewater at a minimum with a settling pond, the removal of particulate arsenic by settling ponds should not have been included in EPA’s POC analysis. If settled arsenic influent data are used in the POC analysis, then arsenic would not qualify as a POC, and therefore no arsenic limits would have been proposed. Because arsenic is not a POC by EPA’s own criteria, the proposed arsenic limits for FGD wastewater are invalid, because treatability of settled arsenic at the sampled plants has not been demonstrated.

Table 17: Arsenic Pollutant of Concern Anal ysis of FGD Wastewater Using EPA’s POC MethodologyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 93 1

- All concentrations are in μg/L.

2

- Data source: EPA Sampling Episode Reports, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0736,

- 0790,

- 0798,

- 0773,

- 0813,

- 0755, and

- 0808.

3

- Non

- detects = 0.5 μg/L.

4

- Reference: EPA 2013 TDD, Section 6: Wastewater Characterization and Pollutants of Concern.

5

- EPA identified pollutants detected at greater than or equal to 10 times the baseline value in at least 10 percent of all untreated process water as POCs.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 94 6

- EPA used a baseline value of 2.0 μg/L for arsenic based on EPA’s MDL Study.

Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 56 in Comment Code 9.a.

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Failure to Allow Credit for Intake Pollutants Results in an Ov erestimate of Risk, a Practice That Will Continue Under the Proposed Rules
EPA does not take source water contributions into account when applying ELG permit limits, nor will it under this proposed rule for Pollutant of Concern assessments, even though it is allowed in 40 CFR 122.44 and 122.45 (g). This is problematic for steam electric generating plants generally because many of the pollutants that are regulated or are proposed for regulation are common in the earth’s crust and the watersheds that provide cooling and process water to generating plants and can be present in intake water at concentrations that have regulatory consequence. The discharges of plants that use once

- through cooling are especially subject to mischaracterization because the large vo lumes of water in conjunction with substantial intake concentrations yield large loadings. For example, Consumers Energy monitored and reported zinc in the discharge of its J.R. Whiting plant for several years and reported zinc in the Toxic Release Invent ory (TRI) until monitoring of the intake demonstrated that all the zinc was pass

through. We submit that a large portion of the contaminants discharged from power plants are actually attributable to the intake water.
In Michigan, the inability to “net” is especially important with regard to mercury, which is generally present in intake water at concentrations greater than the 1.3 ng/l standard. At Consumers Energy we can demonstrate, through many years of low level mercury monitoring in both the intake and the discharges of our once

- through power plants that the mercury discharged is attributable to intake concentrations and not actual discharges from the plant. The mercury data provided in Attachment 1 for intake and discharge of the D.E. Karn and J.C. Wea dock power plants is instructive. These data clearly show the intake to be the source of mercury and actually demonstrate that there is a small but statistically

- significant sequestration of mercury byEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 95 the plant due to the settling of mercury with dissolve d solids in the small, process portion of the flow, while the once

- through flow has no treatment.
The inability to “net” mercury at this plant has several consequences:

1. The mercury data are reported to the State and EPA as if they were generated from the P lants 2. Because of the large volumes of water involved, loadings are significant, and steam electric generating plants are recognized as the principal industrial source of water

discharged mercury in the state TMDL. 3. Inability to net mercury results in the ne ed to maintain a “pollutant minimization plan” for mercury when there is really nothing that can be done to treat or minimize mercury in the once

- through source water. 4. The mercury data from the Michigan Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) are reported to E PA, which not only perpetuates the myth that these steam electric generating plants are the principal source of mercury discharges, but then multiplies the loadings by a factor of 117 Toxic Weighted Pounds Equivalent (TWPE) in its Discharge Monitoring Repo rt Pollutant Loading Tool. This further exaggerates the impact of steam electric plant discharges, when in reality these once

- through cooling plants are simply reporting mercury in source water passing through the plants and may, as in the case of Consum ers Energy plants, actually be sequestering mercury.
These data on mercury are instructive of the overestimation and consequences attendant to the reporting and regulation of naturally

- occurring water quality parameters generally. By requiring the reportin g of naturally occurring and background water quality parameters that are simply passed through a plant or process, the EPA grossly distorts the truth relative to discharges by industry into waters of the United States. It’s time for honesty and transparen cy in government

these ELG rules should provide for the consideration of source water and the reporting of “net” as opposed to gross concentrations and loadings at steam electric generating plants. There should not be the expectation that naturally

- occurr ing and background concentrations of pollutants in the source water should be treated at the steam electric generating plant’s expense.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 26.e Regulatory I mplementation

– Net Credits.

Commenter Name: Jay Hudson Commenter Affiliation: Santee Cooper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4476

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 96 Comment Excerpt:
EPA then concluded that the pollutants of concern (POCs) for bottom ash transport are identical to those of fly ash transport water.6 This is inappropriate due to major differences in fly ash and bottom ash as discussed below.
In addition, as noted by APPA, EPA made questionable analytical judgments for samples analyzed at the non

- detect level. These calculations, from a mixed bag of data from as long as 40 years ago, resulted in overestimates of bottom ash transport water toxi city.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a. See also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion of how EPA used ash data to determ ine pollutants of concern and discharge loads, and the effect of detection limits on those analyses.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 49 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA Failed to Apply its Tradition al Criteria for Selecting Pollutants of Concern for Bottom Ash.
In addition to relying on inappropriate bottom ash transport water data, EPA also deviated from its traditional criteria for selecting pollutants of concern for bottom ash transport water. Fo r example, EPA normally requires that the pollutant be detected in at least three samples. For the “ash transport water” pollutants of concern analysis, which EPA used to determine pollutants of concern for both bottom ash and fly ash transport water, EPA did not collect three samples. As a result, EPA selected its pollutants of concern based on only two samples for 12 metals and only one sample for the remaining 26 pollutants. ERG Pollutants of Concern Methodology Memorandum, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2151, T able 4

- 3, pp. 8

- 9. Furthermore, EPA incorrectly concluded that bottom ash transport water pollutants of concern are identical to those for fly ash transport water. In fact, fly ash and bottom ash have distinctly different physical and chemical properties that EPA needs to recognize. Also, to give another example, in previous effluent guidelines, EPA has been careful to remove any naturally

- occurring non

- toxic minerals orEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 97 treatment chemicals from the pollutants

- of

- concern selection, but EPA has made no su ch adjustments to the ash transport water pollutants of concern.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Com menter Name: Erik Silvola Commenter Affiliation: Great River Energy (GRE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4572

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Pretreatment Standards
GRE believes the limits for both existing and new sources are too low for a number of reasons and we reference UWAG comments. A big issue for us is the lack of considering source water. Our Spiritwood Station uses the treated waste water from a local municipality for cooling and then sends blow down back to the City. Under some of the options we would have to install expensive pretreatment systems just to use this water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 42 83

- A1, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 26.e Regulatory Implementation

– Net Credits.

Commenter Name: G. Alderson Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4424

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review F lag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 98 We want power plants to apply the best available technology to reduce pollution. This should be a strict requirement. It should ban the introduction of arsenic, lea d, mercury and selenium into our waterways.
Please put this rule into final form and make it effective as soon as possible.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2, Excerpt Number 2 in Comment Code 6.a.

Commenter Name: John W . Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

It must be noted that there is a significant difference in the level of pollutants associated with bottom ash discharges in comparison to fly ash transport water and EPA’s assumption of similarities is incorrect.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Many other metals and metals compounds were identified in the Preamble as being present in wastewaters generated by the different processes at power plants. Metals such as boron, cadmium, thallium, and vanadium were reported to be found during EPA’s study. EPA hasEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 99 suggested that these metals would not be directly monitored in the regu lations because the BAT/BPT for Se, As, and Hg will also remove the other metals. This broad generalization is not necessarily substantiated by the research. Vendors of anaerobic biological treatment systems are certainly not making these claims. Such bro ad claims by EPA can be misconstrued as factual or research

- based, and can be used by regulatory agencies to justify low permit limits for those metals and possibly anaerobic biological systems as BAT for metals such as vanadium and boron. State agencies c ould apply this to facilities not covered 40 CFR part 423 because the proposed rule gives them a misguided perception that there is a risk and an effective means to mitigate it.
CIBO strongly suggests that EPA re

- consider how it presents its ideas of how t o control metals it says are present in wastewater but for which there are not specifically identified control limits or technologies. The rule suggests they can be removed by the BAT and BPT for Se, As, and Hg and that those compounds are suitable surroga tes for the additional metals listed. However, the assertions need more scientific basis than EPA has provided as the basis for its rule and in the final rule EPA should not overstate the performance capabilities of technologies.
Comment Response:

EPA di sagrees with the commenter that it has not specifically identified control technologies for metals determined to be adequately controlled through the regulation of indicator pollutants arsenic, mercury, and selenium in FGD wastewater. TDD Table 11

- 1 specif ically identifies those pollutants EPA determined are directly regulated or controlled by regulation of another parameter, as well as those EPA determined are not effectively treated by the FGD wastewater technology basis. Specific to the pollutants identi fied by the commenter, EPA determined that cadmium, thallium, and vanadium are controlled by regulation of indicator pollutants, while EPA determined that boron is not effectively treated.

As discussed in TDD Sections 10.2.1.2 and 10.2.1.3, EPA conducted a n analysis to evaluate the pollutant

- specific treatment effectiveness of the chemical precipitation and biological treatment technologies, respectively. For chemical precipitation, EPA reviewed pollutant concentrations from the four plants operating this t echnology basis, Hatfield’s Ferry, Miami Fort, Keystone, and Pleasant Prairie; for chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment, EPA reviewed pollutant concentrations from the two plants operating this technology basis, Allen and Belews Creek. T o ensure that the treatment effectiveness could be evaluated, EPA performed an analysis to identify pollutants present at acceptable levels in the treatment system influent. Where specific pollutants were identified at acceptable levels, EPA calculated pla nt

- specific percent removals across the treatment technology and performed an evaluation to determine whether the pollutant was effectively treated with the treatment technology. As shown in TDD Table 10

- 4, EPA determined that chemical precipitation effect ively treats many metals pollutants, including cadmium, thallium, and vanadium. As shown in TDD Table 10

- 5, EPA determined that only three metals (mercury, nickel, and selenium) are effectively treated by biological treatment. See the memorandum FGD Wastew ater Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis Methodology [DCN SE05342] for a more detailed description of these analyses.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 100 Numeric limitations, and associated compliance monitoring, for all pollutants determined to be controlled by the regulatory technology ba sis are not necessary to ensure that FGD wastewater pollution is adequately controlled, since many of the pollutants originate from similar sources, have similar treatabilities, and are expected to be removed by the same mechanisms and treated to low level s.

Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respon se: No
Comment Excerpt:
In addition to the physical differences, there are numerous factors that make bottom ash much more inert than fly ash. There are multiple reasons for this, including that the elements present in the coal (calcium, barium, magnesiu m, sodium, potassium, beryllium, antimony, boron, manganese, copper, zinc, nickel, silver, chromium, cobalt, aluminum, cadmium, titanium, silicon, iron, and lead) partition after combustion primarily to fly ash. With the exception of fluorine, barium, stro ntium and manganese, the median values of multiple studies have shown that the concentrations of most of these elements are typically an order of magnitude greater in fly ash than bottom ash. This is because the volatile and semi

- volatile elements such as arsenic, selenium, mercury, lead and zinc tend to vaporize in the boiler and subsequently condense on particles of fly ash. As a result, the fly ash transport water is a key source of most metals in utility ash ponds where it is not collected dry. It shoul d also be noted that a significant portion of mercury, arsenic and selenium are carried as vapor with the flue gas and captured in the FGD systems and are therefore not available for transport with bottom ash.
Finally multiple leaching studies have documen ted that the metal contaminants in fly ash, as determined by toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), are much more susceptible to extraction (typically 3 to 10 times higher in extract concentrations and in some cases even 100 times higher) than in bottom ash. This is due to the incorporation and binding of the metals into the bottom ash mineral matrix rather than condensation on surfaces typical of fly ash.
EPRI, TVA, and many utilities have data that support the above differences in bottom ash a nd fly ash with regard to metals/TCLP characteristics.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 50 in Comment Code 6.a. In addition, to identify pollutants of concern, EPA evaluated pollutants detected in untreat ed ash transport water samples. In some cases, where it lacked sufficient data, EPA also evaluated pollutants detected in partially treated ash transport water samples to identifyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 101 pollutants of concern. EPA did not use leaching studies to identify polluta nts of concern in ash transport water. Rather, as EPA typically does, it used characterization data for ash transport water. See the TDD.

Commenter Name: James D. Taft Commenter Affiliation: Association of State Drinking Water Administration (ASDWA) Do cument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For instance, five contaminants for which there are existing Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (i.e., arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium), all of which are regularly found in the wastewater streams from some of the facilities covered under this guideline, are not currently regulated. Th e final effluent guidelines should support National Pollutant Discharge Permit (NPDES) permit requirements that include measures, where appropriate, to protect downstream water supplies from contamination by systems generating wastestreams with these pollu tants.
Comment Response:
The heavy metals listed by the commenter are identified as pollutants of concern in multiple steam electric power generation wastestreams, including fly and bottom ash transport water, FGMC wastewater, FGD wastewater, gasificatio n wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. See TDD Section 6.
For fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wastewater, EPA is promulgating zero discharge effluent limitations and standards based on use of a dry

- handling system, wh ich will eliminate discharges of heavy metals from these discharges. For gasification wastewater, EPA is promulgating ELGs based on treatment by an evaporation system, which will control discharges of heavy metals either directly through numeric limits for arsenic, mercury, and selenium, or indirectly through regulation of these three indicator pollutants and TDS.
FGD wastewater pollution is controlled directly through numeric discharge limitations for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite, and in directly for many additional metals, including cadmium and lead, through regulation of the indicator pollutants arsenic, mercury, and selenium. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2, Excerpt Number 12 for additional information.

For combustion re sidual leachate, few steam electric power plants currently employ technologies other than surface impoundments. EPA considered technologies in place for treatment of otherEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 102 wastestreams at steam electric power plants and wastestreams generated by other indu stries, including chemical precipitation. However, EPA lacks sufficient information on the cost, pollutant reduction, and effectiveness of chemical precipitation and alternative approaches to treat combustion residual leachate to finalize BAT/PSES limitati ons for combustion residual leachate based on chemical precipitation. See Section VIII.C.6 and VIII.E of the preamble for additional information. EPA is, however, promulgating numeric standards based on chemical precipitation as NSPS/PSNS on mercury and ar senic in discharges of combustion residual leachate, and indirectly controlling other heavy metals pollutants of concern through regulation of these indicator pollutants.
As required by the Clean Water Act, EPA’s effluent limitations guidelines and standar ds are based on the performance of well

- designed and well

- operated control and treatment technologies. In establishing technology

- based standards, EPA does not take into consideration the factors such as drinking water standards.

Commenter Name: Dennis Wene Commenter Affiliation: Alcoa Inc.'s Warrick Operations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4765

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The next issue with the proposed rule is that it regulates total metals rather than dissolved metals. As demonstrated by the data most of the metals will precipitate to total metals and likely settle in the ash pond. However, the rule is asking for total metal s to be applied. The test method for total metals requires that the sample is dissolved in acid to leach out all metal and then analyzed. In so doing, the test thus makes metals contained normal material such as dirt or ash, which is not biologically avail able and then making the determination that those metals are biological available, thus overstating the potential toxicity of the discharge stream. A better method of administering the limits for this proposal would be to limit "dissolved metals" as those are the metals that are biologically available. And, as the data would suggest, once the pH is adjusted, the wastewater from non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes is not hazardous to aquatic life and therefore should not be regulated.
Comment Response:

Me tals in steam electric power plant wastewater discharges are present in both soluble ( i.e.
, dissolved) and particulate ( i.e. , suspended) form. For example, a review of EPA sampling data collected for FGD wastewater in support of the Steam Electric ELGs sho ws that some metals such as arsenic are present mostly in particulate form while other pollutants such as selenium and boron are present mostly in soluble form.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 103 This is a technology

- based rule and is based on the goal of eliminating pollutants where elimin ation is technological available and economically achievable (considering the factors specified in section 304(b) of the Act. It is not based on the effects of the discharge on receiving water. See for example the many court decisions rejecting notions tha t BPT or BAT should be based on effects on the receiving water. American Frozen Food Inst. v. TrainAssn of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA
EPA regulates total metals for several reasons. First, establishing limits on dissolved pollutants would not control partic ulate forms, thus total metals is more appropriate and necessary to control both forms. Second, the form of pollutants can change while in the environment, thus a pollutant that is discharged in particulate form can be transformed under conditions in the

r eceiving water body such as reducing conditions in sediments. Third, sampling for total metals is much easier for plant staff because the dissolved metal analysis requires filtering the sample in the field before filling the sample bottle. In contrast, fo r a total metals analysis they just fill the bottle without the complicated (and many industry folks would say burdensome) prefiltration step. The laboratory analysis cost for total and dissolved metals is identical. EPA also notes that NPDES permitting r egulations require that permit limits for metals be expressed as the total recoverable form (see 40 CFR 122.45(c)).

Commenter Name: K. Mauro Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5030

- A1 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Every year, these plants dump billions of pounds of arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium (also check on strontium!) into surface waters.

Commen t Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2, Except Number 2.
EPA did not have data to identify strontium as a pollutant of concern. However, as discussed in the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standar ds for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category ( EA Report ) (DCN SE04527)
, “Multiple studies show that wildlife living near steam electric surface impoundments exhibit elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, strontium, and vanadium.”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 104 EPA is promulgating zero discharge effluent limitations and standards for fly ash and bottom ash transport water and FGMC wastewater based on use of dry handling/closed

- loop systems, which will eliminate all pollutant discharges.

Commenter Name: A. Brightwell Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5259

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excer pt:
I do not want any more toxic heavy metal pollution. I do not want fluoride, an industrial toxic waste, in my water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2, Excerpt Number 2.
Fluoride was identified as a pollutant of co ncern in fly ash transport water and FGMC wastewater. See TDD Section 6. EPA is promulgating zero discharge effluent limitations and standards for these wastestreams based on use of a dry

- handling system, which will eliminate these fluoride discharges.

C ommenter Name: Leonard F. Hopkins Commenter Affiliation: Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4309

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated int o Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

4) The total dissolved solids limit for coal gasification water is ridiculously low. Tap water will be higher than 38 milligrams per liter!
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 6 in Comment Code 23.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 105 Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review I ncorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
7. Boron, Molybdenum, and Other Metals
During renewal of coal

- fired power plants, the Department has been conducting a technology based determination for the parameters identified in EPA's 2009 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA821

- R

- 09

- 008) and in the Department's Utility Waste Landfill Sampling Program ( http://dnr.mo.gov/env/swmp/gdwtrsub.htm). During those technology reviews the Department identified boron and molybdenum as the p arameters that require further study.
Boron is extremely mobile in water and is difficult to remove from water with conventional treatment (coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration). Advanced treatment, such as reverse osmosis, electrocoagulation, ion e xchange, and vapor compression evaporation can remove some boron, although it is not complete and the advanced treatment creates additional wastestreams to process. However, chemical precipitation and pH manipulations can allow molybdenum to flocculate an d drop out of the water.
If boron and molybdenum were the parameters subject to the guideline, the reduction of other metals would still occur. Given the two parameters are identified by EPA's 2009 Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA821

- R

- 09

- 008) and the presence in the wastestream, the Department believes these parameters should be addressed in the ELG.
Comment Response:
Boron and molybdenum were identified as pollutants of concern in multiple steam electric power generation wastestreams, including fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, FGMC wastewater, FGD wastewater, and combustion residual leachate. For fly and bottom ash transport water and FGMC wastewater, EPA is promulgating zero d ischarge effluent limitations and standards based on use of dry handling/closed

- loop systems, which will eliminate discharges of boron and molybdenum for these discharges. For gasification wastewater, EPA is promulgating ELGs based on treatment by an evapo ration system, which will control discharges of boron and molybdenum.

For FGD wastewater and combustion residual leachate, EPA evaluated several of the treatment controls listed by the commenter (chemical precipitation and chemical precipitation followed b y biological treatment). EPA found small removals of boron associated with chemical precipitation. EPA also determined that molybdenum is effectively treated by chemicalEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 106 precipitation, when present at treatable concentrations, as demonstrated by the plant

- specific data presented in the Steam Electric Analytical Database (SE05359). Because not all steam electric power plants have molybdenum present at treatable concentrations, EPA chose not to calculate removals associated with chemical precipitation.
EPA ag rees that its evaluated technology option of chemical precipitation followed by vapor compression evaporation would control boron and molybdenum, but EPA has not selected this technology option as BAT/PSES for these wastestreams for the reasons stated in S ection VIII of the preamble and elsewhere in this record. However, as described in Section VIII.C.13 of the preamble, the final rule does establish a voluntary incentives program under which steam electric power plants can choose to be subject to more stri ngent BAT limitations for FGD wastewater based on evaporation. In addition, as discussed in Section VIII.D of the preamble, EPA identified treatment using evaporation for NSPS for the final rule (specifically, an evaporation step preceded by a chemical pre cipitation step using hydroxide precipitation, sulfide precipitation, and iron co

- precipitation, as well as a softening step).

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 143 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
One of the pollutants of concern for gasification wastewater is cyanide, which is found in different forms, such as sel enocyanate. 606 The Edwardsport IGCC is planning to use cyanide destruction in addition to evaporation, but because it had not yet begun commercial operation at the time EPA drafted the proposed rule, EPA asserts there are not sufficient data regarding cya nide removal to set limits “based on the performance of cyanide treatment as part of a BAT/BADCT (NSPS) regulatory option. ”607

The proposed technology for cyanide destruction is neither new nor untested. The Edwardsport plant will treat the distillate and condensate effluent with bleach and provide sufficient residence time for the bleach to react with the cyanide. 608 EPA has proposed several means of dealing with the lack of data, including transferring cyanide limits from another sector, or revisiting the standard after data are available from the Edwardsport facility. 609 The Edwardsport facility began operation in June 2013,610 so effluent data sufficient for EPA to set a limit should be available prior to May 2014, when this rule will be finalized.

606 TDD at 7

- 43.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 107 607 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,464.

608 TDD at 7

- 43; 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,464.

609 Id.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5489

- A2, Excerpt Number 7 in Comment Code 23.a.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4724

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
B.EPA does not regulate all pollutants from p ower plants that cause adverse health impacts if consumed.
EPA’s rationale for failing to monetize health benefits arising from cleaner drinking water assumes that all power plant pollution risk is addressed by SDWA standards. However, EPA has not established a drinking water standard for all pollutants from power plants which present public health risks. In past rulemakings, EPA has acknowledged the need to account for health impacts from pollutants discharged from the point source category that d o not have an MCL. 38 EPA should do the same here.
Two common power plant pollutants demonstrate this point. Vanadium and boron pose public health risks and there are no MCLs for these contaminants to date.

38 See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Economic, Environmental, and Benefits Analysis of the Final Metal Products & Machinery Rule (EPA

- 821

- B

- 03

- 002) 13

- 8 (Feb. 2003) (“EPA assumed drinking water treatment systems will reduce concentrations to below adverse effect thresholds for all chemicals for which E PA has published a drinking water criterion. Therefore, pollutants examined in the MP&M drinking water analysis include only six carcinogens for which current drinking water criteria are not available.”).
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 108 EPA assessed the benefits of th e rule to the extent it could based on available data.
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4668

- A2, Excerpt 2 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2, Excerpt Number 12 regarding control of heavy metals, including boron and vanadium.

Commenter Name: K elly Jean Heffner Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4811

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respon se: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA should describe in the ELG (in addition to the basis document) the metals for which arsenic serves as a surrogate, as well as a summary of the technical basis. This would assist us in addressing several issues that the regula ted community in Pennsylvania and other states have raised.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2, Excerpt Number 12.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 65 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA Needs to Clarify PSES for Landfill Leachate.
EPA is inconsistent in the preamble and proposed regula tory text when describing the proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources for Landfill Leachate. In the Preamble, EPA indicates that PSES will be established for landfill leachate (emphasis added):
As explained above in Section III.B.5, in select ing the PSES technology basis, the Agency generally considers the same factors as it considers when setting BAT, including economic achievability. Typically, the result is that the PSES technology basis is the same as the BATEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 109 technology basis. This propo sal is no exception. After considering all of the technology options described in Section VIII.A.2, as is the case for BAT, EPA is proposing four preferred alternatives for PSES (i.e., Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a).
With the exception of oil

-

fired generating units and small generating units (i.e., 50 MW or smaller), the proposed rule under Option 3a would... Establish BAT effluent limits for bottom ash transport water and leachate that are equal to the current BPT effluent limits for these discharges (i.e., nume ric effluent limits for TSS and oil and grease). Id. at 34,477 col. 1.
The Preamble does not specify PSES for landfill leachate under preferred Regulatory Options 3b, 3, or 4a. The regulatory text for the Proposed Rule does not include PSES for landfill leachate. Therefore, We Energies believes that EPA does not intend to issue PSES for landfill leachate under proposed Regulatory Options 3, 3a, 3b, and 4a. We Energies believes that a PSES is not warranted for landfill leachate under the preferred regulat ory options. We Energies asks EPA to clarify its position.
Comment Response:
The final rule does not establish PSES for combustion residual leachate see preamble section VIII.E.

Commenter Name: Joe L. Citta Commenter Affiliation: Nebraska Public Pow er District (NPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
NPPD urges EPA to focus the ELG standards on was tewater streams where there are new chemical components of concern since the last ELG were issued. The rule should only update the ELG requirements for effluents that produce new soluble pollutants not amenable to treatment through settling and impoundment

. Comment Response:
The reasons EPA identified pollutants of concern are explained elsewhere in the record for the rule. Similarly, EPA established limits based on the performance of the treatment technology, as described elsewhere in this rule.

See al so Section VIII of the preamble for a summary and rationale of EPA’s final rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 110 Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Consumers Energy specifically suggests: Making the technical corrections necessary to re

characterize these waste streams, using the comments of UWAG and the AKRF and Gradient technical reports attached to the UWAG comments as a guide.
Comment Response:
Responses to the documents cited are addressed elsewhere in this comment response document.

Commenter Name: Patrick Finigan Commenter Affiliation: Omaha P ublic Power District (OPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4529

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
OPPD urges EPA to focus the ELG standar ds on wastewater streams where there are new chemical components of concern since the last ELG were issued. The rule should only update the ELG requirements for effluents that produce new soluble pollutants not amenable to treatment through settling and impoundment.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1, Excerpt Number 15. The reasons EPA identified pollutants of concern are explained elsewhere in the record for the rule. Similarly, EPA established limits based on the perfo rmance of the treatment technology, as described elsewhere in this rule.

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 111 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
LPPC urges EPA to focus the ELG standards on wastewater streams where there are new chemical components of concern since the last ELG standards were issued. The rule should only update the ELG requirements for effluents that produce new soluble pollutants not amenable to treatment through settling and impoundment.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1, Excerpt Number 15. The reasons EPA identified pollutants of concern are explained elsewhere in the record for the rule. Similarly, EPA established limits based on the performance of the treatment technology, as described elsewhere in this rule.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

We are als o concerned that some of the historic pollutant and cost data used in the proposed rulemaking does not align with modern pollutant characteristics.
Comment Response:
If the commenter is referring to how EPA used the 1982 TDD data to determine pollutant s of concern and ash impoundment discharge loads, and the effect of detection limits on those analyses see responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment co de 15.d.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 112 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Inco rporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Lastly, influent dissolved arsenic concentrations at Miami Fort, Hatfield’s Ferry, and Keystone are too low to analyze the effectiveness of biological treatment systems. Specifically, dissolved concentrations a t these plants range between 4 to11 μg/L, which in most instances are below the proposed limits of 6 μg/L monthly average and 8 μg/L daily maximum. If these numbers are representative of FGD waste waters for the industry as a whole, arsenic could not prope rly be considered a pollutant of concern pursuant to EPA’s established standards. 2013 TDD at 6

- 25.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 56 in Comment Code 9.a.

Commenter Name: Jerry Schwartz Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4656

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Utilit y Water Act Group (UWAG) is filing detailed comments today that raise numerous substantive concerns with the Proposal. The UWAG comments highlight significant deficiencies, including the protocols for identifying pollutants of concern; reliance on old or very limited data; and assumptions that pollutants were present in concentrations equal to the high detection or quantification limits associated with very old data. These and other deficiencies (including censoring data to remove high cost measurements) r esulted in significantly underestimated costs for the limits included in the Proposal.
Comment Response:
Other specific comments raised in the commenter’s letter are addressed elsewhere in this comment response document.
If the commenter is referring to how EPA used the 1982 TDD data to determine pollutants of concern and ash impoundment discharge loads, and the effect of detection limits on those analyses see responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 113 6.b. Regulatory Options

– EPA Pass

- Through Analysis

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 60 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA needs to clarify PSES for Bottom Ash Transport Water.
EPA is inconsistent in the preamble and proposed regulatory text when describing th e proposed Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) for bottom ash transport water. In one part of the Preamble, EPA specifies that it is not proposing to establish pretreatment standards for discharges of bottom ash transport water (emphasis ad ded):
For discharges from existing sources to POTWs, EPA is proposing to establish PSES that are equal to the proposed BAT, with the following exceptions ...Under Options 3a, 3b, and 3 for PSES, EPA is not proposing to establish pretreatment standards for dis charges of bottom ash transport water. Under Option 4a, EPA is not proposing to establish pretreatment standards for discharges of bottom ash transport water for generating units with a nameplate capacity of 400 MW or less... 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,436 col. 2.
EPA partially reverses this position in Section VIII.A.5 of the Preamble (emphasis added) 24 :
As explained above in Section III.B.5, in selecting the PSES technology basis, the Agency generally considers the same factors as it considers when setting BAT, in cluding economic achievability. Typically, the result is that the PSES technology basis is the same as the BAT technology basis. This proposal is no exception. After considering all of the technology options described in Section VIII.A.2, as is the case for BAT, EPA is proposing four preferred alternatives for PSES (i.e., Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a).
With the exception of oil

-

fired generating units and small generating units (i.e., 50 MW or smaller), the proposed rule under Option 3a would... Establish BAT e ffluent limits for bottom ash transport water and leachate that are equal to the current BPT effluent limits for these discharges (i.e., numeric effluent limits for TSS and oil and grease). Id. at 34,477 col. 1.
The regulatory text for the Proposed Rule in dicates that EPA does not intend to issue a PSES for bottom ash transport water under Regulatory Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a (units 400 MW or smaller) (emphasis added):
423.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 114 (g) For any electric generatin g unit with a total nameplate generating capacity of more than 400 megawatts and that is not an oil

- fired unit, there shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants from bottom ash transport water generated on or after a date determined by the control auth ority that is as soon as possible beginning July 1, 2017. Whenever bottom ash transport water is used in any other plant process or is sent to a treatment system at the plant, the resulting effluent must comply with the discharge prohibition in this paragr aph.
Note to (g): All proposed revisions to section 423.16(g) reflect proposed Option 4a, only. For proposed Option 3, Option 3a, and Option 3b, the regulations would not specify a PSES for bottom ash transport water

. Id. at 34,541 col. 2.
We Energies bel ieves that a PSES is not warranted for landfill leachate under the preferred regulatory options. We Energies asks EPA to clarify its position.

24 A PSES for bottom ash transport water is specified for Option 3a; however, no PSES for bottom ash transport w ater are specified for Options 3b, 3, or 4a (units 400 MW or smaller) in Section VIII.A.5 of the Preamble.
Comment Response:
As described in preamble section VIII.E, for PSES, the final rule establishes: (1) standards on arsenic, mercury, selenium and ni trate

- nitrite as N in FGD wastewater; (2) a zero discharge standard on all pollutants in fly ash transport water; (3) a zero discharge standard on all pollutants in bottom ash transport water; (4) a zero discharge standard on all pollutants in FGMC wastewa ter; (5) standards on mercury, arsenic, selenium, and TDS in gasification wastewater. The final rule does not establish PSES for combustion residual leachate because TSS and the pollutants that can be components of TSS do not pass through POTWs.

Comment er Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 144 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Additional flaws in the proposed PSES requirements are as follows:

The POTW Pass

- Through Analysis is Incomplete
EPA did not perform its traditional pass

- through analysis for bottom ash. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,457 col. 1. EPA’s reasoning is that the proposed standard is a no

- discharge standard and therefore pass

- through will not occur. But this reasoning fails to consider that each of EPA’s preferredEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 115 regulatory options allows for discharge of bottom ash, thereby necessitating a comparison of the POTW removal e fficiencies with that of the proposed PSES and PSNS standards.

The POTW Removal Percents are Obsolete
EPA used the 1982 50 POTW study when determining POTW removal efficiencies for arsenic and mercury. This study is outdated and does not account for the a dvanced level of treatment now occurring at the nation’s POTWs.
Moreover, EPA’s suggested removal efficiency for arsenic differs significantly from previous ELG rulemakings. In developing its 1998 effluent limitations for the Centralized Waste Treatment ca tegory, EPA determined that the arsenic removal efficiency of a well

- operated POTW is 91%, as opposed to the 66% cited in this rulemaking.
The BAT Removal Percentages are Inaccurate
EPA compared the removal percentages for well

- operated POTWs with the rem oval percentages of the technology associated with the proposed FGD wastewater BAT limitations. This analysis is flawed because of obsolete POTW data, as described above, and also because of inflated BAT removal efficiencies that over

- estimate the performa nce of the physical

- chemical

- biological treatment systems.
Comment Response:

The POTW Pass

- Through Analysis is Incomplete (not conducted for bottom ash transport water). Although EPA’s proposed BAT and NSPS for bottom ash transport water included option s that authorized discharges, EPA’s final rule is “no discharge of pollutants.” See 40 CFR §423.13(k)(1)(i). As discussed in Section 11.2 of the TDD, EPA did not conduct its traditional pass

- through analysis for bottom ash transport water because limitatio ns for direct dischargers consist of zero discharge of wastewater pollutants to waters of the U.S. Thus, BAT/NSPS achieve 100 percent removal of all pollutants, and no further removal could occur at POTWs. For this reason, EPA determined the pollutants wou ld pass through the POTW for bottom ash transport water. Also see Section VIII of the preamble for the final rule.

The POTW Removal Percents are Obsolete. See response to EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 139.

Also, the commenter asserts that EPA ’s pass

- through analysis is flawed because the POTW % removals EPA used do not reflect current performance. They argue that, as reported by EPA’s CWNS, since the time of the 1982 50 POTW study there has been a 101% increase in people served by advanced was tewater systems. The commenter assumes, without basis, that “advanced wastewater treatment” increases removals of pollutants regulated by PSES. This is not the case. The CWNS 2008 report to Congress defines advanced treatment as:

A level of treatment that is more stringent than secondary treatment or that produces a significant reduction in nonconventional or toxic pollutants present in the wastewater treated by a facility. AEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 116 facility is considered to have Advanced Wastewater Treatment if its permit include s one or more of the following:

 biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) less than 20mg/L;

 nitrogen removal;

 phosphorus removal;

 ammonia removal;

 metal removal;

 synthetic organic removal.

POTW s classified as “advanced treatment” typically have treatment to reduce ammonia or nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Very few POTWs have metal removal technology. According to EPA’s DMRLoadings Tool (http://cfpub.epa.gov/dmr/), of the 15,549 POTWs, the number of facilities with monitoring requirements and effluent limits for the metals regulated by PSES are:

Mercury: 832/15,549 or 5.4%

Arsenic: 81/15,549 or 0.5%

Selenium: 150/15,549 or 1.0%

EPA notes that the POTWs nationwide are unlikely to have tre atment technology effective for removing mercury, arsenic, or selenium unless they have NPDES permit monitoring requirements and effluent limitations. Further, even with such limits, the POTWs may employ

non

- treatment strategies for meeting their discharge limits (e.g., controlling silver

- mercury amalgam releases from dental offices). For this reason, EPA concludes that the removal efficiencies for arsenic and mercury calculated using data from the 50

- POTW study adequately represent the current performance of U.S. POTWs.
Further, for selenium, EPA calculated POTW removal efficiency using data from NRMRL Treatability Database, Version 5.0, February 2004. The commenter provides no basis for their assertion that POTWs have improved selenium removal since the time data were collected for the NRMRL treatability database. As noted previously, only 1% of U.S. POTWs have NPDES permit monitoring re quirements and effluent limitations for selenium. POTWs are unlikely to employ selenium removal technologies without limits and monitoring requirements.
For nitrate/nitrite, the percent removal was calculated during development of the 2002 amendments to e ffluent guidelines for the iron and steel category. EPA calculated this removal efficiency by analyzing data from POTWs that receive steel mill wastewater. See DevelopmentEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 117 Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Iron and St eel Manufacturing Point Source Category , April 2002, EPA

- 821

- R

- 02

- 004, Table 11

- 3. For TDS, EPA’s assumption of zero percent removal is not based on the 50

- POTW Study or the NRMRL Treatability Database , but on information provided in standard wastewater t reatment textbooks and engineering judgment. Because the commenter provided no data demonstrating that POTWs remove TDS, EPA has no reason to change this assumption.
Finally, EPA notes that the commenter provided no data demonstrating that any POTWs

remov ed different percents of any pollutant.
POTW removal used in development of Centralized Waste Treatment pretreatment standards. The commenter asserts that the POTW removal percent for arsenic differs significantly from the removal percent used for the development of pretreatment standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment category. This is not correct. Development Document for Effluent limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry

– Final. August 2000. EPA

- 821

- R

- 00

- 020, Table 7

- 5, lists the removal for arsenic as 65.77, based on the 50

- POTW study. With rounding, this is the same removal percent used for the steam electric pretreatment standards (65.8%).
The BAT Removal Percentages are Inaccurate. For comments about t he removal efficiencies and

“ performance of physical

- chemical

- biological treatment systems
, ” see response to comment DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 95.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 139 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

POTW Pollutant Pass

- through Analysis
The preamble (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,456

- 57) a nd sections 11

- 10 through 11

- 15 of the 2013 TDD discuss how EPA determined POTW pass

- through for each of the different waste streams. EPA’s methodology essentially compares POTW removal efficiencies to the removal efficiencies estimated for the treatment t echnologies for the proposed ELG. EPA compares the percentage of a pollutant removed by well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by the proposed BAT/NSPS treatment systems. If the BAT/NSPS percent removal is greater than a typical POTW percent removal, the pollutant is deemed to pass through and is proposed for regulation in the ELG Rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 118 There is an obvious flaw in this methodology which is not unique to the steam electric ELG rulemaking. The POTW removal efficiency is b ased on a 1982 study of 50 well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment. Without question, a study of 50 well

- operated POTWs in 2013 would yield significantly higher removal efficiencies and therefore an increased likelihood that a pollutant receives greater treatment by a POTW than it would by a BAT/NSPS treatment system. In fact, since 1982 there has been a 101% increase in the number of people served by advanced wastewater treatment systems in the U.S., and advanced (beyond secondary) treatment is now predominant nationwide. See EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress , EPA

- 832

- R

- 10

- 002.
EPA also assumed that the pollutants of concern in bottom ash were the same as those in fly ash, due to the common fuel source. This assumption is a concern for both direct and indirect ELG proposals, but the issue of POTW pass

- through assessment compounds the concern from a PSES/PSNS viewpoint. EPA set the proposed Technology

- Based Effluent Limitation (TBEL) removal efficiency at 100% for those wast e streams required to meet non

- discharge status. This rationale is appropriate for all waste streams other than bottom ash transport water, which is authorized for discharge under each of EPA’s preferred options.
Below is a summary of the POTW pass

- through analysis:

Treatment Option Pollutant POTW Removal % 1* 2* BAT/ NSPS

Removal % Pass

Through? Chemical precipitation for FGD / CRL Arsenic 65.8 90.9 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 90.2 99.9 Yes

Chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment for FGD / CRL Arsenic 65.8 90.9 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 90.2 99.9 Yes Nitrate

- Nitrite 90.0

- 99.6 Yes Selenium 34.3 34.3 99.9 Yes Mechanical Vapor Compression Arsenic 65.8 90.9 99.5 Yes

Evaporation for FGD Mercury 90.2 90.2 99.9 Yes Selenium 34.3 34.3 99.9 Yes TDS 0

- 99.7 Yes

Mechanical Vapor Compression Evaporation for IGCC Arsenic 65.8 90.9 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 90.2 99.9 Yes Selenium 34.3 34.3 99.9 Yes TDS 0

- 99.7 Yes Nonchemical Metal Cleaning Waste Copper

- 84.1 1982 Rule Yes

*1

- Technical Development Document for the proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category. EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 002

*2

- Development Document for proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment industry. EPA

- R

- 98

- 020Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 119 The data supporting the POTW removal percents are somewhat obsolete, and therefore a modification of the ELG Rule to allow for an updated local demonstration would be desir able. The Rule could allow for a site

- specific, real

- time comparison of POTW design removal efficiencies with that of the finalized BAT/NSPS technologies. If a POTW is able to treat these wastes to a higher degree than what costly additional treatment inst allations at a power plant could achieve, this should be considered. This change would benefit both water and electricity utility rate payers and encourage partnerships between power companies and water utilities for both source water and wastewater handli ng options.
Comment Response:
For comments about the pollutant pass through analysis, including the POTW removals and analysis of pass through of bottom ash transport water, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144 in Comm ent Code 6.b

. In terms of the commenter’s general critique of how the EPA has always done pretreatment standard analysis, EPA disagrees. Section 301 of the Act and its legislative history indicate that pretreatment is to be analogous to BAT as this means the polluter rather than the public pays to control discharges. (The public would be either the POTW or the drinking water plant that would need to treat water before discharging it or providing it to customers). EPA disagrees with the commenter that “a study of 50 well

- operated POTWs in 2013 would yield significantly higher removal efficiencies.” First, while the commenter cites information on the increase in POTWs that employ advanced treatment, the national standard is still secondary treatment. Theref ore on a national basis, that is the appropriate basis for comparison. Second, even with the increase in advanced treatment, the fact remains that activated sludge continues to be the most commonly found treatment process at secondary plants (source: 200 8 CWNS survey). Third, even though there is evidence that many POTWs employing secondary treatment today (as opposed to the time of the 50 POTW Study) are achieving lower effluent levels of BOD and TSS, that does not necessarily translate to better remova l of priority pollutants. For example, as explained in the final preamble, many of the pollutants in steam electric power plant wastewater are soluble (such as dissolved metals) and to the extent that there is improvement in BOD and TSS removals, these wou ld not be significantly affected by these processes. As another example, not all organic pollutants, such as those comprised of bigger, more complex, molecules, will be biodegraded with an activated sludge system Fourth, in EPA’s 50 POTW study, the final removals were 90% for BOD and 91% for TSS. EPA eliminated low influent concentration levels, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW removals may simply reflect the low influent concentrations. Further, POTWs operating well below capacity do no t give a fair representation of priority toxic pollutant removal or treatment. The average capacity in the 50 POTW study was 74%. The average unused capacity was about 52% in 2014, making the average used capacity about 48%. This makes comparison of the 1982 POTW study to current national databases extremely difficult. Lastly, EPA notes that commenters did not provide any data to support their assertion that POTWs today are more efficient than POTWs at the time of the 50 POTW Study. This, is why it is rea sonable for EPA to continue to use the 1982 data on secondary treatment. See e.g., Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA , 760 F.2d 549, 553 (4 th Cir. 1985)(Legislative History indicates that pretreatment is to be analogous to BAT. Court interprets this as meaning that the combined treatment by indirect and POTW should be equivalent to whatEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 120 a direct discharger achieves.). See also CMA v. EPA , 870 F.2d at 243, 249 (5 th Cir. 1989) which rejected a challenge to an effluent guidelines rule based on the argument that E PA must take into account the performance of actual POTWs. (“In 1977, when Congress amended the CWA to strengthen the provisions for controlling toxic pollutants, Congress provided that ‘an indirect discharger . . . had to ‘pretreat’ its waste waters so as to achieve, together with the [POTW] that treated the waste before final discharge . . . the same level of toxics removal as was required of a direct discharger.” Citing NRDC v. EPA , 790 F.2d 289, 292 (3 rd Cir. 1986). Categorical pretreatment standards are technology

- based and analogous to the BAT effluent

- limitation guidelines for the removal of toxic pollutants

– that is, they are intended to represent the best available technology that is economically a chievable by indirect dischargers.” Citing H.R. Rep. No. 830, U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1977, reprinted in 1977 Leg Hist at 271, 342, 403). Moreover, where certain POTWs may provide additional treatment of pollutants in steam electric power plant was tewater, dischargers can benefit by using the removal credit regulations, a regulatory mechanism by which industrial users can discharge a pollutant in quantities that exceed what would otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical pretreatment stan dard because it has been determined that the POTW to which the industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. See 40 CFR § 403.7.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Co mment C ode 15.d and response to DCN EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion about EPA’s methods to identify pollutants of concern in fly ash and bottom ash transport water.
EPA has not modified 40 CFR§423 to account for individual POTW pollutant treatment capabilities because such a program already exists. See 40 CFR § 403.7. As explained in preamble Section XVI.C.4, CWA Section 307(b)(1) establishes a discretionary program for POTWs to grant “removal credits” to their indirect dischargers. Remov al credits are a regulatory mechanism by which industrial users can discharge a pollutant in quantities that exceed what would otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical pretreatment standard because it has been determined that the POTW to which the industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. EPA has promulgated removal credit regulations as part of its pretreatment regulations. See 40 CFR § 403.7. These regulations provide that a POTW can give removal credits if prescribed requi rements are met.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 143 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respo nse: No
Comment Excerpt:
Summary of Flaws in the Proposed PSES and PSNS LimitationsEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 121 The proposed PSES and PSNS share some of the shortcomings of the proposed direct discharge BAT and NSPS revisions. The lack of data to characterize bottom ash transport water is an important flaw for PSES and PSNS just as it is for direct discharges. The assumption that bottom ash has the same pollutants of concern as fly ash makes the lack of a POTW pass

- through analysis for fly ash transport water a significant flaw in the proposed PSES and PSNS.
Unfortunately, the proposed rule would require the same level of treatment of direct discharges as it does for indirect discharges, even though indirect discharges undergo significant additional treatment at a POTW. This is inap propriate, even if it is consistent with recent ELG updates.
Comment Response:
For comments about the analysis of pass through of bottom ash transport water, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 38 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion about EPA’s methods to identify pollutants of concern in fly ash and bottom ash transport water.
The promulgated PSES/PSNS are equivalent to BAT/NSPS, meaning that the same level of treatment is required by steam electric power plants that discharge to POTWs as or plants that discharge directly. Categorical pretreatment standards are technology

- based and are analogous to BPT and BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and thus the Agency considered the same factors in promulgating PSES as it considered in promulgating BAT. See final preamble VIII.E. and VIII.F.
Certain POTWs may provide additional treatment of pollutants in steam electric power plant wastewater. Dischargers can use this additional treatment by using the removal credit regulations, a regulatory mechanism by which industrial users can discharge a pollutant in quantities that exceed w hat would otherwise be allowed under an applicable categorical pretreatment standard because it has been determined that the POTW to which the industrial user discharges consistently treats the pollutant. See 40 CFR § 403.7.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Ho bson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 140 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Local Limit Sufficie ncyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 122 The following table summarizes a survey of local limits for Georgia POTWs, subject to state

approved industrial pretreatment programs. The table compares the proposed PSES/PSNS limits to the local limits of 14 different Georgia POTWs of different size s. The survey is limited to Georgia, but the development of local limits is a uniform practice, and the Georgia local limits are likely similar nationwide.

ARSENIC μg/L MERCURY

ng/L SELENIUM

μg/L NITRATE

mg/L COPPER

mg/L PSES/PSNS for FGD and PSNS for CRL 8 242 16 0.17
PSES/PSNS for NCMCW 1.0
PSES/PSNS for Gasification Wastewater 4 1.76 453

POTW A 16 200 109 3.1 POTW B 281 1400 252 150* 0.31 POTW C 52 1000 21 605* 0.76 POTW D 120 2000 30* 2.6 POTW E 30 2100 93 19* 0.1 POTW F 60 2100 89 12* 0.11 POTW G 200* 3 POTW H 10,000 20 50* 0.6 POTW I 40 250 20 0.37 POTW J 1250 2000 16 75* 0.15 POTW K 74 300 103 0.23 POTW L 190 4700 120 244* 0.4 POTW M 350 500 70 0.11 POTW N 20 33,200 70 20* 2.07

* Local Limits is for Ammonia

A

– City of Atlanta; B

– Clayton County; C

– Cobb County; D

– DeKalb County; E

– North Fulton County; F

– South Fulton County; G

– Gwinnett County; H

– City of Dalton; I

– City of Gainesville; J

– City of Cornelia; K

– Peachtree City; L

– Cherokee County; M

– Athens

- Clarke County; N

– Douglas County.
The Georgia local limits for copper are typically lower than the limit being proposed in the ELG Rule. This is a result of the type of biological treatment being used by the POTW and an assessment of the copper inhibition levels on the wastewater treatment microorganisms. As such, discharges to POTWs of NCMCWs will likely be determined by the local limit instead of the TBEL.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 123 Another issue identified by this survey is the typically hig her local limits for arsenic, mercury and selenium. While having either a water quality

- based effluent limit (for direct discharges) or a local limit (for indirect discharges) does not relieve an entity from meeting the minimum standards for treatment unde r the ELGs, it does indicate the present

- day sophistication of municipal wastewater treatment plants. As discussed above, modern municipal wastewater treatment plants have been significantly upgraded since 1982 to deal with numerous factors including more stringent water quality

- based limits.
The final point for comparison in the survey is the TBEL for nitrate

- nitrite. The 0.17 mg/l limit is extremely low and would require significant and costly treatment before discharge to a sanitary

sewer.
Comment Respon se:
For comments about the pollutant pass through analysis, including the POTW removals, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.
Although EPA proposed numerical limits for copper discharges in nonchemical metal cleaning wastes (NCMCWs), EPA did not promulgate the proposed limits. EPA agrees with the commenter that limits on discharges of NCMCWs to POTWs should and will be determined by local limits.
EPA’s final standards for FGD wastewater for nitrate/nitrite are 12.5 mg/ L for the daily maximum limitation and 3 mg/L for the monthly average limitation, more than an order of magnitude greater than the proposed limits. See preamble section VIII.C.1 for more discussion of the final BAT effluent limits for FGD wastewater. EPA i s not setting nitrate/nitrite standards for gasification or combustion residual wastewaters. For fly ash and bottom ash transport waters and FGMC wastewater, BAT is set at zero discharge and there would be no discharge of nitrates/nitrites for these waste streams. See preamble Section IX for EPA’s analysis of the costs and economic impact of the final rule.
EPA also notes that there are no indirect dischargers in the state of Georgia affected by this rule.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affili ation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 138 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES and PSNS)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 124 Southern is also concerned about potential pretreatment standards, especially those proposed for leachate. In general, our analysis indicates that EPA’s pretreatment analysis is flawed, largely because it is based on obsolete data.
Pretreatment permits ar e required for industries discharging to a POTW that are determined to be Significant Industrial Users (SIU). An industry is considered an SIU if it meets any of the following:

 is subject to categorical pretreatment standards,

 discharges 25,000 gallons per day or more of process wastewater,

 contributes process wastewater to the POTW which makes up 5% or more of the hydraulic capacity,

 contributes process wastewater to the POTW which makes up 5% or more of the organic capacity, or

 has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the wastewater treatment plant.
Most power plants’ cooling water is not discharged to a POTW; in many cases, this is prohibited due to cooling waters being too dilute. Discharges of FGD wastewater would likely meet

a number of the S IU definitions above. Discharges of low volume waste (LVW) would also likely meet a number of the SIU definitions. Discharges of CMCW and NCMCW and possibly combustion residual leachate would likely meet only the criterion of categorical status.
The propos ed revisions to 40 C.F.R. Part 423 create a number of concerns specific to indirect dischargers. Concerns related to the proposed modifications of the PSES and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) are as follows:

1. POTW pollutant pass

- through analys is, 2. local limit sufficiency, 3. Jordan memorandum exception, and 4. PSNS applicability.
Comment Response:
For comments about POTW pollutant pass

- through analysis, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144 in Comment Code 6.b . For comm ents about local limit sufficiency, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 139 in Comment Code 6.b . The final rule does not establish PSES for combustion residual leachate because TSS and the pollutants that they represent do not p ass through POTWs. EPA would continue to reserve BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS for non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, as the previously established regulations do so comments related to pass through of leachate or not relevant to the final rule.
See response to DCN E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149 in Comment Code 6.g.vii regarding new sources.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 125 Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 81 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The POTW Pass

- through Analysis is Incomplete.
As stated at 78 Fed. Reg. 34,457 col. 1, EPA did not perform its traditional pass

- through analysis for bottom ash. EPA’s reasoning is that the proposed standard is a no

- discharge standard and therefore the pass

- through of pollutants from POTWs to receiving streams will not

occur. But this reasoning fails to consider that each of EPA’s prefer red regulatory options allows for discharge of bottom ash, thereby necessitating a comparison of the POTW removal efficiencies with that of the proposed PSES and PSNS standards.
The POTW Removal Percentages are Obsolete.

EPA used a 50

- POTW study from 1982 in determining POTW removal efficiencies for arsenic and mercury. This study is outdated and does not account for the advanced level of treatment now occurring at the nation’s POTWs.
Moreover, EPA’s suggested removal efficiency for arsenic differs signific antly from previous ELG rulemakings. The 1998 development of effluent limitations for the Centralized Waste Treatment category determined that the arsenic removal efficiency of a well

- operated POTW is 91%, as opposed to the 66% cited in this rulemaking.
The BAT Removal Percentages are Inaccurate.
EPA compared the removal percentages for well

- operated POTWs with the removal percentages of the technology associated with the proposed FGD wastewater BAT limitations. This analysis is flawed because of obsolet e POTW data, as described above, and also because of inflated BAT removal efficiencies that over

- estimate the performance of the physical

- chemical

- biological treatment systems.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt N umber 144.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 126 Comment Excerpt Number: 80 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Pretreatment Standards (PSES and PSNS)
The National Pretreatment Program is a cooperative effort of federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies. EPA regulations governing the industrial pret reatment program are in 40 C.F.R. Part 403. Categorical effluent limitations are provided for a number of industries; those associated with the proposed update to 40 C.F.R. Part 423 are discussed below. The proposed revisions to 40 C.F.R. Part 423 create a number of concerns specific to indirect dischargers.
Like the proposed BAT options, EPA’s proposed pretreatment standards and their development are flawed in further ways exemplifying many of the underlying concerns EEI and its members have with the propo sed rule as a whole, including an impenetrable record, insufficient data to support the proposed limits, significantly flawed assumptions, and resulting compounded flaws in analysis and conclusions reached.
The proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) and PSNS share many of the shortcomings of the proposed direct discharge BAT and NSPS revisions. As discussed in detail in the BAT context above, the lack of data to characterize bottom ash transport water is an important flaw for PSES and PSNS just as it is for direct discharges. Similarly, the assumption that bottom ash has the same pollutants of concern as fly ash makes the lack of a POTW pass

through analysis for fly ash transport water a significant flaw in the proposed PSES and PSNS.
Additionally, the proposed rule requires the same level of treatment for indirect discharges as it does for direct discharges, even though indirect discharges undergo significant additional treatment at a POTW. This is inappropriate, even if it is consist ent with recent ELG updates.
Comment Response:
For comments about pass through analysis for bottom ash transport water see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144. For comment about the level of treatment required by PSES see res ponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 143.

Commenter Name: Cynthia A. Finley Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4507

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 127 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA used the 1982 50 POTW Study to determine POTW removal efficiencies for arsenic and mercury. However, the 50 POTW Study is now over 30 years old, and the removal efficiencies in the Study are no longer valid. Treatment technologies at most POTWs have improved since the Study was completed, and pretreatment programs have significantly reduced concentrations of pollutants, which impact treatment plan t removal efficiency values. NACWA has communicated with EPA in the past about the need to update the 50 POTW Study and to allow POTWs to calculate removal efficiencies rather than use the outdated information in the Study, and copies of these communicatio ns can be provided to EPA if requested. For the proposed ELG and other ELGs that are developed in the future, EPA should use a different basis for determining removal efficiencies rather than relying on the outdated 50 POTW Study.
Comment Response:

For c omments about the POTW removals used in EPA’s pass through analysis, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 62 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA has proposed four preferred regulatory options for its contemplated PSES. PSNH is specifically interested in the PSES potentially applicable to FGD waste waters and disagrees with each of EPA’s proposed regulatory options for this waste stream. For FGD waste water, Options 3, 3b and 4a would establish PSES equivalent to the chos en BAT limits EPA proposed for this waste stream in the Proposed Rule, with Option 3b deferring to publicly owned treatment works (“POTWs”) the development of local limits for pollutants found in FGD waste water that cause pass through interference at thei r respective facilities for facilities with a total wet

scrubbed capacity of less than 2,000 MW. Option 3a would defer the development of local limits for FGD pollutants to POTWs for all steam electric generating facilities regardless of wet

scrubbed cap acity. 26 EPA’s proposed regulatory options are semantic and PSNH disagrees with each of them. EPA must first conduct a proper analysis of current POTW data before determining even Option 3a is necessary, as explained in detail below.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 128 To supposedly determin e whether PSES are needed as a part of this rulemaking, EPA undertook a pass

- through analysis. EPA’s methodology for this analysis essentially consisted of a comparison of POTW removal efficiencies to the removal efficiencies estimated for the treatment te chnologies for the proposed ELG. Specifically, EPA compared the percentage of a pollutant removed by well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by the proposed BAT/NSPS treatment systems. If the industry

- median BAT/NSPS pe rcent removal is greater than the median POTW percent removal, the pollutant is deemed to pass through and is proposed for regulation in the ELG rule. This analysis by the agency was flawed. It relied upon a comparison of removal efficiencies between curre nt industry treatment options and POTW treatment analyses from a 1982 study of 50 well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment. There have been substantial, nationwide improvements in waste water treatment systems in the last 30 years. In fact, a pre dominant number of individuals in the United States are served by advanced waste water treatment systems (i.e., beyond secondary treatment). See EPA, Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Report to Congress, EPA

- 832

- R

- 10

- 002. Thus, it is without question that a comparison of the current removal efficiencies of POTWs would result in a finding that a pollutant receives greater treatment by a POTW than it would by a BAT/NSPS treatment system.
EPA must collect and consider more recent removal percentage data from POTWs in order to carry out a true apples

- to

- apples comparison prior to establishing any PSES in any final rule. Alternatively, the agency could allow for a site

- specific, real

- time comparison of POTW design removal efficiencies with that of the finalized BAT/NSPS technologies, or simply defer all determinations as to the need for such standards to local POTWs. Regardless of how EPA proceeds, it is without question that if a POTW is able to treat these wastes to a higher degree than what costly additional treatment installations at a power plant could achieve, the agency is required to consider and accept that such PSES are not necessary. This change would benefit both water and electricity utility rate payers and encourage partnerships between power compan ies and water utilities for both source water and waste water handling options.

26 Because the PSES considered by EPA in this Proposed Rule are premised on the same analyses and agency findings as the proposed BAT standards, they suffer from the same sho rtcomings. PSNH has thoroughly discussed the flaws in EPA’s proposed BAT determinations in these comments and hereby makes reference to them as applicable to the agency’s proposed PSES. PSNH also incorporates by reference as if fully set out herein UWAG’s comments and critiques to EPA’s proposed PSES.
Comment Response:
For comments about the POTW removals used in EPA’s pass through analysis, and the POTW removal for arsenic used in development of the Centralized Waste Treatment pretreatment standards, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 12 9 Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 177 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A. POTW Pollutant Pass

- Through Analysis
The preamble (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,456

- 57) and sections 11

- 10 through 11

- 15 of the 2013 TDD discuss how EPA determined POTW p ass

- through for each of the different wastestreams. EPA’s methodology essentially compares POTW removal efficiencies to the removal efficiencies estimated for the treatment technologies for the proposed ELG. EPA compares the percentage of a pollutant rem oved by well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment to the percentage removed by the proposed BAT/NSPS treatment systems. If the BAT/NSPS percent removal is greater than a typical POTW percent removal, the pollutant is deemed to pass through and is proposed for regulation in the ELG rule.
There is an obvious flaw in this methodology which is not unique to the steam electric ELG rulemaking. The POTW removal efficiency is based on a 1982 study of 50 well

- operated POTWs performing secondary treatment. Without question, a study of 50 well

- operated POTWs in 2013 would yield significantly higher removal efficiencies and therefore an increased likelihood that a pollutant receives greater treatment by a POTW than it would by a BAT/NSPS treatment system. I n fact, since 1982 there has been a 101% increase in the number of people served by advanced wastewater treatment systems in the U.S., and advanced (beyond secondary) treatment is now predominant nationwide. See EPA “Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008 Rep ort to Congress,” EPA

- 832

- R

- 10

- 002.
EPA also assumed that the pollutants of concern in bottom ash were the same as those in fly ash, due to the common fuel source. This assumption is a concern for both direct and indirect ELG proposals, but the issue of P OTW pass

- through assessment compounds the concern from a PSES/PSNS viewpoint. EPA set the proposed TBEL removal efficiency at 100% for those wastestreams required to meet non

- discharge status. This rationale is appropriate for all wastestreams other than bottom ash transport water, which is authorized for discharge under each of EPA’s preferred options.
Below is a summary of the POTW pass

- through analysis:

Treatment Option Pollutant POTW Removal % BAT/ NSPS

Removal % Pass

Through?

Chemical precipitation for FGD / CRL Arsenic 65.8 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 99.9 YesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 130 Chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment for FGD / CRL Arsenic 65.8 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 99.9 Yes Nitrate

- Nitrite 90.0 99.6 Yes Selenium 34.3 99.9 Yes Mechanical Vapor Compression Arsenic 65.8 99.5 Yes

Evaporation for FGD Mercury 90.2 99.9 Yes Selenium 34.3 99.9 Yes TDS 0 99.7 Yes

Mechanical Vapor Compression Evaporation for IGCC Arsenic 65.8 99.5 Yes Mercury 90.2 99.9 Yes Selenium 34.3 99.9 Yes TDS 0 99.7 Yes Nonchemical Metal Cleaning Waste Copper

- 1982 Rule Yes

*1

- Technical Development Document for the proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category. EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 002.

*2

- Development Document for proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment industry. EPA

- R

- 98

- 020.
The data supporting the POTW removal percents are obsolete, and therefore a modification of the ELG rule to allow for an updated local demonstration would be desirable. The Rule could allow for a site

- specific, real

- time comparison of publicly

- owned treatment work (POTW) design removal efficiencies with that of the finalized BAT/NSPS technologies. If a POTW is able to treat these wastes to a higher degree than what costly additional treatment installations at a power plant could achieve, this should be considered. This change would benefit both water and electricity utility rate payers and encourage partnerships betwee n power companies and water utilities for both source water and wastewater handling options.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affi liation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 180 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 131 E. Summary of Flaws in the Proposed PSES and PSNS Li mitations
The proposed PSES and PSNS share some of the shortcomings of the proposed direct discharge BAT and NSPS revisions. EPA’s use of flawed data to characterize bottom ash transport water is as important for PSES and PSNS as it is for direct discharg es. The assumption that bottom ash transport water has the same pollutants of concern as fly ash transport water makes the lack of a POTW pass

- through analysis for fly ash transport water a significant flaw in the proposed PSES and PSNS.
The proposed rule would require the same level of treatment of direct discharges as it does for indirect discharges, even though indirect discharges undergo significant additional treatment at a POTW. This is inappropriate, even if it is consistent with recent ELG updates

. Comment Response:
For comment about the pass through analysis for bottom ash transport water, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144. For comment about the level of treatment required by PSES, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 143.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 181 External Review Flag: No External Review Extern al Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
additional flaws in the proposed PSES requirements are as follows.

1. The POTW Pass

- Through Analysis Is Incomplete
EPA did not perform its traditional pass

- through analysis for bottom ash trans port water. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,457 col. 1. EPA’s reasoning is that the proposed standard is a no

- discharge standard and therefore pass

- through will not occur. But this reasoning fails to consider that each of EPA’s preferred regulatory options allows fo r discharge of bottom ash, thereby necessitating a comparison of the POTW removal efficiencies with that of the proposed PSES and PSNS standards.

2. The POTW Removal Percents Are ObsoleteEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 132 EPA used the 1982 50 POTW study when determining POTW removal efficiencies for arsenic and mercury. This study is outdated and does not account for the advanced level of treatment now occurring at the nation’s POTWs.
Moreover, EPA’s suggested removal efficiency for arsenic differs significantly from previous ELG rul emakings. In developing its 1998 effluent limitations for the CWT category, EPA determined that the arsenic removal efficiency of a well

- operated POTW is 91%, as opposed to the 66% cited in this rulemaking.

3. The BAT Removal Percentages Are Inaccurat e
EPA compared the removal percentages for well

- operated POTWs with the removal percentages of the technology associated with the proposed FGD wastewater BAT limitations. This analysis is flawed because of obsolete POTW data, as described above, and also be cause of inflated BAT removal efficiencies that over

- estimate the performance of the physical

- chemical

- biological treatment systems.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Al dridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 229 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Local Lim its
The following table summarizes a survey of local limits for Georgia POTWs, subject to state

approved industrial pretreatment programs. The table compares the proposed PSES/PSNS limits to the local limits of 14 different Georgia POTWs of different size s. The survey is limited to Georgia, but the development of local limits is a uniform practice, and the Georgia local limits are likely similar nationwide.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 133 * Local Limit is for Ammonia

A

– City of Atlanta; B

– Clayton County; C

– Cobb County; D

– DeKal b County; E

– North Fulton County; F

– South Fulton County; G

– Gwinnett County; H

– City of Dalton; I

– City of Gainesville; J

– City of Cornelia; K

– Peachtree City; L

– Cherokee County; M

– Athens

- Clarke County; N

– Douglas County.
The Georgia local lim its for copper are typically lower than the limit being proposed in the ELG rule. This is a result of the type of biological treatment being used by the POTW and an assessment of the copper inhibition levels on the wastewater treatment microorganisms. As such, discharges to POTWs of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes will likely be determined by the local limit instead of the TBEL.
Another issue identified by this survey is the typically higher (indeed, considerably higher) local limits for arsenic, mercur y and selenium. While having either a water quality

- based effluent limit (for direct discharges) or a local limit (for indirect discharges) does not relieve an entity from meeting the minimum standards for treatment under the ELGs, it does indicate the pr esent

day sophistication of municipal wastewater treatment plants. As discussed above, modern municipal wastewater treatment plants have been significantly upgraded since 1982 to deal with numerous factors including more stringent water quality

- based limi ts.
The final point for comparison in the survey is the TBEL for nitrate

- nitrite. The 0.17 mg/L limit is extremely low and would require significant and costly treatment before discharge to a sanitary sewer.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 134 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 140.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 176 External Review Flag: No External Rev iew External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed revisions to 40 C.F.R. Part 423 create a number of concerns specific to indirect dischargers. Concerns related to the proposed modifications of the PSESs and PSNSs are as f ollows:

1. POTW pollutant pass

- through analysis,

2. local limit sufficiency,

3. Jordan memorandum policy, and

4. PSNS applicability.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 138 in Comment Code 6.b

.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 162 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respo nse: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA's pass through analysis, we think is flawed, mostly because EPA used POTW removal efficiencies from the 1982 study of 50 well operated POTWs, and since then, there has been aEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 135 great increase in the number of people served by a dvanced wastewater treatment, which has far greater treatment efficiency.
So, for example, EPA used a 66 percent removal efficiency for arsenic; whereas, the 1998 development document for the Centralized Waste Treatment Category found that the arsenic

remo val efficiency of a well operated POTW is 91 percent. It may sound trivial, but it goes to the heart and soul of what the pretreatment standard should require.
Comment Response:
For comments about the POTW removals used in EPA’s pass through analysis, a nd the POTW removal for arsenic used in development of the Centralized Waste Treatment pretreatment standards, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 144.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 136 6.c. Regulatory Options

– Technology Versus Water Quality Based Limitation s

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 61 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

P roposed Limits are Lower Than Safe Drinking Water and Water Quality

- Based Limits
The proposed technology

- based limits are well below the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) limits as well as certain Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs). For ex ample, the proposed arsenic BAT limit of 8 μg/L (daily max.) and monthly average limit of 6 μg/L are both below the primary arsenic drinking water standard of 10 μg/L. Likewise with mercury, selenium and nitrate/nitrite, the monthly averages are 94%, 80% a nd 98% lower that the primary SDWA maximum contaminant levels, respectively, for these constituents.
The proposed BAT limits are also lower than WQBELs in several instances. For example, the Florida Class III Marine water quality standard for total arsenic (62

- 302.530 F.A.C.) is 50 μg/L (36 μg/L for trivalent arsenic), which is several times greater than the proposed BAT limit. The same is true for selenium, which has a Class III Marine WQBEL of 71 μg/L compared to the 16 μg/L (daily max.) and 10 μg/L month ly average values proposed for FGD wastewater.
It is inconceivable that a facility could theoretically meet a WQBEL limit for arsenic and/or selenium, but yet exceed a technology

- based limit.
Comment Response:
As explained in preamble section IV.A, the C WA prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the U.S., except as authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In addition, it is the goal of the CWA that the discharge of toxic pollutants be eliminated.

To achieve these ends, the CWA establishes two basic approaches for controlling the discharge of pollutants in NPDES permits

- technology

- based effluent limitations issued under Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) and water quality

- based effluent limitations (WQBELs). These two types of pollutant limitations, required by the CWA, are derived for different purposes and with different methods, and in permits, the technology

- based limitation serves as the first level of control. Technology

- based controls, such as Best Available Technology (BAT), are required that establish a national level of performance for all dischargers. EPA establishes technology

based controls using the performance of well

- designed and well

- operated control and treatm ent technologies. As explained in preamble section IV. B. 3, BAT is intended to reflect the bestEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 137 performance that is technologically available and economically achievable by the industry. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) reflect “the greatest degr ee of effluent reduction” that is achievable based on the “best available demonstrated control technology” (CWA section 306(a)(1))

-- see preamble section II.

The final ELGs for the discharge of steam electric wastewater do include numeric limitations as the commenter points out. For example, the BAT limitations and NSPS for FGD wastewater include numeric limitations for four pollutants: arsenic (total), mercury (total), selenium (total), and nitrate/nitrite as N. These limits were calculated from measure d discharges from wastewater treatment units designed and operated to control the identified pollutants. As described in final TDD Section 13.1.2, to develop the limitations for selenium and nitrate/nitrite, EPA used data from two plants using a chemical p recipitation system followed by anoxic/anaerobic biological treatment operated to remove selenium. As also described in final TDD Section 13.1.2, to develop the limitations for arsenic and mercury, EPA used data from four plants using chemical precipitatio n systems employing both hydroxide and sulfide precipitation and iron co

precipitation.
Water quality

- based effluent limitations are used to ensure the discharge of pollutants meets applicable state water quality standards and are applicable only if the te chnology based controls are insufficient to meet applicable water quality standards. In contrast to ELGs, water quality

based effluent limitations are based on applicable water quality standards that take into account the potential impacts on the actual r eceiving waters of the permitted discharge. For example, water quality standards upon which WQBELs are based account for the size and type of waterbody (e.g., fresh water, saltwater), the aquatic life present, and the magnitude, duration, and frequency of the discharge.
On the other hand, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorizes EPA to establish minimum standards to protect tap water and requires all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with these primary, health

- related, standards. Drinking water standards are based on risk to human health through exposure to the water and feasibility. They do not account for bioaccumulation in fish. Many of the pollutants discharged by coal

- fired steam electric power plants, such as mercury, arsen ic and selenium, are bioaccumulative and will accumulate in fish tissue posing health risks to humans, birds and other wildlife that consume the fish. Eliminating the discharge of pollutants is explicitly one of the objectives of section 301 of the Act. Since the ELGs, WQBELs, and drinking water standards each use different approaches for protecting human health and the environment, and they are developed using different criteria as required by law (CWA or SDWA), ELGs, WQBELs, and drinking water standards can, and frequently do, differ.
Thus, as required by the CWA, the promulgated limitations are based on the performance and economic achievability of available control technology, taking into account a number of factors such as costs and non

- water quality environmental impacts, which may differ from concentrations established in drinking water standards or from concentrations established in WQBELs to protect impacts of a particular discharge on a specific waterbody.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 138 Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. McNelly Com menter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
While the execution of the rule is tied to loadings, the water quality standards have been established based on concentrations (mg/l or ug/l) to protect uses.
Comment Response:
For an explanation of the difference in the statutory bas is, the purpose, the derivation, and the implementation in NPDES permits, of effluent guideline limitations (as promulgated under this final rule) as opposed to water quality standards, the commenter should see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA did not account for discharge into non

- fresh water bodies when proposing BAT based limits, yet EPA recognizes different water quality based limits for fresh and salt water bodies.

Raven Power recommend s that an exception from the proposed BAT technology

- based limits be allowed for discharges to tidal waters. Permit limits for discharges to tidal waters should be based on site

- specific water quality based effluent limits.
Comment Response:

EPA is not r equired to consider receiving water quality in setting technology

- based effluent limitations. See, e.g., American Frozen Food Inst. v. Train , 539 F.2d 107,121 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(The determination of BPT is not to be based upon the quality of the receiving wa ters.). Assn of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794 (9 th Cir. 1980)(EPA is not supposed to demonstrate the incremental effect on receiving water quality). Consolidated Coal Co. v. Costle
, 604 F.2d 239, 245 (4 th Cir. 1979)(Receiving water quality is nota basis for settling BPT effluentEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 139 or FDF). Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 599 F.2d 1011, 1028, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(Impact on receiving water quality not a factor. The use of receiving water as a waste treatment system is unacceptable. Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93 Cong. 1st Sess. at 1425.(Comm. Print 1973).
For an explanation of the difference in the statutory basis, the purpose, the derivation, and the implementation in NPDES permits, of effluent guideline limi tations (as promulgated under this final rule) as opposed to water quality standards, the commenter should see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Po wer Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Exceptions should be considered for BAT limits at facilities discharging into tidal waters.
Comment Response:
EPA is not required to consider receiving water quality in setting technology

- based effluent limitations. See, e.g., American Frozen Food Inst. v. Train , 539 F.2d 107,121 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(The determination of BPT is not to be based upon the quality of the receiving waters.). Assn of Pacific Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794 (9 th Cir. 1980)(EPA is not supposed to demonstrate the incremental effect on receivin g water quality). Consolidated Coal Co. v. Costle
, 604 F.2d 239, 245 (4 th Cir. 1979)(Receiving water quality is nota basis for settling BPT effluent or FDF). Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 599 F.2d 1011, 1028, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978)(Impact on receiving water q uality not a factor. The use of receiving water as a waste treatment system is unacceptable. Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 93 Cong. 1st Sess. at 1425.(Comm. Print 1973).
For an explanation of the difference in t he statutory basis, the purpose, the derivation, and the implementation in NPDES permits, of effluent guideline limitations (as promulgated under this final rule) as opposed to water quality standards, the commenter should see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.

Commenter Name: Jared Morrison Commenter Affiliation: Westar Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4469

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 140 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated in to Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Source Water Contribution
EPA specifically requested comments on source water contribution as applicable to the proposed FGD wastewater guidelines. This raises concern for Westar considering the fact that all of the numeric limits proposed for FGD wastewater are significantly lower than the federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water. The proposed limits for nitrates/nitrites and mercury are actually more than an order of magnitude lower than they are for drinking water.
Specifically, in Westar’s experience with FGD scrubber operation and review of the pilot data, we have concerns on this topic in regards to mercury. The JEC’s main water source is the Kansas River. The Kansas water quality criterion f or aquatic life for mercury is 770 ng/L, and the criteria for food procurement and domestic water supply are 146 and 140 ng/L, respectively (KDHE 2004). The EPA proposed numeric limit for mercury, in some of the preferred options, requires a daily average of 119 ng/L, which is lower than even the most stringent water quality criterion for the Kansas River. Under the proposed effluent limits, the possibility exists that Westar Energy would be required to treat incoming raw water to reduce mercury, or at a minimum, treat the effluent to a level that exceeds the most stringent Kansas water quality criterion. Requiring a more stringent standard for the power industry than what is required for publicly used water bodies within the State of Kansas seems unreaso nable. Westar Energy could face a major hurdle if the numeric limits, as proposed, are set into place. Considering the plant uses around 24,000 gpm of raw water, treatment of source water, if required, would be expensive and complex and could adversely imp act rate payers with no appreciable benefit to the environment.
Comment Response:
For an explanation of the difference in the statutory basis, the purpose, the derivation, and the implementation in NPDES permits, of effluent guideline limitations (as pro mulgated under this final rule) as opposed to water quality standards and drinking water MCLs, the commenter should see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.
EPA notes that as required by the CWA, the promulgated limitations a re based on the performance and economic achievability of available control technology, which may be lower than concentrations established in drinking water standards and concentrations established in WQBELs to protect against impacts of a particular disch arge on a specific receiving stream.
The commenter should also recognize that many of the pollutants discharged by coal

- fired steam electric power plants, such as mercury, arsenic and selenium, are bioaccumulative and will accumulate in fish tissue posing health risks to humans, birds and other wildlife that consume the fish. Reducing the loading to the environment of these bioaccumulative pollutants as much asEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 141 possible using the best available technology that is economically achievable, is consistent with the Clean Water Act, which calls in section 301 for the elimination of the discharge of pollutants. EPA’s investigation of steam electric power plant wastewater demonstrates that it is reasonable to treat FGD wastewater to reduce mercury concentrations. E PA notes that it found that untreated FGD wastewater concentrations of total mercury are higher than the Kansas water quality criterion for aquatic life described by the commenter. As discussed in final TDD section 10.2.1, EPA found that most steam electri c power plants treat FGD wastewater using only surface impoundments and found that the average surface impoundment effluent concentration for total mercury was 7.78 ug/L (7,780 ng/L) about 10 times higher than the Kansas water quality criterion for aquatic life described by the commenter (770 ng/L).

EPA points out, that in special circumstances, for some facilities the mercury discharge limits promulgated at 40 CFR part 423 may be less than the concentrations of the facility's intake water. For these circum stances, permit writers may adjust the effluent standard for the presence of mercury in the intake water, following the procedures set out in 40 C.F.R.§129.6. These provisions allow effluent limitations to be adjusted to reflect credit for toxic pollutants present in the facility’s water supply if two criteria are met: 1) the source of the water supply is the same waterbody into which the discharge is made and 2) it is demonstrated that the toxic pollutants present in the water supply will not be removed by the wastewater treatment system designed to meet effluent standards in the absence of the toxic pollutants in the water supply.

Commenter Name: Peter A. Tennant Commenter Affiliation: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Document Co ntrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4512

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Mercury contamination is a cause of fish consumption advisories in the Ohio Riv er Basin. ORSANCO and its member States have discharge limits ranging from 51 ng/L to 12 ng/L. All of the proposed options (3a, 3b, 3, 4) have mercury discharge limits far in excess of the current limits. Because mercury is a bio

- accumulative chemical ther e is a need to reduce loadings as much as possible. These limits should be re

- evaluated and brought more into line with standards already in place.
Comment Response:
As explained in preamble section IV.A, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants fro m a point source to the waters of the U.S., except as authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a two

- part approach for deriving limits for the allowable discharge of pollutants if authorized in the se permits; technology

- based controls that establish a minimum national level of performance for all dischargers based on theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 142 best available control technology that is economically achievable; and water quality

- based effluent limitations (WQBELs) if needed to meet applicable state water quality standards at a specific location in specific waterbodies.
The mercury discharge limits identified by the commenter are specific to the needs of the particular discharge location (the Ohio River). The mercury effluent limitations ELGs that EPA has promulgated are technology

- based controls that establish a national level of performance for all dischargers. As needed to meet applicable water quality standards at a specific location, the permit writer may include more str ingent discharge limitations in the permit.

For more explanation of the difference in the statutory basis, the purpose, the derivation and the implementation in NPDES permits of effluent guideline limitations (as promulgated under this final rule) as oppos ed to water quality standards, the commenter should also see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.

Commenter Name: Peter A. Tennant Commenter Affiliation: Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4512

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
ORSANCO supports the reduced arsenic limit as this is more protective of the drinking water use of the Ohio River.
Comment Response:
EPA notes that the arsenic effluent limitations that EPA has promulgated are technology

- based controls that establish a national level of performance for all dischargers.

Commenter Name: Bradley Coyle Commenter Affiliation: Big Rivers Electric Corporation (BREC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4664

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Proposed Selenium and Mercury discharge standards are impractical.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 143 The standards proposed by the ELGs provide near impracticality with regards to various constituents that are found in the water discharges from a steam electrical generation facility. Se lenium standards to be set at a limit of 5 parts per billion (ppb or microgram per liter) are at the edge of existing technology for the detection of such a parameter. Additionally, the standard of mercury to a limit of 242 nanograms per liter

– a standard which is two times less than the allowable maximum contamination limit (MCL) established by the Clean Drinking Water Act

– is simply unnecessary, impractical and offers little benefit to human health and the environment. With an established MCL of 2 ppb a nd the notion that no one will be directly consuming effluent from a steam

- fired plant, a limitation of 242 ng/l is simply nonsensical and provides little in the way of protecting the environment. Additionally, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is nearly impo ssible from the standpoint of grounded and accepted science in that the effluent that would need to meet the aforementioned goals will be ever changing depending on fuel quality and/or operational aspects of the facility. BREC feels strongly that these p articular aspects lack just reason for implementation to such a nearly unachievable level of removal of these particular constituents.
Comment Response:
With regard to the commenter's contention that the proposed ELGs are impractical, EPA established ELGs that include numeric limitations for mercury for three wastestreams and for selenium for two wastestreams. As discussed in preamble section XI and further documented in Section 13 of the TDD, these numeric limitations are based on measured pollutant c oncentrations in the effluent of well

- operated wastewater treatment plants. As further discussed in preamble section IX, EPA concluded that these ELGs are economically achievable.
With regard to the commenter's comparison of ELGs to drinking water standard s, the commenter should see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Excerpt Number 61. Making such comparisons is invalid.
With regards to the commenter's allegation of a “One size fits all” approach, the ELGs are performance based. That is, although t hey are based on an evaluation of the performance of certain control technologies, the regulated facilities may meet their NPDES permit discharge limits using any effective control technology that appropriately “fits” their facility’s specific conditions.
EPA also notes that the technologies identified as BAT include flexibility to accommodate changing facility conditions. For example, for FGD wastewater, as discussed in Section 8.3.1 of the TDD, the BAT and NSPS technology basis is chemical precipitation ( hydroxide and organosulfide) followed by biological treatment (anoxic/anaerobic fixed

- film biological treatment system designed to remove heavy metals, selenium, and nitrates). To accommodate plant operational variability, an equalization tank with a 24

- ho ur residence time is part of this treatment train. In addition, biological treatment includes an ORP monitor which identifies the need to add reducing agents (e.g., sodium bisulfite) to mitigate high concentrations of free oxidants and protect the biologic al treatment system. (See Section 9.6 of the TDD for elements included in costed BAT for FGD wastewater.)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 144 As discussed in Section 3.4 of the TDD, EPA collected data to characterize treatment performance of the systems used to treat the FGD scrubber purge w astewaters. EPA selected plants to represent a variety of characteristics, including the type of coal and various plant operational conditions, and conducted on

- site sampling activities over 4 consecutive days. EPA also required a subset of plants to coll ect additional characterization data over a four

- to five

month period. Lastly, EPA supplemented the field sampling program data with long

- term plant self

- monitoring data. See Section 13 of the TDD.
With respect to the comment on changing fuel quality, E PA reviewed available data on fuel type for the facilities that are the basis of the limitations and found that a well

- designed well

- operated plant will be able to achieve effluent limitations in the final rule see the Variability in Flue Gas Desulfurizati on Wastewater: Monitoring and Response Memorandum (DCN SE05846).

Because of the BAT elements that allow the treatment to accommodate variations in untreated wastewater resulting from “fuel quality and/or operational aspects of the facility,” and because fa cilities that implement the control technologies can consistently treat wastewater to the BAT effluent limitation concentrations, EPA concludes that the promulgated selenium and mercury discharge standards are not only best available technology economicall y achievable.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 145 6.d. Regulatory Options

– NPDES Program Provisions

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No Exte rnal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Variance from the Final ELGs
Conemaugh Generating Station has a suspended growth biological treatment system that targets the removal of selenium in a more concentrated FGD wastewater. The system at Conemaugh was designed to reduce selenium concentrations to a monthly average effluent limit of 0.25 mg/l and daily maximum of 0.5 mg/l from more concentrated FGD wastewater than what is used as EPA model technology. The relativel y higher chloride concentrations inhibit biological activity. To facilitate higher levels of selenium removal, Conemaugh may need to dilute their FGD wastewater to between 3,200 and 8000 ppm chloride (EPA model), which is not possible because the WWTP woul d be hydraulically overloaded. To date, the reduction of selenium is sufficient to meet the WQBELs in the station’s NPDES permit. Because the Conemaugh Generating Station has already installed controls that target selenium and the NPDES WQBELs are protecti ve of the receiving stream, NRG requests a variance from the final ELGs for selenium for FGD wastewater under Section 301 due to fundamentally different factors. Other plants that satisfy WQBELs should also be provided a variance from the final ELGs as wel l.
Comment Response:
EPA identified chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment as the technology basis for the final BAT limitations for FGD wastewater. More specifically, the technology basis for BAT is a chemical precipitation system that employs hydroxide precipitation, sulfide precipitation (organosulfide), and iron coprecipitation, followed by an anoxic/anaerobic fixed film biological treatment system designed to removed heavy metals, selenium, and nitrates (see preamble Section VIII.C. 1). The technology basis for the biological treatment portion of the BAT system is demonstrated to manage FGD wastewater with chlorides concentrations of up to 30,000 mg/L. EPA considered but did not select a suspended growth biological treatment system, such as the one at the Conemaugh plant referenced by the commenter, as part of the technology basis for the final rule (see TDD section 7).
As noted by the commenter, the plant’s current wastewater treatment system is designed to meet a “monthly average effluent limit of 0.25 mg/l and daily maximum of 0.5 mg/l,” which are higher than those in the final steam electric ELGs. EPA used discharge monitoring report data from the plant to determine whether the current wastewater treatment system can meet the fin al limitations and determined that the plan would need to install additional treatment (see Section 6.2.3 of the Costs and Loads Report). EPA’s compliance cost estimates for the final rule tookEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 146 into account that the Conemaugh plant would install a biologic al treatment system that matches the model technology serving as part of the basis for BAT, which would operate in conjunction with Conemaugh’s existing chemical precipitation system, in order to meet the BAT limitations. Based on the untreated FGD purge d ata that the Conemaugh Generating Station submitted in response to B6

- 2 of the Steam Electric Survey, the purge concentrations for selenium and arsenic do not exceed the average untreated FGD wastewater concentrations presented in Table 6

- 3 of the TDD, ind icating the wastewater is consistent with the FGD wastewater from plants used as the basis for BAT. The rationale for the limits in the rule are described in Section 13 of the TDD.
Under section 301(n) of the Clean Water Act, FDF variance requests with al l supporting information and data must be received by the permitting authority within 180 days of publication of the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for which a variance is sought. The specific regulations covering the requirements for and the administration of FDF variances are found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1) and 40 CFR part 125, subpart D (see Section XVI.D.1 of the preamble).
With regard to the commenter's comparison of ELGs to WQBELs, the commenter should see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 26 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review I ncorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Dilution is not a Practical Alternative for Meeting Applicable WQBELs
EPA states in Section 8.1.2.1 (FGD Wastewater) of the TDD that “it is common for plants to commingle the surface impoundment FGD effluent with wastestreams of significantly higher flows (e.g., ash transport water and cooling water) because the higher

- flow wastestreams dilute the FGD wastewater so that the resulting pollutant concentrations in the combined wastestream do not exceed the app licable water quality

- based effluent limitations.”
This is misleading because the pollutant loading on a stream does not change simply due to dilution of the discharge. The pollutant loadings associated with higher flows and lower concentrations are equiva lent to low flows and high concentrations. Furthermore, the requirement for using sufficiently sensitive methods to detect constituents at concentrations less than water quality criteria in the ppb to ppt range would address EPA’s concern in this reg ard.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 147 Comment Response:
EPA’s final rule is a national effluent guidelines rule establishing technology

- based effluent limitations and standards; it does not establish water quality

- based effluent limitations (WQBELs). The discussion in Section 8 of the TDD cited by the commenter was not intended to describe how plants could or should meet applicable WQBELs. Rather, the TDD discussion cited by the commenter is merely a description of one current industry practice (commingling FGD surface impoundment effl uent with high flow wastestreams, such as ash transport water), along with EPA’s understanding of the possible purpose for that practice (to reduce pollutant concentrations to meet water quality

- based effluent limitations). EPA describes this practice bec ause, as explained in Section 13 of the TDD, in order to characterize wastewater treatment performance, EPA selected data from those plants where the commingled wastewaters were not influenced by substantial dilution, along with other criteria.
Finally, the final steam electric ELG rule does not itself contain a requirement to use sufficiently sensitive methods (see Section VIII.G of the preamble) because, in August 2014, EPA published a separate rule requiring the use of sufficiently sensitive analytical test methods when completing any NPDES permit application. Moreover, the NPDES permit authority must prescribe that only sufficiently sensitive methods be used for analyses of pollutants or pollutant parameters under an NPDES permit where EPA has promulg ated a Clean Water Act method for analysis of that pollutant. That rule clarifies that NPDES applications and permittees must use EPA

- approved analytical methods that are capable of detecting and measuring the pollutants at, or below, the applicable water quality criteria or permit limits.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 47 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Ash Transport Water Portion of the Rule Necessitates Emergency Upset, Bypass and Shut Down Language During Unscheduled Outages
A number of the options in the proposed standards require zero discharge of ash transport water that will require installation of new ash handling systems. As noted by EPA, some facilities have converted from wet ash sluicing to dry ash handling, but have retained the wet system as a “backup” system. Operating proble ms can occur more easily with a retrofitted system than with an originally designed system, which can result in un

- scheduled outages and additional costs. Therefore, APPA requests that EPA provide an exemption that would allow the use of wet systems at fac ilities that retrofit to a no discharge handling system for limited periods of time inEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 148 emergency situations. This language under upset and bypass (and perhaps in other areas) should be clear to allow that the power plant is allowed to still function during emergencies.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter and, for the final rule, has not included an “exemption that would allow the use of wet systems at facilities that retrofit to a no discharge handling system for limited periods of time in emergency situations,” as the commenter requests. As explained in Section VIII of the preamble, EPA has determined that it is technologically and economically achievable for the steam electric industry to meet zero discharge limitations and standards for f ly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water. The commenter provides no data to support its claim that “operating problems can occur more easily with a retrofitted [ash handling] system than with an originally designed system, which can result in un

- scheduled outages and additional costs.” The final rule does not prohibit the use of wet

- handling or any other systems. Rather, the final rule establishes limitations and standards based on technologies that EPA has determined represent Best Availabl e Technology Economically Achievable. In the case of fly ash transport water, EPA’s technology basis for BAT is a dry handling system, and in the case of bottom ash transport water, EPA’s technology basis is a dry handling system or a closed

- loop system ( see preamble Section VIII.C. 2 and 3). See also the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 138.
Finally, EPA’s existing and unchanged regulations concerning bypass and upset for direct dischargers

– which are available to steam electric power plants that meet the requirements

– are set forth at 40 CFR § 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect dischargers at 40 CFR §§ 403.16 and 403.17. A “bypass” is an intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of a treatment facility. An “upset” is an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with the technology

- based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA did not propose to add to or modify the la nguage in EPA’s existing bypass and upset regulations as part of the steam electric ELG rulemaking.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 149 6.e. Regulatory Options

– Ponds/Impoundments Used for Treatment

Commenter Name: Basil G. Constantelos Commenter Affiliation: Midwest Generation, LLC. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Midwest Gen strongly supports EPA’s proposed options that recognize the performance of gravity settling at surface impoundments as best available technology economically achievable (BAT) for bottom ash transport water, including EPA’s preferred options 3a, 3b, and 3, as well as EPA’s proposed options 1 and 2. This technolo gy is environmentally protective, its effectiveness for treating bottom ash transport water is well

- documented, it is the technology used by a majority of facilities, and it is entirely supported by the statutory factors EPA must consider in establishing B AT. In contrast, EPA’s options that would establish dry handling or closed loop systems as BAT for bottom ash transport water is cost

- prohibitive, presents significant feasibility concerns, and would not result in benefits that would outweigh or justify t he significant costs.
Comment Response:
The final rules establishes BAT limitations and PSES applicable to discharges of bottom ash transport water based on dry handling or closed

- loop technologies, except for discharges from generating units smaller tha n or equal to 50 MW or units that are oil

- fired. EPA disagrees with the commenter that surface impoundments represent BAT for control of bottom ash transport water discharges. As described in preamble Section VIII, EPA selected dry handling or closed loo p systems as the technology bases for control of bottom ash transport water discharges because they are available, they are economically achievable as they are affordable to the industry as a whole, and they have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. For the reasons explained in preamble section VIII.C.3, EPA did not select surface impoundments as the BAT basis for control of bottom ash transport water discharges. Most importantly, they would not result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, particularly toxic pollutants (see CWA section 301(b)(2)(A)).
EPA disagrees with the commenter that BAT limitations based on dry handling or closed loop systems are “cost

- prohibitive.” The final rule is economically achievable as it is affordable to the industry as a whole, as required by the Clean Water Act. See sections VIII.C.9 and IX.C of the preamble and Chapter 5 of the RIA.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that BAT limitations based on dry handling or closed loop systems present “feasibility concerns,” especially in light of the significant amount of the industry that already employs these technologies. See preamble section VIII.C.3, the TDD, and responses to comments in comment code 16.a.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 150 Finally, the commenter states that the zero discharge limitations and standards applicable to bottom ash transport water discharges “would not result in benefits that would outweigh or justify the significant costs.” As the preamble discussion make s clear, EPA’s decisions on the final rule are based on the factors specified by Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act

– most importantly, the technologies selected in the final rule are “available” and “demonstrated” and the final rule is “eco nomically achievable” for the industry as a whole. EPA’s decisions on the final rule are not based on a benefits analysis, which EPA conducts pursuant to Executive Order. The Clean Water Act does not direct EPA to weigh benefits against costs in establish ing effluent limitations based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (“BAT”), and multiple judicial decisions have noted that BAT, unlike Best Practicable Technology (“BPT”), is to be established without reference to cost

- benefit analysis. See EPA v. Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. 64, 70

- 71 (1980) (“[I]n assessing BAT[,] total cost is no longer to be considered in comparison to effluent reduction benefits.”); Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794, 818 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The conspi cuous absence of the comparative language contained in section 304(b)(1)(B) leads us to the conclusion that Congress did not intend the Agency or this court to engage in marginal cost

- benefit comparison.”); Am. Iron & Steel v. EPA , 526 F.2d 1027, 1051

- 52, 1053 n.54 (3d Cir. 1975) (“there should be no cost

- benefit analysis” for BAT); Nat’l Ass’n of Metal Finishers v. EPA , 719 F.2d 624, 659 (3d Cir. 1983) (“BPT is designed to eliminate inefficient discharges, i.e. , where the benefits of pollutant reduction ex ceed the costs. . . . BAT assumes that inefficient discharges have been eliminated . . . [and] require[es] the remaining dischargers to eliminate ‘efficient’ discharges, [including] where the costs outweigh the benefits of pollutant reduction.”).

Nonethele ss, even if EPA were to consider the relationship between costs and benefits as a decision factor for the final rule, the result would be unchanged. As detailed in the Benefit Cost Analysis, prepared pursuant to Executive Order, the estimated annual social cost of the final steam electric rule is $480 million. EPA calculated that the final rule will reduce pollutant discharges by 1.4 billion pounds per year (see Section X of the final rule preamble). EPA notes that its pollutant reductions estimates only ac count for pollutants that EPA identified as “pollutants of concern.” Where the final rule establishes zero discharge limitations and standards (such as for pollutants in fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wastewater), the rule el iminates the discharge of all pollutants present in the wastewater, not only pollutants of concern. Nonetheless, the estimated degree of pollutant discharge reductions in this rule is significant, it represents a large portion of the remaining discharges o f toxic pollutants to the nation’s waters by any point source category, and given the Clean Water Act’s ultimate goal of pollutant discharge elimination (see 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1)) it is a benefit that alone justifies the cost of the rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 151 In additio n, EPA was able to monetize some, although not all, of the social benefits associated with the final rule. In EPA’s experience, monetization of the benefits of environmental rules, particularly effluent limitations guidelines, is much more difficult than m onetization of costs, due in large part to a lack of relevant data. 1 Nevertheless, of the benefits that were monetized, EPA estimated $451 to 566 million annually. The human health benefits from surface water quality improvements and the benefits associat ed with improvements in ecological conditions from decreased pollutant loadings amount to $40 to $147 million annually. EPA calculated $411 to 418 million annually in “ancillary” benefits associated with avoided impoundment failures and increased ash marke ting, as well as human health benefits from air quality improvements and climate

- change related benefits. These ancillary benefits represent valid social benefits of the action that are reasonably foreseeable, and not speculative. Just as the Act requires EPA to take into account the non

- water quality environmental impacts of its effluent limitations guidelines, it follows that if EPA were to consider costs and benefits, EPA would be permitted to consider, to the extent possible, monetized benefits beyond t hose immediately associated with pollutant discharge reductions to the nation’s waters. EPA further found that low

- income and minority populations would disproportionately benefit from the rule, and this consideration of equity should also be taken into ac count (see the RIA). 2 In addition, there are many categories of benefits that EPA could not monetize for the final rule, including expected reductions in adverse human health effects (non

- cancer effects) from exposure to pollutants through fish consumptio n, reductions in adverse human health effects (cancer and non

- cancer effects) from exposure to pollutants through recreation in and on the water, reductions in drinking water treatment costs that are mainly borne by the public, increased tourism, and incre ased property values (see preamble Section XIV.D, the Environmental Assessment, and the Benefit and Cost Analysis for a listing and discussion of these and other non

- monetized benefits). Together, the expected benefits able to be monetized, along with the recognition of those that were not, justify the costs of the final rule.

1 In general, the costs borne by regulated entities tend to be easier to ascertain than the benefits to broad populations. See, e.g., Frank Ackerman & Li sa Heinzerling, “Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing,” p. 40 (2004) (“[M]ost cost

- benefit analyses could more accurately be described as ‘complete cost

- incomplete benefit’ studies. Most or all of the costs are readily det ermined market prices, but many important benefits cannot be meaningfully quantified or priced . . . .”); David M. Driesen, “Is Cost

- Benefit Analysis Neutral?,” 77 U. COLO. L. REV. 335, 339

– 42 (2006) (explaining that costs are often relatively easy to quan tify using market data but that these estimates tend to be too high, while benefits can be “extraordinarily difficult” to quantify and monetize); Robert H. Frank, “Why Is Cost

- Benefit Analysis So Controversial?,” 29 J. LEGAL STUD. 913, 928 (2000) (indicati ng that cost

- benefit analysis can be controversial because costs are much easier to quantify than benefits, particularly in the environmental and health fields). And, Executive Order 13563 recognizes that “some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify. ”
2 E.O. 13563 specifically recognizes that “equity” and “fairness” should be taken into account. This is applicable here, where the final rule addresses externalities, i.e., pollution that a few entities generate on the waters enjoyed by all.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 152 Although not equivalent to an analysis of social costs and social benefits, EPA also analyzed the cost 3 per toxic

- weighted pound 4 of pollutant removals attributable to the final rul e, which the Agency calls a “cost

- effectiveness” analysis. Like cost

- benefit analysis, this analysis enables one to quantify a measure of something that is gained (pollutant reductions) in exchange for a cost imposed. EPA uses a cost per pound analysis whe n establishing BPT, and the courts and caselaw have recognized that EPA may use a “limited” cost

- benefit balancing test when establishing BPT, sometimes called the “wholly disproportionate” test. See EPA v. Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. 64, 71 n.10 (1980); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 129

- 30 (1977). This means that, for BPT, EPA may impose costs as long as they are not wholly disproportionate to the effluent reductions achieved. For BAT (and the analogous pretreatment standar ds for existing sources, PSES) or Best Available Demonstrate Control Technology (“BADCT”) (and the analogous pretreatment standards for new sources, PSNS) levels of control, EPA did not base the final rule on its cost

- effectiveness analysis because the sta tute does not direct EPA to consider cost in relation to pounds of pollutant removals. EPA views a cost

effectiveness

- type analysis as more appropriate for use in establishing limitations reflecting BPT rather than BAT, based on the different language used in the Act to describe these separate technology

- forcing steps . For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h

. ). If, however, EPA were to base its decisions on the final steam electric rule on an analysis of cost per toxic

- weighted pound of pollutant removals, it would also make the same decisions.
Collectively, the final BAT requirements have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $134 per pound

equival ent (“lb

- eq.”). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. A review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised BAT limitations shows BAT cost

- effectiven ess ranging from less than $1/lb

- eq. (Inorganic Chemicals) to $404/lb

- eq. (Electrical and Electronic Components). In addition, collectively, the final PSES, which are analogous to BAT limitations, have a cost effectiveness of $1,228/lb

- eq. This ratio is hi gher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES in other industries, which range from less than $1/lb

- eq. (Inorganic Chemicals) to $380/lb

- eq. (Transportation Equipment Cleaning), based on a review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised c ategorical pretreatment standards. Nonetheless, there are very few plants (three) that are indirect dischargers, and the cost

- effectiveness for one of the three indirect dischargers significantly elevates the average value for all three combined. EPA calcu lated costs for this plant based on a full conversion of its bottom ash handling system to dry handling. It is more likely, however, that this plant would choose to implement modifications that would enable it to completely recycle its bottom ash transport water in order to meet the zero discharge standard, rather than undertake a full conversion. In that event, the costs to this

3 Here, the costs are the estimated annualized incremental pre

- tax costs to comply with alternative regulatory options, stated in 1981 constant dollars. The annual costs include the annualized capital outlays for equipment and recurring expenses for operating and mai ntaining compliance equipment and meeting monitoring requirements.
4 Pollutants differ in their toxicity. EPA thus adjusts the estimated reductions in discharges, or pollutant removals, associated with a regulatory option by multiplying the estimated remov al quantity for each pollutant by a normalizing toxic weight (toxic

- weighting factor, or “TWF”). The use of TWFs allows the removals of different pollutants to be expressed on a constant toxicity basis. In the case of indirect dischargers, the removal also accounts for the effectiveness of treatment at Publicly Operated Treatment Works (“POTWs”). See the Regulatory Impact Assessment for more details about how EPA accounts for differences in toxicity of pollutants of concern through the use of TWFs.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 153 indirect discharger

– and consequently the cost

- effectiveness value for all indirect dischargers, combined

– would be lower. Mor eover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. Therefore, although EPA did not base its BAT/PSES/BADCT/PSNS decisions in the final steam electric rule on “cost

effectiveness,” even if it did, based on the considerations presented here, EPA would conclude that the cost per toxic

- pound equivalent of pollutant removals for its final steam electric rule is justified.

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
BAT for Bottom Ash Transport Water
Consumers Energy is supportive of EPA’s determination, for preferred options 3a, 3b, 3, that Best Available Technology (BAT) for bottom ash is the same as “Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available” (BPT), namely, a surface impoundment. However, we see no reason not to extend this BPT as BAT to Option 4a for units over 400 MW.
Bottom ash generally is an inert material or nearly so. EPA has no technical basis for assuming that the bottom ash waste stream includes the same pollutants of concern present in other CCR waste streams. We agree with UWAG’s analysis that the toxicity of the bottom ash transport water expressed in toxic weighted pounds equivalen t (TWPEs) in this proposed rules document has been overestimated by more than an order of magnitude. As such, we see no reason not to extend the BAT/BPT determination for wet bottom ash handling and surface impoundments to units larger than 400 MW, or to d eviate from EPA’s long

- standing position that the small amount of toxics in bottom ash transport water does not justify dry handling or a closed

- loop system, regardless of unit size. There certainly is no compelling benefit/cost argument for requiring exi sting units of any size to spend several tens of millions of dollars per unit to convert to a dry or zero liquid discharge system. We urge EPA to adopt the surface impoundment and wet transport BPT as BAT for all options.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3.
EPA disagrees that bottom ash is “an inert material or nearly so.” Following proposal, EPA expanded its bottom ash characterization dataset, based on responses to public comments. SeeEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 154 Section 6.6.4 of the TDD for a description of the characterization data used to identify POCs in bottom ash and Section 10.2.2 for a description of ash impoundment data. As described in those sections and shown in Table 10

- 7, bottom ash transport water contains a variety o f metals, in many cases at levels similar to fly ash transport water, as well as other pollutants such as nitrogen compounds, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.
See Section 10.4.2 of the TDD for a discussion of ash transport pollutant loads and TWPE.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4477

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incor porated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The two trade associations representing smaller entities, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the American Public Power Association (APPA) generally agree that there should be no addi tional regulation of existing bottom ash or fly ash impoundments, and that flue gas desulfurization (FGD) impoundments would face new regulation above a specified design flow.
Comment Response:
For comments on the identification of dry handling or closed loop system operations as BAT for bottom ash transport water, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3.
For the reasons set out in preamble section VIII.C, except for discharges from existing generating units that are less than or equal to 50 MW or that are oil

- fired, EPA did not select surface impoundments as the technology basis for BAT limitations applicable to discharges of FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, or bottom ash transport water.

In addition, EPA decided not to promulgate BAT limitations that would require permitting authorities to establish limitations for FGD wastewater using site

- specific BPJ because it has sufficient data to set uniform, nationally applicable limitations on FGD wastewater at plants across the nation. See preamble section VIII.C.1 for further information.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 155 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Impoundments Used for Settling Should be Excluded
EPA found that surface impoundments (i.e., ash ponds and FGD ponds) can vary substantially in size, capacity, and age. According t o a survey conducted by EPRI, pond surface areas ranged from 5 acres to 1,500 acres, with a median of 91 acres. Disposal capacities ranged from 100,000 cubic yards to 63 million cubic yards, with a median of 3.4 million cubic yards.
Smaller relatively shal low impoundments are:

 Less prone to turnover/upsets caused by thermal stratification,

 Easier to maintain, and

 Can be modified more economically to enhance precipitation and settling of dissolved metals.
Therefore, bottom ash surface impoundments, which are smaller in size (e.g., <10 acres) and used for only settling and not permanent disposal should be excluded from the proposed ELG.
Comment Response:
The commenter states that “bottom ash surface impoundments, which are smaller in size (e.g. <10 acres and used only for settling and not permanent disposal should be excluded from the final rule.” The final rule establishes effluent limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants in particular wastestreams (including fly ash transport wate r, bottom ash transport water, and FGD wastewater) from steam electric power generating units. The final rule does not directly regulate the impoundments in which the wastewater may be held or treated.
As described in preamble section VIII, except for d ischarges from existing generating units that are less than or equal to 50 MW or that are oil

- fired, the final rule identifies chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment as the BAT basis for control of pollutants in FGD wastewater discharges, dry handling as the BAT basis for control of pollutants in fly ash transport water discharges, and dry handling or closed

- loop systems as the BAT basis for control of pollutants in bottom ash transport water discharges. However, steam electric power plants may use whatever technology or practice they choose to meet the effluent limitations.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 132Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 156 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
All of the options except Options 4 and 5 identify impoundment as the BAT technology and propose to set BAT limits equal to current BPT limits. 575 Yet EPA ha s repeatedly made clear that “surface impoundments are not designed for, nor are they effective at, removing . . . dissolved metals” from combustion residual leachate. 576

575 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,458.

576 See, e.g. , TDD at 8

- 13; U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, S team Electric Point Source Category: Final Detailed Study Report (EPA

- 821

- R

- 09

- 008) xiii (Oct. 2009), available at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam

- electric/upload/Steam

- Electric_Detailed

Study

- Report_2009.pdf.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes BAT limitations and PSES for discharges of combustion residual leachate based on surface impoundments, for the reasons explained in Section VIII.C.6 of the preamble. W hile EPA agrees that surface impoundments are not designed for, nor are they effective at removing dissolved metals from combustion residual leachate, the amount of total metals and other pollutants collectively discharged in combustion residual leachate b y steam electric power plants is a very small portion of the pollutants discharged collectively by all steam electric power plants. Because dissolved metals are a portion of the total metals, the amount of dissolved metals in combustion leachate relative t o other wastestreams is even smaller. Given this, and the fact that the final rule regulates the wastestreams representing the three largest sources of pollutants from steam electric power plants, including by setting a zero discharge standard for two out of the three wastestreams, EPA decided that the final rule represents reasonable further progress toward the Clean Water Act’s goals, in accordance with Section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act. See Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 19 80); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 787 F.2d 965, 972 (5th Cir. 1986); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 858 F.2d 261, 265

- 66 (5th Cir. 1988), amended by 864 F.2d 1156, 1156

- 57 (5th Cir. 1989).

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Ene rgy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 157 Comment Excerpt:

BAT for Coal Combustion Residual Leachate

Consumers Ene rgy supports EPA’s determination that the low volume waste BPT limits should apply as BAT to CCR leachate. The application of low volume waste BPTs

- pH, TSS, oil and grease, are appropriate for all preferred options.
Comment Response:
With respect to dis charges of combustion residual leachate from existing steam electric generating units, for the reasons described in preamble section VIII.C.6, the final rule establishes BAT limitations equal to the previously established BPT limitation on TSS for discharg es of low volume waste sources.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 55 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
And I want to make this point to you. It is criminal to me that we have power plants in this country whose sole means of treatment is to dump their scrubber sludge, their coal ash waste,

an d their other processed water in a hole in the ground. That is not best available technology. That is 1950s old school, no treatment, ridiculous kind of way to treat toxic heavy metals, and it is time for it to stop. It is time for us to stop poisoning our waterways with heavy metals.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards that are based in many cases on technologies (including completely dry handling practices) that are more advanced than surface impoundments. See preamble Section VIII for a description of the final rule, including the technologies selected as the bases for the final limitations and standards. See also preamble Section X for an estimate of the reductions in pollutant discharges associated with the final rule.

Commenter Name: Dennis Wene Commenter Affiliation: Alcoa Inc.'s Warrick Operations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4765

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 158 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Finally, by reviewing the system as a whole, Alcoa

- Warrick has a significant population of fish in the ashpond system; the population is likely over 20,000, with nearly all species of the receiving water represented. Accord ingly, evidence supports that our discharge is not harming the receiving stream. Indeed, the eco

- life of the ashpond system is still strong.
Comment Response:
For a discussion of the difference in the function and basis of technology

- based effluent limi tations guidelines and standards, such as those established in this final rule, and limitations based on water quality standards, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61 in Comment code 6.c. Technology

- based controls establis h a national floor of pollutant control performance for all dischargers based on, for example, “best available technology economically achievable” or “best available demonstrated control technology” and are not based on the quality of the receiving water i nto which the pollutants are discharged. Indeed, the technology

- based provisions in the Clean Water Act were enacted in response to the failure of previous approaches to control water pollution that were predicated on having to demonstrate the environment al effects of control on receiving waters. See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 159 6.f. Regulatory Options

- General Methodology

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:



### III. Evaluation of Data and Statistical Method

A. Ash I mpoundment Effluent Concentration Data
The greatest contribution to the overall TWPE for ash impoundment effluent is from sulfides. Sulfides account for the largest contribution to the TWPE for each ash impoundment type: 59% for bottom ash impoundments, 77% for fly ash impoundments and 55% for combined ash impoundments (see Tables 3, 4 and 5).
Remarkably, none of the impoundment effluent sampling programs that EPA relied on in the 1982 TDD and the 2009 Detailed Study Report analyzed impoundment effluent s amples for sulfides. The only sulfide data came from 22 impoundments included in the UWAG From 2C compilation

– 2 bottom ash impoundments, 3 fly ash impoundments and 17 combined ash impoundments. Furthermore, none of the impoundments for bottom ash or fly ash found sulfides above reporting limits, and only 3 combined ash impoundments found sulfides above reporting limits.
Therefore, 59% of EPA’s calculated TWPE for bottom ash impoundments and 77% of EPA’s calculated TWPE for fly ash impoundments are based on no actual data. The calculated values were based exclusively on reporting limits from 5 samples. For combined ash impoundments 55% of EPA’s calculated TWPE is based on only three measured values and 14 reporting limits.

B. Statistical Method for Es timating Loadings
EPA’s statistical method for estimating the average loading (lbs/year) per impoundment was to multiply the average concentration (the average over impoundments) times the average transport water flow rate (the average over impoundments). EPA then multiplied its estimate of the average loading per impoundment times the number of impoundments to estimate the industry level loadings.
The actual industry

- level loading for a pollutant is the sum of the impoundment

- specific loadings, which alt ernatively can be viewed as the number of impoundments times the average loading per impoundment. For each impoundment, the loading is the product of the concentration times the transport water flow rate. In general the average of products (i.e., theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 160 pro per way to calculate average loadings) is not equal to the product of averages (i.e. EPA’s formulation). This fact is at the heart of the statistical theory of correlations (Lindgren, 1976).
If pollutant concentrations are correlated with transport water flow rates, then EPA’s formulation for estimating average loading per impoundment are biased. In general the direction and magnitude of bias depends on: 1) the magnitude and sign of the correlation between concentrations and transport water flow rates, an d 2) the coefficient of variation (i.e., the ratio of standard deviation to the mean) for pollutant concentrations among impoundment and for transport water flow rates among impoundment (see Appendix A). If pollutant concentrations are negatively correlat ed with transport water flow rates, then EPA’s formulation will produce estimates that are biased high.
In the next section, several simple, hypothetical examples are presented that compare properly calculated estimates of average loadings to estimates of average loading calculated using EPA’s formulation. The examples illustrate the presence of bias and the effects of correlation and coefficients of variation on bias. In addition, the next section includes a discussion of the general algebraic relationsh ip between correlation, coefficients of variation and bias.

1. Illustrative Examples of Bias
In each example in this section, a hypothetical average annual pollutant loading is calculated using the proper method of calculation (i.e., the average of pr oducts) and compared to the estimate calculated using EPA’s formulation (i.e., the product of averages). The underlying correlation between pollutant concentrations and transport water flow rates and the underlying coefficients of variation differ among ex amples to illustrate the effects of those factors on bias.
Example 1 illustrates the calculations for the extreme case in which pollutant concentrations have a perfect negative correlation with flow rates.
Example 1. Correlation between pollutant concentr ations and transport water flow rates =

- 1. Coefficient of variation for concentration = 0.71, and coefficient of variation for flow = 0.35.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 161 In Example 1, the true average pollutant loading is 150 lbs/yr per impoundment. However, the estimated average pollutant loading based on EPA’s method would be the average concentration (i.e., 10) time the average flow rate (i.e., 20), which equal 200. Therefore, for this example, EPA’s method would overestimate loadings by a factor of 1.33 (i.e., 200/150).

For any degree of correlation, the magnitude of bias depends on the size of the coefficients of variation for concentrations and flows. A larger coefficient of variation will cause the bias to be larger. The next hypothetical example (Example 2) illustrates this fact with the coefficient of variation for flow roughly doubled in comparison to Example 1. For Example 2, the average concentration and flow, and the correlation between concentration and flow are the same as in Example 1.

Example 2. Correlation between pollutant concentrations and transport water flow rates =

- 1. Coefficient of variation for concentration = 0.71, and coefficient of variation for flow = 0.67.

In Example 2, the true average pollutant loading is 105 lbs/yr per impoundment. However, the estimated average pollutant loading based on EPA’s method would still be 200 (i.e., the average concentration times the average flow rate). Therefore, for this example, EPA’s method would overestimate loadings by a factor of 1.90 (i.e., 200/105).
Example s 1 and 2 illustrate the extreme case of perfect correlation between concentrations and flows. The next example (Example 3) illustrates the fact that when the correlation is zero, EPA’s method is not biased. For Example 2, the average concentration and flo w again are the same as in Example 1, and the coefficients of variation are roughly the same as in Example 2.
Example 3. Correlation between pollutant concentrations and transport water flow rates = 0. Coefficient of variation for concentration = 0.71, a nd coefficient of variation for flow = 0.72.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 162 In Example 3, the true average pollutant loading is 200 lbs/yr per impoundment. The estimated average pollutant loading based on EPA’s method is also 200 (i.e., the average concentration times the average flo w rate). Therefore, for this example, EPA’s method would not introduce a bias (i.e., the bias factor is 200/200 = 1.00 indicating no bias).
The next example (Example 4) illustrates the fact that if concentrations and flows are negatively correlated, but no t perfectly correlated as was the case for Examples 1 and 2, EPA’s method will still produce biased estimates of pollutant loadings. For Example 4, the average concentration and flow again are the same as in Example 1; however, the correlation between con centrations and flows is

- 0.33. The coefficients of variation for concentrations is the same as in Examples 1

- 3, but the coefficient of variation for flow is increased to 1.25 for Example 4.
Example 4. Correlation between pollutant concentrations and tran sport water flow rates =

- 0.33. Coefficient of variation for concentration = 0.71, and coefficient of variation for flow = 1.25.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 163 In Example 4, the true average pollutant loading is 142 lbs/yr per impoundment. However, the estimated average pollutant l oading based on EPA’s method would still be 200 (i.e., the average concentration times the average flow rate). Therefore, for this example, EPA’s method would overestimate loadings by a factor of 1.41 (i.e., 200/142).

2. Algebraic Formulation to Desc ribe Bias
In general, the effect on bias of the correlation between concentrations and flows, and the effect of the coefficients of variation for concentrations and flows are described by the following relationship (see Appendix A):

where þ is the correl ation between pollutant concentrations and transport water flow rates, CV(concentration) is the coefficient of variation for concentration, and CV(concentration) is the coefficient of variation for flow.
To demonstrate the use of this general relationship, the correlation and coefficients of variation from Examples 1

- 4 are inserted into equation (1) below:

For each example, the bias factor calculated using equation (1) matches 1 the bias factor computed from the two estimates of average pollutant loading.
In the following section, data from responses to the ICR are examined to estimate: 1) correlations between pollutant concentrations and flow in bottom ash transport to impoundments, and 2) coefficients of variation for pollutant concentrations and flow. T hose estimates are used in conjunction with equation (1) above, to assess the likely magnitude of bias in EPA’s estimates of bottom ash impoundment pollutant loadings.

3. Magnitude of Bias in EPA’s Estimates of Ash Impoundment LoadingsEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 164 A. Method for Assessing Magnitude of Bias
This assessment of the likely magnitude of bias is based on data included in the ICR response database provided on CD by EPA. Specifically, data from the files (included in the ICR response database) listed below were used for the assessment.

1. Bottom ash sluicing flows reported by plant and steam electric unit in the file “btm_ash_sluicing”.
2. Weight of wet bottom ash (dryweight) produced per and steam electric unit reported in the file “btm_ash_system”.
3. Impoundment destination of bottom ash from each plant and steam electric unit reported in the file “btm_ash_storage_dest”.
4. Fly ash sluicing flows reported byplant and steam electric unit in the file “fly_ash_sluicing”.
5. Weight of wet fly ash (dry weight) produced per plant and steam electric unit reported in the file “fly_ash_system”.
6. Impoundment destination of fly ash from each plant and steam electric unit reported in the file “fly_ash_storage_dest”.
7. Nameplate generation capacity(MW) for each plant and ste am electric unit reportedinthefile“se_units_operating”.

8. Percent of total BTUs produced with coal as fuel reported in the file “fuel_useage”.
The data files were merged by plant, steam electric unit and impoundment. Data on plants and steam electric uni ts that reported bottom ash or fly ash production, sluicing flows, nameplate generation capacity, and 50% or more of BTUs produced by coal were included in the assessment. Plants and steam electric units that had relevant data redacted as confidential bus iness information were excluded from the assessment. A total of 202 impoundments reported in the data files satisfied these criteria.
A separate assessment was conducted for impoundments that received bottom ash (but not fly ash), for impoundments that re ceived fly ash (but not bottom ash), and for impoundments that received both bottom ash and fly ash.
Data on ash transport sluice flow rates were available in the responses to the ICR. Accordingly, estimates of the coefficients of variation for ash transp ort water flow rates could be calculated directly from the ICR database.
A systematic list of pollutant concentrations associated with ash transport sluice water, or impoundment discharges, was not included in the ICR responses. Therefore, it was not poss ible to directly calculate impoundment

- specific pollutant concentrations on which to base theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 165 required estimates of correlation and coefficient of variation of concentration. However, data on ash concentrations can be used as surrogates under the assumptio n that the mass of pollutants produced in the ash transport water was proportionate to the mass of ash produced. In that case, the concentration of ash in the transport water would be proportionate to the concentration of pollutants.
Both of the parameter s (i.e., correlation and coefficient of variation) in equation (1) that involve pollutant concentration are unit

- less quantities. The correlation coefficient, bounded on the interval

- 1 to 1, is automatically scaled to the two variables addressed. The coe fficient of variation is a ratio in which the units of measurement in the numerator and denominator cancel. Accordingly, under the assumption that the mass of pollutant produced is proportionate to the mass of ash produced, the correlation coefficient bet ween concentration and flow is the same for pollutants and for ash. Similarly, the coefficient of variation is the same for pollutants and for ash. Therefore, data on ash concentrations in the ash transport water were used to assess the likely bias in est imates of pollutant loadings using equation (1).
b. Results of Assessment of Magnitude of Bias
For each plant and impoundment that satisfied the criteria listed above, the reported pounds of ash sluiced to the impoundment per year, and the reported gallons per year of sluicing flow were taken from the ICR response data files. The associated ash concentration in the ash transport water (in lbs/gal) then was calculated as the ratio of the annual pounds of ash sluiced to the annual gallons of sluicing flow. Th ese data (i.e., ash concentration, sluicing flow and ash weight) for impoundments receiving bottom ash, receiving fly ash and receiving both bottom ash and fly ash are listed in Appendix B Tables B1, B2, and B3, respectively.
For each of the three ash impo undment types the correlation between ash transport water flow and ash (pollutant) concentration is negative, and the coefficients of variation are greater than 1 (see Table 6). The bias factors, calculated using equation (1), are 3.155 for bottom ash imp oundments, 1.662 for fly ash impoundments, and 2.149 for combined ash impoundments.
As an additional illustrative example, estimates of average ash loadings (lbs/yr) per impoundment were calculated from the ICR data using EPA’s method (i.e., the product of the average flow times the average concentration) and directly by averaging the reported load per impoundment (see Table 7). For bottom ash impoundments, the actual average is 94,922,923 and the estimate using EPA’s method is 299,516,816 (3.16 times too h igh). For fly ash impoundments, the actual average is 312,035,846 and the estimate using EPA’s method is 518,475,075 (1.66 times too high). For combined ash impoundments, the actual average is 183,022,135 and the estimate using EPA’s method is 393,251,302 (2.15 times too high).

IV. Effects on Invalid Data and Flawed Methods on Estimates of Loadings and TWPEs

A. Excluding Invalid Average Sulfide Concentrations
As noted above, the TWPE estimates for sulfide ranged from 55% (for combined ash impoundm ents) to 77% (for fly ash impoundments) of the total TWPE. Excluding the estimatesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 166 of sulfide concentration from the total TWPE estimates reduces the total TWPE (summed over the three impoundment types) 60%, from 5,240,000 to 2,121,609 (Table 8).

B. Ad justing for Likely Bias in EPA Estimation of Average Loadings
The likely biases in loading estimates due to EPA’s statistical method range from 1.66 for fly ash impoundments to 3.16 for bottom ash impoundments. Adjusting each estimate to account for the l ikely bias factor reduces the estimated total loadings (summed over the three impoundment types) by 63% from 2,182,900,000 to 801,786,870 (Table 9). Similarly, adjusting each estimate of TWPE to account for the likely bias in loadings due EPA’s statistica l method reduces the total TWPE by 59% from 5,233,000 to 2,169,828.

V. Discussion

A. Invalid Sulfide Concentrations and Contribution to TWPEs
EPA’s estimates of TWPEs for sulfides in bottom ash and fly ash impoundments are simply baseless and hav e no scientific justification. Furthermore, EPA’s estimate of TWPE for sulfides in combined ash impoundments, based on three observations above reporting limits and 14 observations set to reporting limits, is inadequate. Accordingly, inclusion of EPA’s es timates of TWPEs for sulfides in EPA’s industry level baseline TWPE for ash impoundment effluents leads to invalid results that are severely biased high.
Although EPA estimated that over half of the industry level TWPE was due to sulfide, none of the sampl ing programs EPA relied on in its 1982 TDD for Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines (EPA 1982) or in its 2009 Detailed Study (EPA 2009) reported monitoring for sulfide. For its loading estimates, EPA used no sulfide data actually collected for the purpose o f calculating valid estimates of pollutant loadings. Rather EPA used sulfide data reported in NPDES Form 2Cs, collected for regulatory compliance purposes that did not require the low detection limits that are needed for valid estimates of loadings.

B. Bias in Loadings and TWPE Estimates
EPA’s estimates of Industry

- Level Ash Impoundment Pollutant Loadings are likely to be severely biased high due to the formulation EPA chose for calculating loadings. As described above, EPA’s formulation will generate estimates that are biased high if pollutant concentrations are negatively correlated with ash transport flow rates. In addition the bias will be severe if the coefficient of variation for pollutant concentrations and the coefficient of variation for transp ort flow rates are high among impoundments. All of these conditions appear to be present in all three ash impoundment types: bottom ash, fly ash and combined ash.
The ICR data clearly show that the variance of transport flows is large. Under the assumptio n that the weight of pollutants produced is proportionate to the weight of ash produced, the data also show: 1) a negative correlation between pollutant concentrations and transport flows, and a very large coefficient of variation for pollutant concentrati ons. These conditions combine toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 167 indicate that EPA’s estimate of industry level baseline TWPE for ash impoundment pollutant loadings of 5,233,000 (TDD Table 10

- 13) is likely to be 2.41 times too high.

This assessment of bias assumes that EPA’s estimates o f average pollutant concentrations are unbiased, and only addresses biases due to the statistical method EPA chose for estimating ash impoundment pollutant loadings. Biases due to errors in EPA’s estimates of average pollutant concentrations would be comp ounded with these biases as discussed below.
It should be noted that this issue of bias, due to EPA’s method for estimating loadings, may extend beyond ash impoundment pollutant loadings to any of EPA’s estimates of pollutant loadings that were calculated as the product of averages.

C. Compounding of Errors

EPA’s inclusion of invalid TWPE estimates for sulfide combined with EPA’s biased method for estimating loadings likely caused EPA’s baseline TWPE estimates to be too high by a factor of six (see Table 10). Computing the total TWPE without the invalid sulfide data reduces the baseline TWPE from 5,240,000 to 2,121,609. Adjusting that estimate to account for the likely bias in loading estimates due to EPA’s biased formulation further reduces the baseline TWPE to 859,686. Therefore, the combined effect of EPA’s invalid estimates of sulfite concentrations and EPA’s biased statistical method is likely to produce an estimate of total TWPE that is 6 times too high.

1 The minor discrepancy in Example 2 is d ue to round

- off error with 2 significant digits.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 168Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 169Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 170Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 171Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 172Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 173Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 174 

### Appendix A
Algebraic Characterization of Bias in EPA’s Formulation of Annual Loadings
EPA’s method for calculating Baseline Ash Impoundment Loadings (pounds per year) has four steps:

1. Estimate industry

- level average pollutant concentration (pounds per million gallons)
2. Estimate impoundment

- specific ash transport water flow rates (million per gallons per day)
3. Estimate impoundment

- specific loadings based on the industry

- average pollu tant concentration and impoundment

- specific transport water flow rates

4. Estimate the industry

- level loadings as the sum of impoundment

- specific loadings estimates.
This method is can introduce large biases to the results. The source of these biases can be seen by expressing annual loadings algebraically in terms of plant

- specific concentrations ( Ci ) and flow rates ( Fi ). The actual annual total pollutant load ( T ) over N plants is:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 175Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 176Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 177 

### Appendix B

Ash Transport Water Data from ICR Response Data FilesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 178Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 179Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 180Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 181Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 182Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 183 Comment Response:
For general information regarding the statistical analyses conducted for the final rule see DCN SE05733 and Appendix.
Regarding sulfide data and pollutant loadings: For the reasons explained in EPA’s response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 14, EPA did not include loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water, so related comments are outside the scope of the final rule.
Regarding statistical bias in pollutant loadings : EPA notes that the statute simply requires EPA identify pollutant reductions resulting from application of BAT. EPA has done so (in terms of pounds and TWPE) and its approach is reasonable, particularly in consideration of the data available to EPA.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 184 EP A notes that the commenter’s analysis of the method that EPA used to calculate loadings is incorrect. The commenter states that “EPA’s statistical method for estimating the average loading (lbs/year) per impoundment was to multiply the average concentrati on (the average over impoundments) times the average transport water flow rate (the average over impoundments).” EPA did not use the “average transport water flow rate (the average over impoundments).” EPA calculated baseline pollutant loadings and post

- c ompliance loadings for each plant discharging an evaluated wastestream using the plant

- specific wastewater flow for the wastestream and average pollutant concentration of the specific wastestream. EPA then sums the plant

- specific loadings to calculate the industry

- level loadings. See TDD section 10 for additional discussion on the loadings calculation methodology. EPA did use average pollutant concentrations when calculating loadings; however, EPA could not have calculated the product of concentration and flow rate for each impoundment as commenter suggests because impoundment

- specific pollutant concentration data were not available to EPA for all impoundments at steam electric power plants nor was the commenter able to provide such data. EPA generally agr ees that “average of products ... is not equal to the product of averages,” however the commenter has mischaracterized EPA’s methodology for calculating loadings. The commenter may confused by the use of normalized, generating unit

- level fly discharge flow r ates that EPA calculated to account for the fact that most generating units do not discharge 365 days per year. See Section 10.3 of the TDD for further discussion on the calculation of normalized flow rates.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertions t hat ash effluent loadings (and more generally any estimates of pollutant loadings) are biased due to the method in which EPA calculated the loadings. The commenter provides no actual data to support the numerous assumptions made in their theoretical calcul ations, such as the assumption that pollutant concentrations are correlated with transport water flow rates, the assumption that the weight of pollutants produced is proportionate to the weight of ash produced, and the assumption that the concentration of ash in the transport water would be proportionate to the concentration of pollutants. This is surprising as the commenter submitted several datasets from multiple plants related to bottom ash transport water, but neglected to provide sample

- specific flow r ates, the mass of pollutants in collected samples, the mass of ash produced related to the specific sample, or the concentration of “ash” in the sample.
Instead the commenter relies on assertions that, by themselves, will result in the conclusion purported by the commenter.
EPA evaluated all datasets in which both sample

- specific flow and effluent pollutant concentration were available, including FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and fly ash transport water. In its review, EPA generated plots of t he available datasets (See DCN SE04409). Review of the data demonstrates that none of the assumptions made by the commenter were valid.

 Pollutant concentrations may be correlated with transport water flow rates at specific plants, or for specific periods of time, but EPA found that there was no overall correlation when reviewing the full dataset available.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 185  EPA was not able to assess whether the mass of pollutants present in impoundment effluent is proportional to the mass of ash produced due to the variati on in impoundment performance, coal quality, and other factors.

 EPA was not able to assess whether the concentration of “ash” discharged is proportional to the concentration of pollutants discharged, as data are unavailable on the concentration of “ash.”

B ecause an evaluation of the data invalidates the assumptions made by the commenter, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s conclusion that “EPA’s formulation will produce estimates that are biased high.” EPA notes that if no correlation between pollutant conc entration and flow rate exists then the “bias” mentioned by the commenter is nonexistent. EPA contends that its approach provides a reasonable estimate of the loadings and reductions based on actual data for ash transport wastewater.
The Bias Factor purpos ed in Equation (1) of the comment is a correction factor developed in the comment that “corrects” a situation that the comment constructed (using simulated data and a calculation methodology attributed to EPA that is in fact never performed). This is a ca se of using a specific instance (and possibly not even a realistic instance) to devise a general solution. The commenter offers no evidence that the purposed Bias Factor will perform consistently and as intended across the range of real

- world data. EPA not es that there are no academic references or published materials supporting the purposed Bias Factor. The commenter also states that the presence of negative correlation makes the Bias Factor a necessary correction, however EPA has observed that there is no convincing evidence of negative correlation.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 43 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:


### 9. The Form 2C Sulfide Data, Showing Sulfides that Are Not Actually Present in Ash Pond Discharges, Inflated Ash Pond TWPEs
EPA used sulfides in its TWPE calculation for bottom ash and fly a sh discharges due to three detected sulfide results out of 22 analyzed samples in the EPA database. The rest of the samples were all non

- detect, but many had a very high detection limit of 1 mg/L.

EPA failed to take into account that for all three detecte d sulfide results, there were corresponding source water data in the Form 2Cs that indicated sulfide was also present in the river water at essentially the same concentrations. Since sulfide is formed only under anoxicEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 186 conditions, the intake results were most likely false positives, probably due to some kind of analytical interference that is also present in pond discharge results.
The occurrence of sulfide in river water would be extremely rare and would only occur when dissolved oxygen in the river was v ery low. Upstream samples taken from a flowing river will not contain measurable sulfide concentrations unless the dissolved oxygen has fallen to essentially zero and remained in that state long enough for anaerobic bacteria to become active and form sulf

ides. Therefore, the similar intake water results likely indicate that all the sulfide results (both intake and effluent) are interferences, resulting in false positives.
Furthermore, most plants aerate their discharges at outfalls to further increase the oxygen content of the water before discharging it to surface waters. This is accomplished by contacting the wastewater with air by means of cascades, rock riprap, diffusers, turbulence, or mixing. Rock cascades and riprap are common means of aerating ou tfalls prior to discharge. This increased oxygen content of the water will prevent sulfides from being discharged by oxidizing them to sulfates in the very unlikely event sulfides were present in the first place.
As we explain below, measuring sulfide req uires attention to the method details and very careful quality control. All these methods are highly susceptible to interferences that can produce false positive results.
Comment Response:
For the reasons explained in EPA’s response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Excerpt Number 14 in Comment Code 6.a EPA did not include loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 210 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

XXIV. The Benefit and Cost Analysis Is Based on Inaccurate Data

EPA’s BCA is based o n EPA’s underlying work on costs, as spelled out in the TDD and the IC&PR, and EPA’s work on predicted environmental impacts in the Environmental Assessment. As we have demonstrated, there are numerous significant issues with both EPA’s work on costs and its assessment of environmental impacts. Therefore, the BCA cannot be accurate because the inputs to it are not accurate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 187 Turning to costs, we have described the following major flaws in EPA’s analysis.

1. EPA underestimated the costs of dry fly ash retr ofits. It developed its own formulas for estimating the costs of various pieces of the retrofitted technology. During a conference call on August 28, 2013, EPA confirmed to UWAG that it applied erroneous formulas for dry fly ash conveyance equipment, ste el silo capital costs, and concrete silo capital costs. The transcription errors that led to these mistakes are described, above, in these comments. When UWAG applied the proper EPA

- derived formulas to a sample set of six plants, we found an average incr ease of 46% in plant capital costs for conveyance and intermediate storage.

2. EPA also underestimated costs for balance of plant, engineering overhead, and profits and overhead for both fly ash and bottom ash retrofits.

3. For both fly ash and bottom as h retrofits, EPA failed to provide for contingency. A standard level of contingency would be 20% of the capital costs.

4. EPA also did not include costs for any land acquisition to provide space for the retrofitted fly ash and bottom ash handling systems

. This assumes that all sites have adequate space for the equipment already, which is not accurate.

5. For bottom ash retrofits at plants that recycle a majority of their bottom ash sluice water, EPA assumed a one

- time engineering consultation cost of $2 2,422 for work on a method of completely closing the system, but provided no capital expenditures at all. This oversight is a gross underestimate of retrofit costs.

6. For FGD wastewater retrofits, EPA understated costs by using “typical” FGD purge flow rates instead of maximum design flow rates. When constructing a new treatment system, engineers must use the maximum design flow rate rather than an average or typical flow rate. Therefore, it is inappropriate to base construction costs on an average or typical flow rate.

7. Also, EPA did not include any contingency costs for FGD wastewater retrofits. A standard level of contingency would be 20% of the capital costs for a relatively uncomplicated retrofit, and could be higher for a more complex retrofit

. EPA has also vastly overstated the potential environmental benefits of the rule. We have identified the following major issues with EPA’s loadings information.

1. For both bottom ash and fly ash transport water, EPA’s analytical database contains old, unreliable data from the 1982 Development Document and other sources. These data are inappropriate for characterizing today’s wastewater discharges, and they serve to grossly overstate pollutant loadings for both wastewaters.

2. EPA’s acceptance of high non

- detects as actual values from these old data sources compounds the overstatement. EPA not only assumed undetected pollutants were present at the detection limit but also used 1970s

- era detection limits that were much higher than today’s.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 188 3. Based on EPA’s representations to UWAG, the Agency no longer has any of the supporting documentation for the 1982 Development Document data, such as lab reports and the like. It is entirely inappropriate to base a rule on unsubstantiated data.

4. EPA’s estimates of sulfides in fly ash and bottom ash transport water are incorrect. As UWAG has demonstrated, sulfides are generally not present in these wastewaters.
Based on these and other flaws in the Environmental Assessment, EPA’s inputs to the BCA are inaccurate ; therefore, the entire BCA is too flawed to serve any purpose in this rulemaking. Aside from any methodological problems with the BCA, its conclusions must fail because the starting point of the analysis is badly flawed.
Comment Response:
Ash Handling Costs. Regarding fly ash transport water
, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 14.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the fly ash transport water cost estimates including up dates to cost equations, balance of plant (BOP) costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land for the final rule.
Regarding bottom ash transport water, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment C ode 16.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the bottom ash transport water cost estimates, including BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land for the final rule.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA did not include capital expenditures for plants recycling a majority of their bottom ash transport water. EPA did. As discussed in Section 8.5 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guideline s and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads R eport ) (DCN SE05831/SE05832), EPA included a one

- time bottom ash management cost for plants that recycle a majority of their bottom ash transport water but still have the option to discharge through an emergency outfall. These plants did not report discharge bottom ash transport water in 2009 but operate an emergency outfall. EPA’s cost estimate for these plants for the final rule includes contractor labor and cos ts for two week

- long trips to the plant for a contractor to come on site and develop a plan for the plant to permanently close up the bottom ash transport water discharge. Additionally, EPA estimated capital and O&M costs associated with chemical feed syst ems for all generating units at the plant with bottom ash wet sluicing systems. EPA notes that most plants that already recycle a majority of their bottom ash transport water will not require any capital costs to close the emergency outfall because they al ready have all of the equipment in place as part of their installed system. EPA estimated chemical feed systems for the minority of plants where the contractor determines that control of pH and fines is necessary. Plants that reported discharging any bot tom ash transport water in 2009 were costed for a full bottom ash handling conversion.

FGD Wastewater Costs. EPA agrees with the commenter that using “typical” FGD purge flow rates instead of maximum design flow rates would underestimate costs. However, E PA did notEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 189 use average FGD purge flow rates instead of maximum design flow rates in its costs estimates for the final rule. Instead, EPA calculated the maximum design flow rate for each plant by multiplying the plant

- specific average flow rate by the capa city factor (capacity factor derived as described in response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 26). See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 9.b.

EPA’s cost estimates for FGD wastewater in the fin al rule include contingency costs. For the final rule, EPA derived its indirect capital cost factor from typical engineering factors. EPA developed an indirect capital cost factor of 0.43, which accounts for engineering and supervision, construction expen ses, contractor’s fee, and contingency, based on information provided in Peters and Timmerhaus’ Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. See Section 6.2.5.7 (Indirect Capital Cost) of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Eff luent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) for additional information.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 24 and 30 in Comment Codes 9.b and 10.b respectively for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the FGD wastewater cost estimates.
EPA disagrees that is has vastly overstated the potential environmental benefits of the final rule. See the BCA for further discussion. See below for discussion on the issues raised by the commenter related to the 1982 TDD data and sulfides.

1982 Data: For the final rule, EPA revised its estimates of pollutant loadings for ash transport water in response to public comments. See Costs and Loads Report. EPA’s analysis is a reasonable estimate of the pollutant reductions associated with BAT in light of the available data and as such disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the final EA is flawed, See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.and responses to comment code 13.d for a response to the commenter’s concerns regarding the use of 1982 data to estimate pollutant loadings for ash transport water.
Sulfides : For the reasons exp lained in EPA’s response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1Excerpt Number 14 in Comment Code 6.a, EPA did not include loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 69 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 190 2. Compliance Costs

The EPA’s estimates of technology costs were determined from information received via survey responses, site visits, sampling episodes, individual power plants, and equipment vendors. The Agency used this information as inputs to the models employed to determi ne whether a specific facility would require a technology retrofit to comply with the criteria in the proposed ELG rule. The modeling alone introduces two potential degrees of error in the analysis. The accuracy of the model output is directly dependent u pon: 1) how well the model replicates the system or process being modeled; and 2) the accuracy of the data inputs. In Section IX.B.5, the EPA acknowledges its uncertainty with the validity of the data inputs by soliciting additional data or information on pollutant loadings that would corroborate or correct the data used in its analysis, including data or information relating to the pollutants of concern identified in the ELG proposed rulemaking. The EPA also questions how the data should be analyzed base d on: age; treatment of non

- detects; treatment of pollutants in source water; and calculation of toxic

- weighted pollutant equivalents. These specific requests for review and comment on the most fundamental input to the analysis for evaluating whether a c ompliance technology is needed at a facility calls into question all of EPA’s conclusions outlined in the proposed rule.
EPA superficially assumes that only incremental costs will be incurred by power plant owners requiring a technology retrofit for compli ance, without any site

- specific examination to assess if any existing treatment technology is optimally operating and/or has the capacity to accommodate the additional pollutant loadings required for compliance with this proposed ELG rule. This will poten tially lead to the further underestimation of the costs of these guidelines. EPA asserts that the costs developed in their assessment are site

- specific, but this position is based on data provided in surveys for which the Agency is also asking owners to ve rify post

- use in its determination of compliance costs. Even if one considers that the survey information provided is valid, the approach employed by EPA to determine an initial cost estimate for an individual facility falls far short of one that would pas s muster for an owner to go forward with a retrofit project. Making these general assumptions and escalating costs to reflect the ELG impact to the entire electric utility industry is misleading and doing so introduces amplified error and exacerbates the underestimate of cost to comply with the ELG rule. AEP’s costs for compliance with the rule, however, provide a more appropriate basis for economic evaluation, in that it includes specific plant data (presented herein) in addition to cost estimates derived from completed installations. Thus, AEP’s costs for compliance with the proposed rule give a

more realistic site

- specific estimate at each of AEP’s power plant facilities that would be affected by the rule for compliance with Option 4.

The EPA’s cost es timates of compliance with each of the options outlined in the proposed ELG rulemaking are further inherently flawed as they are expressed as a single value, when it would be more reasonable

– and believable

– to express as a cost with a range of variabili ty indicative of the level of certainty in the estimate

– i.e. plus or minus a percentage of the estimate (e.g. +/

- 50%). Expressing costs in this manner would also be consistent with the principles and process standards outlined by the Project Management Institute 46 in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), which is an industry standard used for executing technology retrofit projects of the magnitude expected for compliance with the ELG rulemaking. The PMBOK is a

c ollection of processes and knowledge areas generally accepted as best practices within theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 191 project management discipline. It is an internationally

- recognized project management standard, providing the fundamentals of project management for all types of pr ojects, including construction projects.
Using PMBOK, projects are executed using a phased management process through which each project will progress from initiation to closeout and include the following activities: project initiation, project planning, p reliminary engineering and design, procurement needs, detailed engineering and design, work planning, scheduling, procurement, construction contracts awarded, project implementation, project closeout. The accuracy of a project’s estimate logically improve s as the execution proceeds through the phases as follows, with the band range shown representing the accuracy at the beginning of the phase: Phase 1

– 50%, Phase 2

– 25%, and Phase 3

– 10%.
EPA fails to provide any such accuracy ranges, giving the false notion that the costs of the rule for each option as presented are all inclusive. As can be deciphered in the PMBOK phased process, many variables exist that will ultimately affect the scope and cost of any project and decision to retrofit. Instead of ack nowledging the inherent uncertainty in estimating and including appropriate ranges of accuracy in compilation of its costs, EPA relies on survey data to extrapolate an estimate from a technology vendor based on a single project, which introduces an unknown level of uncertainty in each and every estimate included in the summation of the total for compliance with each of EPA’s options.
To illustrate this point that the estimated costs in the proposed rulemaking for industry compliance are highly questionable, consider that AEP’s estimated compliance with Option 4 for its operating subsidiaries alone will result in the company incurring costs estimated at approximately $3.1 billion (2010$) ($3.9 billion fully

- loaded 2010$) on a pre

- tax direct

- cost basis. As no ted in the TDD, EPA estimates that under Option 4, the capital compliance cost for the entire industry exceeds $8 billion dollars. As AEP’s estimated costs are nearly 40% (50% if fully

- loaded costs are considered) of EPA’s estimated compliance cost for the industry, EPA’s estimate has to be highly questioned, considering AEP only owns approximately 4% of the 1,079 plants EPA considered in this rulemaking.
AEP is also concerned that in its examination of the proposed rule and its technical documents, that th ere is a lack of transparency in the costs estimated in EPA’s analysis from the perspective of quantification and delineation of costs by specific direct cost categories. EPA maintains that:
“EPA’s cost estimates include the following key cost components: capital costs (one

- time costs); annual operating and maintenance costs (which are incurred every year); and other one

- time or recurring costs. Capital costs comprise the direct and indirect costs associated with the purchase, delivery, and installation of pollution control technologies. Capital cost elements are specific to the industry and commonly include purchased equipment and freight, equipment installation, buildings, site preparation, engineering costs, construction expenses, contractor’s fees, and contingency.” (Emphasis added) 47

EPA does not definitively state that these items are included in their cost estimates, but merely states that these are the common items that comprise capital cost estimates. For example,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 192 co ntingencies included in the direct cost estimation in the EPA analysis are a

concern. Contingency is an allowance for costs that a company knows it will need but for which it lacks enough detailed planning or engineering information to identify or quantify

. It addresses “known unknowns” which are a legitimate cost in any project activity. Even if one accepts that EPA included contingency and/or general contractor profits and overhead in its analysis the legitimacy of their inclusion is questionable because the items appear not to be quantified and delineated in vendor quotes or in EPA’s technical documents, as has been the Agency’s past practice.
Further, the amount of contingency is a reflection of the cost estimate and its accuracy. Since, EPA gives no ac curacy ranges as explained above, AEP cannot fully comment about the amount of contingency embedded in the agency’s cost estimates. For example, if the amount of contingency included in the EPA cost estimation is small, then the EPA supposes a high degree of accuracy in its cost estimation for compliance costs associated with the rule. This is a position that AEP strongly disagrees with given the disparity of its cost estimates compared to the agency’s coupled with the agency’s lack of transparency.

Additio nally, EPA assessments of compliance costs do not account for several other integral cost considerations, such as the costs associated with and necessary for obtaining jurisdictional regulatory approval, where applicable. EPA also fails in its analysis to account for any equipment or material that would have to be retired or rendered obsolete in response to this rule. Any remaining depreciable balance of these assets would have to be accounted for along with consideration for removal, where necessary.

4 6 PMBOK® Guide and Standards, from http://www.pmi.org.

47 EPA Technical Development Document, April 2013, at 9

- 2.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that “specific requests for review and co mment on the most fundamental input to the analysis for evaluating whether a compliance technology is needed at a facility calls into question all of EPA’s conclusions outlined in the proposed rule.” As required by the APA, EPA provides opportunity for pu blic review and comment of its rules including the underlying data and methodologies.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s overarching assertions that its approach to estimating costs will potentially lead to an underestimation of costs. EPA also disagree s that its methodology makes “general assumptions” and escalates “costs to reflect the ELG impact to the entire electric utility industry.” The commenter asserts that EPA’s plant specific cost estimates are flawed because it did not conduct “any site

- spec ific examination to assess if any existing treatment technology is optimally operating and/or has the capacity to accommodate the additional pollutant loadings required for compliance with this proposed ELG rule.” EPA disagrees. EPA’s assessment of plant specific costs is based on plant specific information that each individualEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 193 plant provided to EPA in response to EPA’s industry survey. Each of the plants certified that their responses were accurate so EPA’s assessment is based on the best information ava ilable to EPA. EPA notes the commenter’s statement that “even if one considers that the survey information provided is valid” calls into question the validity of the survey information, but the commenter provides no data or information to indicate the info rmation is not valid. See the TDD for details on the industry survey. In estimating compliance costs, EPA looked at the plant specific information on its current wastewater handling approaches. Based on data in the record on the efficacy of such technolo gies across the industry, EPA assessed whether the plant would likely incur costs to comply with the final limitations. This is consistent with the approach EPA has historically used to estimate plant specific costs from questionnaire responses. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that this approach likely underestimates costs for a particular plant, it is just as likely that EPA has overestimated costs for a particular plant because a plant could just as easily be operating their technology better than EPA estimated. These cost estimates are not intended to be used by an individual facility to “go forward with a retrofit project” but are intended to provide a reasonable estimate the industry

- level impact of the rule. As such, EPA’s estimated compliance costs may, in some cases, under or overestimate costs at a specific plant, but they still provide a reasonable estimate of the cost to a plant and entity, and thus a reasonable basis for determining that the rule is economically achievable. EPA notes that the Clean Water Act does not require EPA to make a precise calculation of costs. See, e.g., CMA v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177, 237

- 38 (5th Cir. 1989) (“The Act requires the EPA to ‘take into account’ the costs of BAT; it does not require a precise calculation. The EPA ‘need make only a reasonable cost estimate in setting BAT’; it is sufficient if the EPA develops ‘a rough idea of the costs the industry would incur’” (citation omitted).); Kennecott Copper v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 1979) (EPA has “wide l eeway in its analysis of costs”); BP Exploration & Oil Inc. v. EPA
, 66 F.3d 784, 799

- 800 (6th Cir. 1995) (“The CWA does not require a precise calculation of BAT and NSPS costs” (citation omitted).); NRDC v. EPA , 863 F.2d 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he Act does not require a precise calculation of BAT costs”);.
EPA acknowledges AEP’s submitted cost estimates, but notes that insufficient details were provided by the commenter to support these estimates. In addition, EPA questions the commenter’s logic in determining that EPA’s cost estimates are highly questionable. AEP did not provide documentation for their costs, yet cites their estimates as proof that EPA’s estimates are incorrect. In addition, AEP states that their plants account for 40% of the costs (based on their estimates) but only own approximately 4% of the 1,079 plants; however, in assessing economic achievability, EPA looks to the impacts on the point source category as a whole. See, e.g. , Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA
, 161 F.3d 923, 936 (5th Cir. 1998) (EPA may prescribe effluent limitations guidelines . . . just as long as the BAT determination remains economically feasible for the industry as a whole.). See Section 9 of the TDD for more information on EPA’s final compliance cost estimates.
Although it is not necessary to establish a specified level of uncertainty associated with a cost estimate, EPA uses the best information available for equipment costs, installation costs, and a number of other costs ( e.g. , engineering design, etc

. ) assoc iated with the activities plants will undertake to comply with the ELGs, including engineering projects to install or replace wastewater treatment systems and ash handling systems. Because retrofitting equipment can involve add some degree of complexity to a project, such as the need to route piping aroundEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 194 existing obstacles, EPA used survey data where it could to refine the cost estimates to the extent possible to reflect conditions present at steam electric power plants. Where such data were not available from the survey, EPA used other valid data such as vendor equipment and chemical cost data and standard engineering cost factors. EPA disagrees that the cost estimates were extrapolated from “an estimate from a technology vendor based on a single project. ” Cost curves provided by vendors or developed by EPA based on cost data received from vendors reflect multiple projects designed and/or implemented by vendors for the technology. In addition, EPA’s cost estimates include a contingency factor to account fo r potential unanticipated costs. These contingency costs are intended to cover unexpected costs that may arise during the project. See the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam E lectric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) for details on the contingency included by EPA in its cost estimates.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that “there is a lack of transparency in the cost s estimated in EPA’s analysis.” Similar to proposal, EPA provides a detailed description of the cost methodologies used to estimate compliance costs for each technology option evaluated in the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)

. EPA clearly lays out the cost elements included for both capital and operation and maintenance costs. EPA acknowledges, however, that due to the confidential business information claimed, EPA has to redact some elements of the costs from the public non

- confidential record. At proposal, upon request, EPA provided companies with the specific cost estimates for t heir plants to allow for more specific review and comment. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 224 in Comment Code 1.c regarding transparency and plant

- specific cost estimates.
Since proposal, as described in Section 9 of the TDD, EPA has updated its cost methodologies in response to comments. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 14.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the fly ash transport water cost estimates inc luding updates to cost equations, BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land. See response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment Code 16.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to t he bottom ash transport water cost estimates, including BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 24 and 30 in Comment Codes 9.b and 10.b respectively for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the FGD wastewater cost estimates.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA did not account for costs associated with jurisdictional regulatory approval and that EPA also fails to account f or any equipment that may be retired or rendered obsolete. As discussed in Section 5.1 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) , EPA includes costs associated with indirect capital costs. Indirect capital costs include construction expenses among other elements. These construction expenses wouldEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 195 include permits and applicable taxes whi ch should cover any costs associated with jurisdictional regulatory approval. Moreover, with respect to permitting approval by the NPDES permitting authority, the plant would need an NPDES permit independently of this rule as the Clean Water Act already r equires that the plant’s discharges needs a permit. The permit must apply the technology

- based provisions of the Clean Water Act (BPT, BCT, BAT) as appropriate on a BPJ basis even without this rule and any additional limitations necessary to meet water qu ality standards. Additionally, EPA does not expect most plants to incur costs to retire or render equipment obsolete because most plants will not be removing existing equipment to comply with the new effluent guidelines. Where these costs are incurred it would be considered a contingency cost which is an element of indirect capital costs.

Commenter Name: Paul Bailey Commenter Affiliation: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1 Commen t Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposal is the result of a now all too familiar “sue

- and

- settle” consent decree process that has forced EPA to propose this rule prematurely. Although the Agency obtained extensions to the original Consent Decree deadlines, the rulemaking is extremely complex, and EPA does not appear to have fully completed its analyses before concluding that it must rush to issue the prop osal. For instance, the Agency has failed to gather comprehensive data to fully characterize current industry wastewater discharges, has failed to adequately understand and distinguish significant differences between fly ash waste streams and bottom ash wa ste streams, and has not properly coordinated this rulemaking with the CCR rulemaking.
Perhaps one result of EPA’s rush to issue the rulemaking was its inability to narrow its proposal to a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. Instead, EPA propose d eight separate possible combinations of regulatory outcomes for various waste streams, not counting an extensive array of other considerations such as Best Management Practices and voluntary measures. This number of alternatives does not give the public adequate notice of EPA’s actual regulatory intentions within a predictable range, and instead forces the public to comment on options that EPA may not seriously consider. The large number of options suggests that EPA’s thinking on the ultimate rule has no t, without considering comments from the public, matured to the point where it is ready to present the public with a set of realistic alternatives. The proper course of action at this point is to treat its proposal as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaki ng, which EPA should have issued in the first place instead of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and repropose the rule, based on comments, with a more limited set of regulatory options, each accompanied by thorough analysis.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 196 EPA strongl y disagrees with the commenter’s “sue and settle” allegation as this rulemaking resulted from the process specified in section 304(m) of the Act requiring EPA to review and revise effluent guidelines, as appropriate. EPA had not revised this effluent guid eline since 1982, thirty

- three years ago, and major changes in the processes at these plants and their wastewaters resulted in discharges that were not being controlled at the appropriate level of control under the Act. For this reason, this point source category emerged from the 304(m) process as a priority for effluent guidelines revision. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that “EPA proposed the rule too prematurely.” EPA evaluated all available data as part of the proposed rulemaking. EPA has supplemented the set of characterization data with information obtained through public comment, as discussed in Section 3 of the TDD and elsewhere in this record.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4495

- A1, Excerpt Number 1 in Comment Code 1.c for further discussion on EPA’s presentation of regulatory options at proposal and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 also in Comment Code 1.c regarding the need for a reproposal.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that it has failed to distinguish significant differences between fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water. As described in Section 10.2.2 of the TDD, EPA used separate data sets to characterize fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water

. EPA also estimated compliance costs separately for each wastestream based on the requirements of each handling system.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 64 in Comment Code 27.e regarding BMPs. See preamble section VIII for EPA’s decisions regarding the voluntary incentives program.

Commenter Name: Kim Mireles Commenter Affiliation: Luminant Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4614

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
When Mistakes and Biases in EPA's Technical Analyses are Corrected, Additional Controls are Unwarranted
In coming up with its preferred options, EPA has made errors in its supporting analyses, used unreasonable assumptions, selected and rejected data without explanation, and used unsound statistical methods. Also, based on analysis conducted by Utility Water Act Group (UWAG), EPA has underestimated the costs of retrofitting technologies like chemical precipitation and biological treatment for FGD, dry handling for bottom ash, and dry handling for fly ash. ForEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 197 example, limited cost inputs were used assuming a green

- field type of installation

- thus these costs were not burdened by the real

- world conditi ons often experienced in retro

- fit situations. These costs include, but are not limited to engineering costs, overhead, and the very real costs of integrating new systems within an existing power plant. Dependent upon site conditions, this last cost catego ry can be significant as physical space for new systems (and infrastructure to support its operation) may simply not exist. These errors, in combination, go toward underestimating the cost and overestimating the benefits of the proposals.
Luminant is great ly concerned by the data used for evaluating wastewater streams and establishing limits. Considering the importance and financial impact of the rule, and the administration's focus on transparency in the rulemaking process, Luminant encourages EPA to

use s ound science and good engineering estimation practices. The proposed regulation does not reflect these principles.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that it has “underestimated the costs of retrofitting technologies like chemical precipitation and biologic al treatment for FGD, dry handling for bottom ash, and dry handling for fly ash” and that it has not used “sound science and good engineering estimation practices.” See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210 for discussion of EPA’s c ost and loads estimates.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that EPA’s cost estimates assume a “green

field type of installation” and do not represent retrofit situations. EPA evaluated the potential costs associated with retrofitting operat ions. Additionally, EPA included indirect costs for each technology option evaluated. As described in Section 9 of the TDD, indirect capital cost accounts for all non

- direct costs incurred as a result of installing the handling system (e.g., engineering

c osts, construction expenses, contractor’s fees, and contingency).
See Sections 6 through 8 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Cate gory (Cost & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)

.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 153 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Costs incurred by UWAG members show that constructing new landfills and expanding existing ones are expensive. Furthermore, the cost is site

- specific and depends on fact ors such as theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 198 capacity of the landfill. For example, Company A’s 74 actual cost for developing a new landfill was $303,987,000 just for the first part. The second and third parts of the project will be constructed later and are estimated to cost $25,242 ,000 and $82,757,000, respectively. The project had to be constructed in three phases because the project’s footprint was large.
Company B’s budgeted costs for developing new landfills range from $25 to $40 million. Company C added additional cells to tw o landfills at a cost of $618,550 (17.8 acres for approximately 8 years’ capacity) and $548,618 (9.4 acres for approximately 4.5 years of capacity), respectively. Another UWAG member, Company D, estimates the cost per acre to expand a landfill at $600,000 to $1 million.
Moreover, the annual operating cost of disposing fly ash in an onsite landfill is $3.50 to $6.00 per ton, compared to wet handling. EPA must consider costs such as these before it can estimate the cost or cost

- effectiveness of its options for disposing of bottom ash, fly ash, FGMC wastewater, and FGD solids.

74 These companies are UWAG members. We refer to them as Company A, B, C, and D to protect possible confidential business information.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the comment er’s assertion that disposal costs should be considered as part of the cost estimate. As discussed in Section 9 of the TDD, EPA’s compliance cost estimates account for costs associated with transporting and disposing of any solids generated as a result of complying with the final rule. In addition, EPA updated populations and plant

- specific cost module input data to account for any plant operation changes based on implementation of the RCRA requirements ( i.e. , the CCR final rule) and the Clean Power Plan.
EPA appreciates the information on landfill construction and expansion costs but without detailed information on landfill size, liner, leachate collection, or other specific cost element information, these estimates cannot be incorporated into EPA’s analysis.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated i nto Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 199 3. Shorter annualization and cost recovery periods need to be considered in the proposed rule.
The time period assumed for cost recovery is a primary consideration when the cost effectiveness of any new technology installation is evaluated. EPA assumes that costs are annualized over a 20

- year period, but has previously used a 15

- year period to develop ELGs for other industry categories. UWAG believes, and AEP agrees, that an annualization period based on a 15

- year service life is a more appropriate assumption and is consistent with past EPA practice.
The application of the proposed wastewater treatment technologies will require the installation of major equipment, such as tanks, clarifiers, etc., which should last 20 years, but not without significant maintenance

. Motors, gear boxes, linings/coatings, biological substrates, etc., will all need to be replaced or rebuilt over the 20

- year time period. Higher energy components, such as pumps and agitators, will also ne ed to be rebuilt or replaced. In other words, the assumption of a 20

- year service life for the proposed treatment technologies is not feasible. A shorter cost recovery period, such as 15 years, is more realistic. Market conditions, technological developme nts, and changing regulations simply do not allow a longer cost recovery period.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that it should use a service life of 15 years. The commenter supports its assertion by stating that such equipment will last twenty years wit h significant maintenance. EPA agrees and its costing methodology reflects this. EPA accounts for these components in the O&M cost estimates associated with maintenance materials (routine replacement of materials and equipment due to consumption or wear and tear). Twenty years is a typical planning period for wastewater treatment operations.

Commenter Name: R. W. Greene Commenter Affiliation: Mercatus Center at George Mason University Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3411

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed regulatory changes generally lower permitted wastewater discharges. For most existing sources of wastewater entering surface water, the same requirements are applied by each of the EPA's four preferred regulatory alternatives, which differ in terms of the requirements applicable to existingdischarges of pollutants found in two waste streams. The EPA estimates different levels of costs for the four alterna tives. One criticism of starting with just four alternatives is that the alternatives being considered are, in fact, quite narrow. The major provisions of the alternatives for both existing sources and new sources of p ollutants are summarized below, along with proposals for the control of new wastewater sources, for whichEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 200 there really are no alternative regulatory proposals. The EPA manages to count a total of eight alternatives for old and new sources by matching the p roposals for new sources to the alternatives for existing sources. This is misleading because the proposals for new sources are just minor tweaks to the four alternatives for existing sources.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertio n that the regulatory options considered are too

narrow. The preferred options ranged from no additional controls for certain wastestreams, such as bottom ash transport water and FGD wastewater at certain sized operations, to establishing zero discharge l imitations. In addition, EPA received comments to the contrary, arguing that too many regulatory options were evaluated; see comment EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 10.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
When calculating “total weighted pounds

- equivalent” (TWPEs) removal s ( i.e. , pollutant reductions) based on dry handling for fly ash and dry handling or closedloop systems for bottom ash, it is entirely inappropriate to include pollutants attributable to source waters as “removals.” Pollutants present in source waters will remain in the source waters if the units convert to dry or closed

- loop handling. Therefore, EPA must adjust its TWPEs for those wastestreams to subtract out the source water contribution before using the estimated TWPE reductions in its cost effectiveness analysis, its environmental assessment, or its benefit/cost analysis.
Comment Response:
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 39 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion of source water data.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Comm enter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 201 Comment Excerpt:
Inaccurate Assumption that No Pollu tants would be Removed and No Technologies would need to be installed for FGD Wastewater under Option 3b at Oak Creek Power Plant.
Proposed Preferred Regulatory Option 3b for FGD Wastewater calls for chemical precipitation plus biological treatment for scr ubbed capacities greater than or equal to 2,000 MW. For all scrubbed capacities less than 2,000 MW, the treatment technology is Best Professional Judgment (“BPJ”). The chemical precipitation WWTS installed and operated at Elm Road Generating Station trea ts combined FGD wastewaters from Oak Creek Units 5

- 8 and Elm Road Units 1 and 2. The combined scrubbed capacity of those units is 2545.6 MW. It appears EPA only considered the combined capacities of the Oak Creek units (1191.6 MW) in making its determina tion that no pollutants would be removed and no technologies would need to be installed under Regulatory Option 3b at Oak Creek Power Plant. If Option 3b is promulgated by EPA, then OCPP

- ERGS would need to comply with the CP+BIO limits.
Comment Response:
As described in Section VIII of the preamble, EPA did not base the final BAT requirements on proposed regulatory option 3b. EPA included costs for all units with greater than 50 MW nameplate capacity to meet the BAT limitations based on chemical precipi tation plus biological treatment for FGD wastewater. See the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) for further discussion on EPA’s cost estimates.

Commenter Name: Becky Hayat Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4490

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In addition to reductions in water use, dry ash handling methods may have additional benefits, such as decreasing O&M costs and bringing in additional revenue.

Besides reductions in water use, there are other benefits associated with the conversion from a wet ash handling system to a dry handling method. With respect to fly ash, dry handling has become the standard for new installations and retrofits over the last few decades. Based on industry responses to the Steam Electric survey, the reasons cited for installing dry handling systems include environmental remediation, economic opportunity, and the need to replace ash impoundments approach ing full storage capacity. 19 Specifically, the economic opportunity refersEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 202 to the potential for dry handling methods to lower O&M costs, as well as to the emergence of local markets, enabling the reuse and sale of fly ash and bottom ash to concrete supplie rs.

19 TDD at 4

- 23.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that plants reported the ability to reuse and market dry fly and dry bottom ash in response to the Steam Electric Survey; however, EPA’s costing account for costs associated with plants transporting and disposing of fly ash and/or bottom ash in a landfill.
EPA did analyze the potential benefits associated with the enhanced marketability of dry ash for the final rule. The analyses are described in Chapter 10 of the BCA document and provide information about the potential magnitude of benefits to steam electric power plants and to society more generally from enhancing beneficial reuse of the CCR. Also see response to related comment DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4490

- A1, Excerpt Number s 29 in comment code 29.a.
EPA agrees with the commenter that there are broad environmental benefits from the final rule including reduction in water use. See preamble section XIII for additional information about the environmental improvements associated with the final rule.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 58 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s industry

- wide cost estimate does not reflect anticipated unit retirements or conversions, id. , that would occur after December 31, 2014, 229 even though many of those retirements would happen before the first year in whic h EPA assumes that the technologies would be implemented

— 2017. 230 This arbitrary cut

- off date excludes the entire class of plants that are likely to shut down or switch to natural gas just before the MATS compliance deadline of April 2015. 231 A number of these plants slated for retirement, but included in EPA’s analysis, have wet FGD systems, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

– Wet

- Scrubbed Units that Have Announced Retirement But Were Included in EPA’s Cost Analysis

State Plant Name and Units Retirement Date KY Big Sandy Unit 2 2015Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 203 State Plant Name and Units Retirement Date AL Colbert Units 1

- 5 2016 for Units 1

- 4, 2018 for Unit 5 NY Danskammer 2012 IN Harding Street Units 5, 6 2016 PA Hatfield’s Ferry Units 1

- 3 2013 OH Muskingum River Unit 5 2015 NV Reid Gardner Units 1

- 4 2014 for Units 1

- 3, 2017 for Unit 4 IN Tanners Creek Unit 4 2015 PA Mitchell Power Station Unit 3 2013 PA Shawville Units 3, 4 2015 GA Yates Units 1, 6, 7 2015

Source:

-- EIA Form 860 (2012) (generating unit size);

-- National Electric Energy Data System Annual Coal Unit Characteristics (2012) (sulfur dioxide control technology installed)

-- List of Announced Retirements Included in EPA’s Cost Calculations (retirement date)
Accounting for these additional retirements and conversions would lower the industry

- wide cost of al l options. 232

229 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2149, at 2.

230 RIA at Table 3

- 1.

231 List of Announced Retirements Included in EPA’s Cost Calculations, submitted by Commenters as an exhibit to this letter.

232 A plant that converts to run on natural gas would no longer need to operate its wet FGD system.
Comment Response:
As discussed in Section 4.2.5 of the TDD and DCN SE05069, EPA’s analysis of regulatory options considered for the final rule appropriately accounts for announced plant retirements and fuel conversions prior to the date by which plants must achieve BAT limitations (approximately 8 years from promulgation of the final rule). As described in the Memorandum to the Steam Electric Rulemaking Recor d: Changes to Industry Profile for Steam Electric Generating Units forEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 204 the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Final Rule (DCN SE050 6 9), EPA has updated the list of plants and generating units identified as retiring or converting fuels prior to this date. See also preamble Section V.A.

Commenter Name: Paul Chu Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 130 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
b) On page 10

- 5 and elsewhere the TDD states “EPA treated all results that were less than the quantitation limit (i.e., J

- values and nondetects below the method detection limit) as half the sample

- specific quantitation limit for all analytes.” This method decreases the variability of the resulting estimates, leading to a standard deviation of the fitted distribution that is too small. It is unclear why this substitution was done here, and elsewhere the quant itation limit itself was substituted. The inconsistency is unnecessary

– there are good published methods for censored data. See Helsel (2012) for a description of them.

Alternative Recommendation : instead use censored

- data methods such as the Kaplan

- Meier estimator to estimate statistics for data with nondetects and J values. Kaplan

- Meier is the standard method in drug trials and medical statistics for estimates from censored data, as so has precedent in other regulatory contexts.
Comment Response:

EPA did not use J values in its final loadings estimates. See response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 42.
With respect to how EPA used no

- detect values in developing the effluent limitations, see Appendix A, Essay Section 3.5 and the Statistic al Support Document for Effluent Limitations (DCN SE05733). EPA does not agree that it should use the Kaplan

- Meier approach suggested by the commenter. See the response to Appendix A, Essay Section 4.2.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affi liation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 79 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 205 Comment Excerpt:
Constructing New Landfill s Would Be Costly and Time

- Consuming.
Before moving past EPA’s proposed BAT options for each of the seven key wastestreams, it is necessary to address landfill creation, which is associated with many of the proposed options. Several of EPA’s eight options for fly ash, bottom ash, and FGMC disposal require ash (or the solids from evaporation for FGD wastewater in option 5) to be disposed ofin landfills. Constructing a landfill can take 8 years or more, and even expanding an existing landfill can take 14 to 30 months. Also, a power plant owner may go through the entire permitting process only to have the landfill permit application turned down. See Power Engineering, Kentucky agency denies permit for coal ash landfill at Trimble County Power Plant (Mar. 21 , 2013), at http://www.power

- eng.com/articles/2013/03/kentucky

- agency

- denies

- permit

for

- coal

- ash

- landfill

- at

- trimble

- c.html . EPA must consider costs such as these before it can estimate the cost or cost

- effectiveness of its options for disposing of bottom ash, fly ash, and FGMC.
Comment Response:
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 11 in Comment Co de 27.e regarding landfill capacity and timing for new landfills.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

In benefit

‐ cost analyses, regulatory costs often involve well

‐ defined, monetized categories, as is the case with engineering cost estimates. Nonetheless, these costs are not free of errors, imprecision, or uncertainty. There is a research literature documenting the tendency for ex ante estimates of regulatory costs to overstate the true, ex post costs.
One widely cited study, by Winston Harrington and colleagues at Resour ces for the Future, identified 25 major rules for which they could find both ex ante agency cost estimates and ex post cost calculations, the latter usually provided by independent researchers. In twelve of the 25 cases, the ex ante estimates were more tha n 25 percent higher than the actual costs, compared to only six cases in which the estimates were more than 25 percent lower. 44 The study discusses a number of reasons for overestimates, including:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 206  Technological innovation, spurred in part by regulation, m ay lead to reduced costs and/or improved efficiency in compliance technologies, as apparently happened with scrubbers for coal plants. In other words, once industry begins investing in compliance with a rule, a market develops in compliance technologies, a nd compliance costs often go down in ways that ex ante cost estimates do not project.

 Advance analyses also tend to estimate maximum rather than most likely compliance costs. This may occur inadvertently, if expensive technologies are available off the sh elf and are better known; it may result from strategic considerations by affected industries, seeking to inflate cost estimates as an argument against regulation; or it may result from deliberate choices by agencies, seeking to minimize grounds for court c hallenges from industry.

 Error correction may be asymmetric

— the affected industries will reliably call attention to gross underestimates of compliance costs, while there may be no corresponding pressure to reduce gross overestimates. The affected industry tends to have better access to information about compliance costs than the agency or members of the public, making the rulemaking record subject to this inherent bias.
In another study comparing prospective and actual costs of major regulations, legal sch olar Thomas McGarity and economist Ruth Ruttenberg also find a preponderance of overestimates. 45 Their description of potential grounds for upward bias in ex ante costs includes the points identified by Harrington et al., plus some additional possibilities :

 For lack of information, agencies may compare the costs of a proposed regulation to a zero regulation, zero compliance baseline, rather than appropriately measuring the incremental costs relative to prior regulations and the actual level of voluntary

com pliance.

 Companies may include the costs of upgrading other equipment in their reported costs of regulatory compliance.

44 Harrington, W., R.D. Morgentstern, and P. Nelson. "On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates." Journal of Policy Analysis and Mana gement 19, no. 2 (2000): 297

‐ 322.

45 McGarity, T.O., and R. Ruttenberg. "Counting the cost of health, safety, and environmental regulation." Texas Law Review , 2001: 1997

‐ 2058.
Comment Response:
EPA acknowledges the commenter’s points that compliance cost s may often be overestimated based on various assumptions that tend to be conservative. However, because it is not possible to predict future costs of technology implementation, EPA appropriately based its estimates of the best available data at the time t he rule is promulgated. In addition, EPA received and evaluated public comments contrary to this argument identifying specific areas where costs were underestimated. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210. EPA conducted a thoroug h evaluation of public comments and adjusted its cost estimates, to increase or decrease costs, where appropriate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 207 Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 42 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:



### 8. EPA’s Sensitivity Analyses on its Use of Nondetect Data Demonstrated Extremely High

- Biased Distortions in TWPEs when using Full Value for Non

detect Results for Many Pollutants with High Toxic Weighting Factors
EPA, to its credit, did perform a sensitivity analysis on its use of the full value of each fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water non

- detect resu lt when calculating TWPEs. EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2241. These checks demonstrated that many of the loadings from the most toxic pollutants with the highest EPA

- calculated TWPEs are based almost entirely on non

- detect values. Parameters such as thallium, ti n, sulfide, and beryllium are almost entirely based on non

detect data according to the EPA sensitivity analysis. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2241.1.
However, the EPA analysis was flawed because it did not properly perform the same sensitivity analysis on the 198 2 Development Document data. 12 EPA did not have or did not use individual analyses for the average plant data taken from Tables V

- 32 and V

- 33 in the 1982 Development Document and therefore did not have information as to what portion of the average values w ere detected or not. For the TVA data summarized in Table V

- 34, the 1982 Development Document states that the values were likely overestimated because non

- detects were counted at face value. 1982 Development Document at 154. But EPA did have individual data points for the TVA average data from Table V

- 34 (see Tables A

- 1 to A

- 17), and these data showed that for many key high TWPE parameters, the TVA results, like the Form 2C results, were dominated by

non

- detected results, and at values that exceeded any detections in modern lab data by factors as high as 10,000.
The following table lists parameters that were greatly affected by non

- detect results. In addition, the non

- detect component of the 1982 Development Document data is mostly unknown. What is clea r is that the average data reported from the 1982 Development Document, except for arsenic, are anywhere from eight to 200 times higher in concentration than the modern data, once corrected for high non

- detect values from the Form 2Cs.

Pollutant EPA Calcul ated

BA TWPE Approximate Percentage

of EPA TWPE Based on Non

- Detect (ND) Data Comments

Sulfide Essentially 100% Although there were three ostensibly “detected” results (out of 22 samples), basic chemistryEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 208 Pollutant EPA Calcul ated

BA TWPE Approximate Percentage

of EPA TWPE Based on Non

- Detect (ND) Data Comments

1,587,993 tells us that sulfides are not present in oxygenated water.

Tin 107,375 100% All data points in the EPA database were ND. EPA used one

half the value for the ND data and in its SER erroneously labeled the result as detected.

Thallium 125,945 Nearly 100% One detec ted value; all ND values were higher than the detected results, some by 400 times.

Silver 84,839 Nearly 100% Only 2 detections for BA ponds, ND values up to 100 times higher. TVA silver data (Table V

34) used for combined ash had approximately 120 results, with only two detections right at the detection level (DL). That DL was 0.01 mg/L, 100 times higher than modern detection limits.

Beryllium 4,254 98% ND values in TVA data TVA beryllium data (Table V

- 34) used for combined ash had approximately 120 results, with only three detections right at the DL. The DL was 0.01, 10 times higher than modern detection results.

Nickel 14,500 Unknown, but up to 95% TVA nickel data (Table V

- 34) used for combined ash had approximately 1 20 results. There were no detections, and the DL was 0.050 mg/L, 50 times higher than modern detection results. Most of the Ni TWPE decrease was due to dropping the Table V

- 33 nickel data, where the percentage of non

- detect values and DL limits are unkno wn.

Antimony 1,154 97% Only one detected result. Non

detect values up to 200 times higher than modern detection values.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 209 The 1982 data dominate all the data, not only by sheer number of analyses but also in concentration values. For all of the 1982 data except arsenic, the concentrations and resultant TWPE from the 1982 data alone are eight to 200 times higher than the resultant TWPE using the modern analyses, once these values have been adjusted for a few high non

- detect values reported in For m 2C.

12 While EPA did not have quantitation or detection limits for the 1982 Development Document data, it included the “nondetected values equal to the value provided in the data source (e.g., <2 ug/L became 2 ug/L).” EPA

- HQ

- 2009

- 0819

- 2241, p. 2. EP A used these values in the sensitivity analysis.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d regarding the 1982 TDD regarding bottom ash transport water loadings and TWPE for the final rule.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 33 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion of the specific data used from the 1982 TDD, including Tables V

- 32, V

- 33, and Appendix A, and its use in the rulemaking.

For the reasons explained in the response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Excerpt Number 14 in Comment Code 6.a, EPA did not include loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affi liation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
B. EPA’s Statistical Method for Estimating Pollutant Lo adings from Ash Impoundments Is Biased High
First, EPA has erred in calculating the number of TWPEs in effluents from ash ponds, including fly ash ponds, bottom ash ponds, and “combined” ponds that hold both fly ash and bottom ash. EPA’s statistical error s are documented in the report by AKRF, Inc., Technical Review of Statistical Methods and Data Baseline Ash Impoundment Pollutant Loadings and TWPEs, whichEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 210 is Attachment 1 to these comments. Also, EPA has not adequately explained how it estimated pollutan t loadings, as explained in the Gradient Report (Attachment 2).
1. Using Undetectable Results for Sulfides for Form 2C and Other Pollutants from Various Sources as if They Were MeasuredEffectiveness
As the AKRF report explains, over half EPA’s estimated baseline TWPE for ash impoundment effluent consists of sulfides. But almost all EPA’s measurements of sulfides were below the detection limit. EPA raised these “nondetect” results to the detection limit, which is the highest concentration possible given the inability to detect sulfides at all.
EPA’s estimates of sulfides for bottom ash and fly ash ponds were based on only five sample results from Form 2Cs, and all of them found no detectable sulfides. For combined ash ponds, EPA’s estimate of sulfides w as based on 17 sample results from Form 2Cs, only three of which were above the detection limit. Over half EPA’s estimate of TWPE for ash impoundment effluent, then, has no basis in fact.

2. Multiplying Average Flow by Average Concentration Biased the Cal culation of Average Loading
In addition to the inappropriate use of undetectable sulfides, EPA’s statistical method was biased in a way that overestimated the loading of pollutants from ash ponds.
EPA’s method for estimating the average loading in pounds per year per impoundment was to multiply the average concentration (the average over all impoundments) times the average transport water flow rate (the average over all impoundments). EPA then multiplied its estimate of the average loading per impoundment times the number of impoundments to estimate industry

- level loadings.
To do the calculation correctly, EPA should have calculated the product of the concentration times the transport water flow rate for each impoundment and then averaged the results over all impoundments. The average of products (the right way to calculate average loadings) is not equal to the product of averages (EPA’s method). When pollutant concentrations are negatively correlated with transport wat er flow rates (that is, concentrations are lower when flows are higher), as they are here, EPA’s method produces estimates that are biased high.
Adjusting EPA’s estimates to account for this bias reduces the estimated total loadings (summed over the three impoundment types) by 63%, from 2,182,900,000 to 801,786,870. Adjusting each estimate of TWPE to account for the bias reduces the total TWPE by 59%, from 5,233,000 to 2,169,828.
Combined, the two errors (assuming numbers for undetectable sulfides and calc ulating pollutant loadings as the product of averages) probably caused EPA’s baseline TWPE estimates to be too high by a factor of six. Computing the total TWPE without the invalid sulfide data reduces the baseline TWPE from 5,240,000 to 2,121,609. Adjus ting the estimate to account for the likely bias in loading estimates further reduces the baseline TWPE to 859,686.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 211 Thus, the combined effect of EPA’s calculation errors was to produce an estimate of total TWPE that is six times too high. This overestima te of pollutant loadings in turn made EPA’s calculations of dollars per TWPE too low.

C. The TWPE Analysis Should Not Use “J” and “U” Values
In ELG rulemakings for other industries EPA has been cautious about relying on data that are undetectable or questi onable. This type of data is represented by U (non

- detected) and J (questionable detections for metals, inorganics, and GC analyses) qualifiers. Generally “U” or “J” data in the effluent do not much affect TWPE, since they are all low numbers. However, using “J” and “U” values is a matter of concern if TWPE calculations are based on pollutants with high TWFs that are nearly all “J” or “U.”
For example, for the proposed Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Industry rule, EPA took a few “J” qualified p esticide detections in the influent as sufficient to calculate TWPE. Because of the large TWF of these pesticides, they were over 95% of the TWPE for the rule. In the final TEC rule, this was corrected, and EPA did not calculate TWPE for a compound unles s the concentration averaged at least five times the reporting limit for the compound and was detected in at least two influent samples in each subcategory. EPA also eliminated all J

qualified detections of pesticides that had been banned in the U.S.

More information about how to select pollutants to calculate TWPE is found in EPA’s “Cost

Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry,” EPA 821

- R

- 98

- 018 (Dec. 1998), Docket No. W

- 98

- 21 (he reinafter CWT Cost

- Effective Analysis). These methods place many practical restrictions on detected pollutants in the influent, some of which could be applied to screen out “J” or “U” qualified or other questionable data. Also, if virtually all the resul ts for a pollutant are undetected in the influent (possibly at an elevated reporting limit due to analytical interference), then no removal can be credited simply because the effluent has a lower reporting limit.
For the proposed steam electric guidelines, EPA did not use J or U data for wastewater. Instead EPA used one

- half the Reporting Limit (RL) for data reported as

The CWT Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis does not discuss how to handle qualified results. It does, however, contain statements indicating tha t a pollutant needs to be present in significant amounts in the baseline (influent) wastewater, that it must be capable of being treated to some degree of effectiveness, and that it should be relatively toxic and not ubiquitous in the environment.
The qual ifications for pollutants of concern for TWPE calculations are given on pages 2

- 2 to 2

- 3 of the CWT Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis:
Generally, pollutants of concern were not included for the following reasons:

 the pollutant was not effectively treated by the option technology (the pollutant level increased across the technology)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 212  the pollutant was not detected at treatable levels in the influent streams at the facilities forming the basis for the options limitations and standards

 the pollutant is pervasive in t he environment as a mineral and is relatively nontoxic (for example, calcium)

 the pollutant is often used as a treatment chemical, and

 the pollutant’s TWF is zero.
These conditions suggest how “U” and “J” qualified data should be handled. In particular, t he second condition (that is, the pollutant should be initially present at treatable levels) should rule out pollutants with only “U” and “J” measurements. “U” and “J” qualified results clearly do not indicate “treatable levels.”
On page 7

- 27 of EPA’s “De velopment Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry, Volume 1,” EPA 821

- R

- 98

- 020, Docket No. W

- 98

- 21 (CWT 1998 Development Document) for the proposed CWT rule, EPA did widen the definit ion of “effective treatment” to include pollutants for which some marginal apparent removal was observed. EPA stated on page 7

- 27, “[f]inally, EPA eliminated those pollutants for which the treatment technology forming the basis of the option is not a stan dard method of treatment. For example, chemical precipitation systems are not designed to remove BOD5. Table 7

- 11 lists these pollutants for each subcategory and option.” Table 7

- 11 included boron as a parameter that was not treated effectively by chemic al precipitation, and EPA concluded that any apparent boron removal across this technology was “incidental.” CWT 1998 Development Document.
Moreover, EPA eliminated boron from TWPE consideration in the CWT rulemaking because chemical precipitation technol ogy is not the standard method of treatment. CWT 1998 Development Document at 7

- 27 to 7

- 28.
In addition, the third and fourth conditions (contaminants that are pervasive as a mineral in the environment and pollutants that are often used as a treatment che mical) should apply to both magnesium and manganese. Crushed limestone used in scrubbers contains magnesium. While this is not used to treat wastewater directly, it is essential to removing SO2 from the gas stream.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 for more information on methodology for multiplying plant

- specific ash transport discharge flows by average pollutant concentrations and information on sulfide.

For the reasons explained in the response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Excerpt Number 14 in Comment Code 6.a, EPA did not include loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water.
EPA describes in Section 10 of the TDD the methodology for handling results below the quan titation limit. For all wastestreams, EPA’s estimates of baseline pollutant loadings and pollutant removals for the final rule use “1⁄2 the sample

- specific reporting/quantitation limit” (“1⁄2Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 213 QL) for all U

- and J

- flagged observations. In other words, EPA did not use U or J values as reported for the final rule in its loadings estimates. However, contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, EPA did not eliminate the data, rather it appropriately included the data as non

- detect and assigned a value equal to 1⁄2 the QL. This approach recognizes that EPA does not have J

value and MDL information for much of the data and allows EPA to use a consistent methodology for all sources of data (e.g., EPA

- sampled vs self

- monitoring) and all wastestreams. EPA also considered sever al alternative approaches for estimating baseline loadings and pollutant removals, as described in the TDD. Also see the memorandum entitled Evaluation of Alternatives for Handling Qualified Analytical Data in the Steam Electric Pollutant Loadings (SE05879 ) for further discussion on how EPA handled data where the analyte concentration measured below the method detection limit (MDL) or the quantitation limit (QL) including a sensitivity analysis of three alternate methodologies and their effect on the pollut ant loadings calculations.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that the TWPE analysis should handle non

- detects in the data set by excluding results qualified as “U” and “J” values. For discussion on how EPA handled non

- detects in the data set se e response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
The commenter cites examples of how EPA has handled data for past ELGs. Many if not all of the examples are provided to address their concern about J values but the cit ed examples are specific to other applications. EPA notes that the examples provided by the commenter are specific to the individual industry examined and the data for that industry and that EPA’s approach may vary from one industry to the next. The examp les provided by the commenter demonstrate this. Generally, for all industries, EPA reviews criteria related to the frequency of detection and/or the level that is considered treatable for that type of wastewater. EPA did so in this rulemaking. However, as it did in the examples cited by the commenter, EPA used an approach appropriate for the steam electric industry. Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter A ffiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A. E PA Overstates the Likelihood that Impoundments Will Close
We address below EPA’s methodology for determining the avoided costs (benefits) associated with utilities’ compliance with the ELGs. We have an initial concern, however, with the preliminary assumption of this portion of the BCA, namely the supposition that surfaceEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 214 impoundments will close if they are no longer able to accept the combustion residual wastestreams that they currently receive. This assumption underlies much of EPA’s analysis but as we address in Section II above, many impoundments will continue to operate even if they are prohibited from accepting one or more CCR wastewater streams. Nothing in the ELG proposal would require any existing impoundment to close and it is likely that many companies will continue to use impoundments to manage other permissible wastewater streams (assuming EPA selects the Subtitle D Prime option under the CCR rule, as recommended above), even if only for ancillary wastewater treatment or the management o f low volume wastestreams.
Indeed, as discussed above, the ELG Proposal expressly contemplates impoundments remaining open to manage certain legacy CCR transport wasters and to serve as part of the ELG treatment option for other regulated wastewaters. The Agency’s analysis of this issue appears to be based on three reports issued by ERG, EPA’s consultants on this issue, namely: (i) “Methodology for Estimating Impoundment Age, Capacity, and Reductions in Capacity Used to Estimate Benefits Associated with Av oided Impoundment Failures,” (ii) “Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines

— Methodology for Identifying Surface Impoundment Closures Based on Regulatory Options,” and (iii) “Revised Pond Closure Analysis Including Partial Benefits.” While the first two reports p rovide a methodological framework for calculating likely pond closures, the third report provides details on the pond closures that ERG determined will occur. Unfortunately, this third document has been withdrawn from the rulemaking docket because it has b een determined to contain confidential business information. Accordingly, USWAG’s comments will necessarily be limited to an analysis of ERG’s description of its methods as described in the first two reports.
According to the second report identified abov e which assessed full impoundment closures, it appears that ERG examined only the current and future management of three CCR wastewater streams for each of the reviewed impoundments. It then determined the impact of each of the proposed regulatory options on the continuing management of each of the three wastestreams

— e.g. , option three would eliminate the management of FGD and fly ash transport waters in impoundments but would not affect bottom ash management. It determined how each regulatory option woul d impact existing impoundments based on the wastestreams currently managed in the impoundments. Based on the regulatory options, it assumed that these impoundments would either (i) not be affected by a particular regulatory option because the wastestreams managed in the impoundment were not affected by the particular regulatory option, (ii) be partially closed because at least one wastestream could no longer be managed in the impoundment under the regulatory option, or (iii) closed because all currently ma naged wastestreams could no longer be managed in the impoundment under the regulatory option.
What is notable about this analysis is that ERG only assesses three wastestreams and concludes that an impoundment will close based on the following rationale: “[ t]he implementation of the regulatory option being evaluated will eliminate all the combustion residual wastes (e.g., FGD wastewater, fly ash, and/or bottom ash) currently stored in the surface impoundment; therefore, ERG assumes the plant will close the s urface impoundment.” Id. at 3. This methodology makes a number of significant assumptions about current and expected future utility management practices and totally ignores the myriad other wastestreams evaluated as part of EPA’s proposal and included in the ELGs for this industry. As explained above, many utilities are likely to elect to keep impoundments open to manage these other wastestreams, as well as other legacyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 215 transport waters already placed in the impoundment. However, ERG assumes these impoun dments will close based solely on the future management possibilities of only three wastestreams and excludes the capacity of all these “closed” units from potentially having releases and structural failures. This assumption is at odds with the structure of the ELG proposal which in fact contemplates the continued operation of these impoundments for the above wastewaters and therefore necessarily vastly overstates the avoided costs (benefits) associated with this proposal.
In the first ERG report listed ab ove, there are also some key assumptions provided in a very brief summary of its section on the reductions in impoundment capacity. For impoundments slated to be “partially closed,” ERG identifies a key supposition that “[w]hile the reduction in flow ent ering the pond will not necessarily decrease the size of the impoundment unless the plant closes portions of the impoundment after implementation of the ELGs, the impoundment will receive less combustion residual solid waste and therefore, will be less lik ely to have a breach of the impoundment.” Id. at 3. ERG, however, provides absolutely no analysis or background why this sweeping assumption might be accurate. It would seem just as likely that flow not containing CCRs could also lead to a breach. Thi s rationale is, at least, a poor basis for assuming a reduction in the rate of future structural failures of impoundments.
While each of these assumptions overstates the avoided costs of the proposal, we cannot provide analysis of the actual methodologies used or the impact of these assumptions on the projected closures of impoundments because the report laying out these details has not been included in the docket. EPA should provide this critical report to the public (even in a redacted form) so that the impact of this assumption can be addressed as part of this rulemaking process. Failure to provide this critical information for review and comment deprives the public of evaluating a critical component of the rulemaking record and raises serious concerns r egarding whether EPA has met its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act to provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on this rulemaking.
Comment Response:
The commenter raises several issues regarding the analysis of avoided impoun dment failure benefits. Regarding assumptions on impoundment closure and failure rates, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 129 in comment code 29.g. For convenience, EPA repeats some of the relevant points from that response be low:

 First, the commenter expresses concerns “with the preliminary assumption of this portion of the BCA, namely the supposition that surface impoundments will close if they are no longer able to accept the combustion residual wastestreams that they curren tly receive.” EPA notes that this statement misstates EPA’s assumptions and analysis. In the impoundment analysis, EPA does not assume that all impoundments would close as a result of the ELGs, but instead assumes that plants would reduce the amount of co al combustion residues handled wet and therefore stored in impoundments. This will in turn reduce the amount of CCR that may be involved in the event of an impoundment release.

 Second regarding the statement that “the impoundment will receive less combusti on residual solid waste and therefore, will be less likely to have a breach of theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 216 impoundment,” EPA notes that this is not an accurate depiction of EPA’s benefit analysis; EPA does not assume that decreasing the size of impoundments will reduce the probab ility of an impoundment breach. Instead, as described in Chapter 6 of the BCA, EPA assumed a constant rate of failure across impoundments under the baseline and post

compliance scenarios. However, EPA did assume that reducing the amount of ash stored in a given impoundment will reduce the volume that accumulates in the impoundment over time, and that may be released in the event of a release. EPA accordingly estimated lower expected costs for the same number of future releases due to reduced CCR volumes inv olved. Additionally, for the final rule analysis, EPA further improved this estimate by calculating release rates separately for large impoundments and small impoundments for two types of failures, and calculating probabilities and capacity factors within those groups.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 48 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated into Respons e: No
Comment Excerpt:


### 5. EPA’s Method of Calculating Bottom Ash Pollutant Loading Is Further Biased High by the Statistical Procedures Used
In Section 10 of the 2013 TDD EPA describes its method for calculating baseline ash impoundment pollutant loading s ( see 2013 TDD at 10

- 22,

- 26 to

- 27).
As explained above and in the attached report by AKRF, Inc., EPA calculated baseline ash impoundment loadings in four steps:

1. estimate industry

- level average pollutant concentration (pounds per million gallons); 2. estimate impoundment

- specific ash transport water flow rates (million gallons per day) 3. estimate impoundment specific loadings based on the industry average pollutant concentr ation and impoundmentspecifictransport water flow rates; and 4. estimate the industry

- level loadings as the sum of impoundment

- specific loading estimates.
AKRF’s Report, Attachment 1 at 4.
Thus, EPA calculated average loading per impoundment by multiplying the average pollutant concentration times the average transport water flow rate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 217 For each impoundment, the loading is the product of the concentration times the transport water flow rate at that impoundment

. The average of products (the proper way to calculate average loadings) is not equal to the product of averages (EPA’s incorrect met hodology). This fact is at the heart of the statistical theory of correlations. 14

If pollutant concentrations are negatively correlated with transport water flow rates (as UWAG believes they are, based on the analysis below), then EPA’s methodology will p roduce estimates that are biased high.
To determine how much bias, AKRF analyzed the data in EPA’s ICR database. The data files were merged by plant, steam electric unit, and impoundment. Data on plants and steam electric units that reported bottom ash p roduction, sluicing flows, nameplate generation capacity, and 50% or more of BTUs produced by coal were included in the assessment. Plants and steam electric units that had relevant data redacted as confidential business information were excluded from the assessment. In addition, impoundments that received both fly ash and bottom ash were excluded. A total of 104 impoundments in the data files satisfied these criteria.

The ICR database also contained data on bottom ash sluice flow rates. Accordingly, an estimate of the coefficient of variation for bottom ash transport water flow rates could be calculated directly from the ICR database. A systematic list of pollutant concentrations associated with bottom ash transport water, or impoundment discharges, wa s not included in the ICR responses. However, data on bottom ash transport water concentrations can be used as a surrogate under the assumption that the mass of pollutants produced in the bottom ash transport water is proportionate to the mass of bottom a sh produced. In that case, the concentration of bottom ash in the sluice flow is proportionate to the concentration of pollutants.
For each plant and impoundment, AKRF calculated two variables: (1) tons of bottom ash sluiced to the impoundment per year, and (2) gallons of sluicing flow to the impoundment per year. The associated bottom ash concentration (in lbs/gal) then was calculated as the ratio of the annual pounds of bottom ash produced (and sluiced to the impoundment) to the annual gallons of sluic ing flow. Those data are listed in Appendix 1 of the AKRF report.
The concentration of bottom ash in transport water was negatively correlated with transport water flow. The correlation coefficient is p = - 0.128. The coefficients of variation for concentration and flow are fairly large. The coefficient of variation for concentration is 2.67, and the coefficient of variation for flow is 1.98. Inserting these estimates into equation (1) gives the following:

This result indicates that EPA’s estima tes of bottom ash impoundment pollutant loadings are likely to be 3.16 times too high.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 218 In short, EPA’s estimates of industry

- level ash impoundment pollutant loadings are likely to be severely biased high due to the methodology EPA chose for calculating loa dings. As described above, EPA’s approach will generate estimates that are biased high if pollutant concentrations are negatively correlated with ash transport flow rates. The bias will be severe if the coefficient of variation for pollutant concentratio ns and the coefficient of variation for transport flow rates are high among impoundments. All of these conditions appear to be present in the bottom ash impoundment loadings data.
The ICR data clearly show that the variance of bottom ash transport water f lows is large. Under the assumption that the weight of pollutants produced is proportionate to the weight of bottom ash produced, the data also show a negative correlation between pollutant concentrations and transport flows and a very large coefficient o f variation for pollutant concentrations. These conditions combine to make EPA’s estimates of bottom ash impoundment pollutant loadings likely 3.16 times too high.
This assessment of bias assumes that EPA’s estimates of average pollutant concentrations ar e themselves unbiased. The AKRF report addresses only the biases due to the statistical method EPA used to estimate bottom ash impoundment pollutant loadings. Errors in EPA’s estimates of average pollutant concentrations compound the biases discussed her e. Such flaws in EPA’s pollutant loading estimates are explored below and in the referenced Gradient Report.
This issue of bias, due to EPA’s method for estimating loadings, may extend beyond bottom ash impoundment pollutant loadings to any of EPA’s estim ates of pollutant loadings that were calculated as the product of averages.

14 Lindgren, B. W. 1976. Statistical Theory

. MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. NY. 614 pp.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 for more information on methodology for multiplying plant

- specific ash transport discharge flows by average pollutant concentrations.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 195 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 219 UWAG also calculated baseline loadings and TWPEs for the four wastestreams, and its numbers are quite different from EPA’s. The following table compares UWAG and EPA baseline pounds and TWPEs by wastewater type:

Wastewater Type UWAG

Baseline pounds (lbs) EPA Baseline

pounds (lbs) UWAG

Baseline TWPEs EPA Baseline

TWPEs
FGD wastewater 2,020,656,667 3,235,266,375 1,187,396 3,026,294 Fly ash sluice 539,073,287 477,606,921 379,776 2,521,988 Bottom ash sluice 223,943,290 1,701,527,532 342,523 2,716,057 Leachate 120,199,859 89,806,446 60,922 56,506 Industry Total 2,903,873,103 5,504,207,274 1,970,617 8,320,845

As shown in the table, UWAG estimates a total of 1.97 million TWPEs, while EPA estimates 8.32 million TWPEs. 83 EPA’s estimate of TWPEs is four times higher than UWAG’s. EPA’s estimate of loadings is about 2.6 billion pounds higher th an UWAG’s.
EPA’s plant

- specific loadings are not available in the record for the rulemaking as EPA claims the information must be shielded to protect confidential business information. However, based on UWAG’s critique of EPA’s characterization data for b ottom ash, fly ash, and FGD wastewater, EPA has grossly overstated the plant

- specific loadings and TWPEs and the industrywide loadings and TWPEs. Since EPA’s loadings and TWPE calculations are a major source of underlying data for much of its analysis in the Environmental Assessment, it is critical that they be accurate. The loadings would affect major portions of EPA’s analysis, including:

 EPA’s comparison of steam electric TWPEs to those of other industries (Environmental Assessment at 3

- 14);

 EPA’s comp arison of steam electric loadings to those of publicly

- owned treatment works (Environmental Assessment at 3

- 15 to 3

- 19);

 EPA’s assessment of steam electric loadings to the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Environmental Assessment at 3

- 19 to 3

- 21); and

 EPA’s asses sment of steam electric loadings to the Great Lakes watershed (Environmental Assessment at 3

- 22 to 3

- 24).
Because of EPA’s multiple errors in characterizing the wastestreams, EPA’s comparisons and assessments are not valid.
But of even more importance is t he effect of the loadings on EPA’s water quality modeling and the related wildlife and human health modeling. As EPA notes:
The water quality model uses plant

- specific input data (i.e., plant

- specific pollutant loadings and cooling water flow r ate), surface

- water

- specific characteristic data (e.g., receiving water flow rate, lake volume), and default assumption values to quantify the environmental impacts of the evaluated waste streams to surface waters. It calculates pollutant concentrations in the surface water and sediment. These concentrations are inputs for the wildlife model, which calculates the bioaccumulation of pollutants in fish tissue and determines impacts toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 220 wildlife. The fish tissue concentration calculated in the wildlife model is an input to the human health model.

Environmental Assessment at 4

- 5 to 4

- 6 (footnotes omitted). Since EPA used plant

- specific pollutant loadings, and since EPA’s loadings and TWPEs are gross overestimates, then all portions of the Environmental Assessm ent that depend on the water quality model, the wildlife model, or the human health model are inaccurate and likely grossly overstate both the baseline impacts of the industry as a whole and the individual modeled plants, and also the likely environmental and human health benefits stemming from the modeled regulatory options that EPA used as a basis for its evaluations.
The inaccurate loadings information would also impact EPA’s assessment of current surface water quality issues. For example, EPA claims 4 9% of the immediate receiving waters exceeded a water quality standard under baseline loadings. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,506 col. 3. But EPA’s loadings are almost four times the industry estimated loadings, which suggests that EPA’s assessment of water quality exceedances is also overstated. The same would be true for all EPA assessments based on the models, including all predicted wildlife impacts and potential benefits, and all human health predicted impacts and benefits. EPA’s fundamentally flawed pollutan t loading and TWPE estimates are further explored in detail in the following section and the referenced Gradient Report.
Until such time as EPA corrects its loadings and TWPEs through use of proper characterization data for each of the four wastestreams and through use of appropriate flow rates for all plants, none of EPA’s water quality modeling and resulting human health and wildlife modeling should be relied upon.

83 UWAG’s calculations, for comparison purposes, use the same pollutants that EPA used in Table 1 of the ERG memorandum “Steam Electric Pollutant

- Level Loadings and Removals for Each Wastestream and Regulatory Option,” EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2250, except for ch romium (VI) in FGD wastewater, and cyanide, fluoride, and sulfide for ash transport waters.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that baseline pollutant loadings are overestimated by 2.6 billion pounds. See Section 10 of the TDD for detail s on EPA’s estimate of baseline and post

compliance pollutant loadings by wastestream for the final rule. EPA made revisions to the costs and loads calculations in response to comments for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGD wastew ater. Sections 11 and 12 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)
, the TDD, and re sponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d. The report also includes plant

- specific pollutant loadings for baseline and each technology option, although EPA acknowledges that some of these data are redacted from the n on

- CBI version of this report.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 221 EPA also disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it “grossly overstated the plant

- specific loadings" and that therefore the EA results "are inaccurate and likely grossly overstate both the baseline impacts of the indust ry as a whole and the individual modeled plants.” EPA disagrees that this then led to grossly overestimating environmental and human health benefits stemming from the modeled regulatory options that EPA used as a basis for its evaluations. Given the revisi ons EPA made in response to comments to the costs and loads calculations for the final rule, as described above, revisions were also made to the loads used in the EA analyses, which resulted in revisions to the EA outputs that were used in the benefits ana lyses.
EPA notes that is updated its estimates of cost

- effectiveness for the regulatory options for the final rule. See the RIA. Also see responses to comment code 6.h.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 127 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Options
Southern decided to estimate its likely compliance costs for the rule and compare those costs to EPA’s. EPA outlined eight options in the Proposed Rule, and each option would have different operational and monetary consequences for Southern Company. Table 20 summarizes each of the eight regulatory options.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 222 For pur poses of examining the compliance costs of the rule for its facilities, Southern focused on EPA’s four preferred options, 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a. EPA describes its methodology and assumptions for estimating compliance costs in the 2013 TDD and the IC&PR.

In the 2013 TDD, EPA presents the following estimates of the numbers of plants expected to incur compliance costs by wastestream and preferred regulatory option:

Regulatory Option 57 FGD

Wastewater Fly Ash

Transport Water Bottom Ash

Transport Water Combustion

Residual Leachate Nonchemical

Metal Cleaning Wastes 3a 0 66 0 0 0 3b 17 66 0 0 0 3 116 66 0 0 0 4a 116 66 115 0 0

2013 TDD, p. 9

- 10, Table 9

- 2.
EPA did not provide plant

- specific cost estimates for the technologies it evaluated for the five major wastestreams (FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate, and nonchemical metal cleaning waste). However, on June 23, 2013 Southern requested its plant

- specific cost information (along with other compa ny

- specific data) from EPA. EPA responded to Southern’s request on July 31, 2013. Therefore, this sectionEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 223 of Southern’s comments compares EPA’s estimated compliance costs for Southern facilities with Southern’s own estimates for the same technologies.

Basi s of Southern’s Cost Estimates
Southern Company has developed plant

- specific capital costs for each regulatory option in the proposed rule. Southern’s capital costs are screening level estimates with

- 30% to +70% level of accuracy, including miscellaneous unidentified costs. It is standard practice, based on the Project Management Institute , to include contingency costs based on the defined scope of work (or cost classification) to cover costs that the facility knows it will need but for which it lacks enou gh detailed planning or engineering to identify, quantify, or price. Southern has many years of experience in developing costs for pollution control equipment and has used this experience to develop costs for complying with the proposed rule. The costs are provided both in 2010 dollars, to better compare to the EPA’s 2010 cost estimates. In

- service costs are costs that will occur during the proposed implementation period. The in

- service dollars are approximately 22% higher than the 2010 dollars.

Southern’s capital costs are based on the total capital costs, which by definition include the total project expenditures required to install the system at each plant, from conceptual design to startup of the control equipment. The major cost elements can be broken d own into the following categories: (1) installed equipment, (2) balance of plant (BOP), (3) engineering costs, (4) profits and overheads (contractor and subcontractor), and (5) contingency or miscellaneous unidentified costs. BOP costs include site work (e .g., demolition, relocation of buildings or other equipment, concrete, piping, miscellaneous metals and finishes, mechanical, HVAC, electrical, and instrumentation and control. Engineering costs include conceptual design, services during construction, star tup of technologies, and operator training.
In an effort to compare to EPA’s costs, Southern Company costs represent total plant costs and as such do not represent any particular ownership share for those plants or units who may have multiple owners.

57 This table shows two essential flaws in EPA’s cost analysis. First, EPA assumes that none of the preferred options would result in compliance costs for nonchemical metal cleaning wastes for any plants. Second, EPA assumes no plant will incur compliance co sts related to combustion residual leachate. Both of these assumptions are likely wrong, as we discuss below.
Comment Response:
EPA reviewed the specific capital cost comparisons provided by the commenter for FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water , and fly ash transport water. See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 133 in Comment Code 6.f for EPA’s response on the commenter’s cost comparison and a discussion of why EPA was not able to complete a plant

- specific/company

- s pecific comparison of the final compliance capital cost estimates to the capital costs provided by the commenter.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 224 In addition, see EPA’s responses to the following specific cost comments made by the commenter:

 DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 128 (in Comment Code 10.b) for EPA’s response to Southern’s cost estimates for the treatment of FGD wastewater with chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment;

 DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 129 (in Comment Code 16.b) f or EPA’s response to Southern’s cost estimates on bottom ash retrofits;

 DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 130 (in Comment Code 14.b) for EPA’s response to Southern’s cost estimates on fly ash transport water retrofits; and

 DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 131 (in Comment Code 16.b) for EPA’s response to Southern’s cost estimates on landfills.
After reviewing all public comments on the proposed rule, EPA updated its compliance cost estimates (including purchased equipment, O&M co sts, other direct costs, and indirect costs). EPA includes all major cost elements named by the commenter in the final cost report, see Section 9 of the TDD and see a detailed description in the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Efflue nt Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)

. These updates increased EPA’s plant

- specific cost estimates compared to proposal. Please see the following c omment responses for more details on changes to EPA’s cost estimates:
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 14.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the fly ash transport water cost est imates including updates to cost equations, BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment Code 16.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revi sions to the bottom ash transport water cost estimates, including BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 24 and 30 in Comment Codes 9.b and 10.b respect ively for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the FGD wastewater cost estimates.
Finally, EPA disagrees with the commenter that existing plants will incur costs to treat non

chemical metal cleaning wastes and combustion residual leachate. As described in EPA’s response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 (in Comment Code 22), EPA determined that it does not have sufficient information to set new requirements; therefore, continues to reserve BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS for non

- chemic al metal cleaning wastes, as the previously promulgated regulations did. Additionally, BAT for combustion residual leachate is equal to the previously promulgated BPT limitations on TSS for low volume waste sources. Therefore, EPA maintains that no plants will incur compliance costs associated with these wastestreams.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 225 EPA notes that the commenter did not provide a breakdown of their costs and that there have been changes in the industry as described in Section V of the final preamble. Therefore, EPA

can not directly compare the costs presented by this commenter to the costs of the final rule.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 447 7

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

III. EPA Needs to Correct Overestimation of Pollution Removals

A. Ash Pollutant Removals are Overestimated

Based on the information contained in the industry comments to be submitted on this proposal made available to Advocacy, EPA has apparently made several major errors in estimating the amount of pollution removals to be achieved by this regulation, particularly with respect to the fly ash and bottom ash wastewater. According to EPA, the fly ash and bottom ash wastewater removals account for two

- thirds (5.2 million) of the total 7.8 million toxic pound

- equivalents achieved by regulating the three major waste streams ( fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas desulfurization). The TWPE metric is used to measure the benefits of pollutant removals to the public. By industry’s estimate, the 5.2 million TWPEs is more likely to be in the neighborhood of 400,000 TWPEs. This EPA over estimate of pollution removals means that the agency has vastly inflated the benefits of this regulation with respect to ash pollutant removals, which currently represent about two

- thirds of all the benefits of this rule. Part of the determination of what constitutes “best available technology economically achievable” includes consideration of the costs and pollutant removals (benefits to the public). Proper estimation of the ash wastewater flows is critical in estimating the cost effectiveness of this rul e and evaluating the merits of the regulatory options for ash wastewater controls. In the past, EPA has promulgated only those rules whose cost effectiveness (cost/toxic pound

- equivalent of pollution removed) was in the $100 ($1981)/pound

- equivalent (PE) and under range for direct dischargers of wastewater (facilities that discharge water directly into water bodies). 20 This calculation was used in past ELGs to help evaluate the final regulation, so it needs to be carefully determined.
After correcting fo r errors in both the wastewater flows and the chemical concentrations, industry finds that instead of 5.2 million pound

- equivalents (PE), the more accurate figure would be approximately one

- fifteenth of that amount, or about 400,000 pound

- equivalents. 21 This discrepancy is attributable to various errors, primarily: (1) using non

- detect data to project high concentrations of pollutants for pollutants that are not really present or are present at much lower concentrations, (2) using outdated data from the 1 970s reflecting much higher pollutant loadings than current plants, and (3) the failure to subtract contributions from common low toxicityEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 226 chemicals (such as calcium and magnesium) found in the source water that are not attributable to the steam electric p lants being regulated. Correction of these and other errors dramatically changes the estimated cost effectiveness of the rule with respect to ash wastewaters. This is particularly important since the cost of the control of ash wastewaters is 65% of the t otal cost of this rule regulating the three major waste streams. 22

20 See discussion below about the basis for the $100/PE benchmark.
21 See industry comments. 22 The costs of Option 4 (control of fly ash, bottom ash and FGD) is $1.37 billion annually. T he cost of the ash water controls portion of this Option is $887 million annually.

Comment Response:
Following proposal, EPA revised it approach for identifying POCs for some wastestreams and expanded its ash and FGD characterization datasets based on public comments. See Section 6 and 10 of the TDD.
Regarding 1982 data, EPA’s use of non

- detects, and source water in EPA’s loadings calculations, see response DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d. EPA revised its estimat es of compliance costs and pollutant removals and determined that the final rule is cost effective. See responses to comment code 6.h.
EPA disagrees that part of its determination of what constitutes BAT or BADCT is based on benefits. See DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3, in comment code 6.e.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 133 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Comparison of EPA’s Total Industry Costs to Southern’s Total Costs
Given EPA’s multiple erroneous assumptions about the Southern Company fleet of plants and their likely costs to retrofit t echnologies needed to comply with the final ELG Rule, it is no surprise that EPA’s total costs of compliance for Southern differ greatly from Southern’s own estimates. Southern’s total costs for compliance for each regulatory option are provided in theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 227 tab le below. The costs are provided in 2010 dollars for comparison purposes and in

- service dollars which are costs during the actual implementation time period. Even comparing EPA’s costs with the low end of Southern’s range illustrates the huge differences b etween the estimates, option by option.
Table 27: Comparison of Southern’s Costs to EPA’s Costs per Preferred Option, 2010$

Preferred Regulatory Option Total EPA

2010 Costs (M$) 2010 Dollars In

- Service Dollars

Total Southern Costs (M$) Southern

-

30% (M$) Southern

+70% (M$) Total

Southern Costs (M$) Southern

-

30% (M$) Southern

+70% (M$)

3a $89 $1,651 $1,156 $2,806 $2,035 $1,424 $3,459 3b $166 $1,858 $1,301 $3,159 $2,299 $1,609 $3,908 3 $342 $2,165 $1,515 $3,680 $2,689 $1,882 $4,572 4a $732 $2,816 $1,972 $4,788 $3,520 $2,464 $5,984

As discussed earlier, EPA did not include costs for NCMCW separation and treatment. Southern’s estimates include those costs because it is unclear, based on the regulation as proposed, if Southern will be able to comply without these expenditures.
For Option 3a, the lowest

- cost option, EPA estimates Southern will need to expend $89 million (2010$)

, while Southern estimates a cost between $1.2 and 2.8 billion ( 2010$). Clearly, the Agency and Southern are far apart in their cost estimates. Southern believes its estimates are more accurate because, as noted above, EPA failed to account for several major categories of capital costs in almost every category of technology. Also, Southern’s estimates are more

ac curate because they are based on greater knowledge of the individual units being retrofitted and experience with construction in the local markets.
Figure 7 compares EPA’s total industry costs (2010$) to Southern’s total costs (2010$) for each regulatory option. Southern’s in

- service costs were de

- escalated to 2010 dollars in order to compare directly to EPA’s 2010 costs. (Actual in

- service dollars are about 22% higher than the 2010 dollars for proposed BAT technologies.) Southern’s total costs for Options 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 3 are greater than EPA’s total cost to the industry for these options. In addition, Southern’s upper range for Option 4a very close to EPA’s total industry cost for Option 4a. Again, this illustrates that EPA’s estimated compliance costs for the industry are grossly underestimated.
EPA needs to reassess its costs for each technology by including all of the major costs elements that have been overlooked. At a minimum, EPA costs should include reasonable engineering and balance of plant costs, profits and overheads, and contingency costs because EPA’s costs are considered screening level cost estimates with little to no plant

- specific engineering project definition.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 228 1 Southern’s estimates have been de

- escalated to 2010 dollars to com pare costs to EPA’s 2010 estimates. Actual in

- services dollars are about 22% higher than the 2010 dollars shown in this graph.
Comment Response:
In general, EPA was not able to complete a plant

- specific/company

- specific comparison of the final compliance cost estimates to the costs provided by the commenter because Southern’s bases for their costs are unclear. Although Southern provides plant

- specific plant wide capital cost estimates for four plants operated by Georgia Power, they do not provide any desc ription of the components of their estimates, for example, specific equipment and cost elements that they include in their estimates and how they differ from EPA’s detailed estimates. For example, they do not state whether they are including costs for den itrification systems, heat exchangers, and/or buildings, and if so, for which plants these costs are included. Additionally, they do not state the design of the chemical precipitation and biological treatment system, including assumed residence time and re dundancy of equipment, and whether the design is consistent with EPA’s estimates. It is not stated in the commenter’s letter what type of dry bottom ash handling or dry fly ash handling conversions were used in the commenter’s estimates. They state in Exce rptEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 229 Number 127 that they “estimated their costs based on the same technologies used by EPA.” They also state that “using engineering estimates from one facility with multiple units, and using various scenarios for retrofitting a dry system and a remote sub merged scraper conveyor system, plant

- specific retrofit costs were estimated for all Southern plants greater than 400 MWs generating bottom ash transport water.” However, EPA has no information from the commenter on these engineering estimates and the vari ous scenarios used to estimate their costs. In addition, they do not indicate whether Southern used the same wastewater flow and ash tonnage basis as EPA, or whether and how they altered EPA’s design basis for that technology.

As the commenter states, EPA provided the commenter with plant

- specific costs by technology and a description of the specific equipment and costs for each technology was provided in the Costs and Loads Report. Although some elements of these costs were redacted due to CBI, EPA did pro vide costs for many detailed elements of the estimates, including specific costs for equipment, installation, site prep, and operating labor. As part of these plant

- specific costs, EPA provided information on plant

- specific cost assumptions (e.g

. , what tr eatment system components were considered treatment in place, whether the plant was identified as one requiring a heat exchanger). All of the individual cost elements were described in the sanitized Costs and Loads at proposal. In contrast, Southern provi ded no such details of its cost estimates made for each plant to allow EPA to consider whether plant

- specific changes to the costs are warranted, and it did not specify what costs it thinks should be changed and why; they only provided plant

- level estimate s with no supporting basis.
Additionally, the commenter points out that it included costs associated with non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes and EPA’s final compliance costs do not. Since the rule does not include any new requirements for this wastestream, it is incorrect that the commenter included these costs. As described in EPA’s response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 (in Comment Code 22), EPA determined that it does not have sufficient information to set new requirements; therefor e, continues to reserve BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS for non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes, as the previously promulgated regulations did.

It is also unclear if the commenter’s cost estimates include costs associated with combustion residual leachate. Because BAT f or combustion residual leachate is equal to the previously promulgated BAT limitations on TSS for low volume waste sources, EPA maintains that no existing plants will incur compliance costs associated with these wastestreams.

It is unclear if the commenter included costs associated with constructing new landfills at plants. The commenter includes a section in its comments (F. Costs of Additional Landfills for Dry Ash Disposal) that discuss the costs for expanding or constructing new landfills; however, it is not clear if it included these costs in their plant

- level cost estimates. EPA’s cost estimates include costs for expansion of existing landfills or offsite disposal, not for constructing new onsite landfills.
Finally, the commenter (in this and other co mments) states that “EPA failed to account for several major categories of capital costs in almost every category of technology.” EPA re

evaluated its entire cost estimates based on this and other comments. See the following comment responses for details o n these evaluations:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 230  See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 127 through 132 in Comment Codes 6.f, 10.b, 16.b, 14.b, 16.b, and 22 respectively for EPA’s response to the commenter’s assertions about FGD biological treatment costs, fly ash dry handling conversion costs, bottom ash dry handling conversion costs, combustion residual leachate costs, and nonchemical metal cleaning waste treatment costs.

 In addition, see the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 i n Comment Code 14.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the fly ash transport water cost estimates including updates to cost equations, BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and land.

 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment Code 16.b for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the bottom ash transport water cost estimates, including BOP costs, engineering overhead, profits and overhead, contingency, and lan d.

 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 24 and 30 in Comment Codes 9.b and 10.b respectively for more specific discussion regarding EPA’s revisions to the FGD wastewater cost estimates.

Commenter Name: Roger E. Claff Commente r Affiliation: American Petroleum Institute (API) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4641

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA Has Improperl y Established Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines and Has Not Properly Determined Technology Costs

Under Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, USEPA is charged to include specific factors when determining the control measures and practices to be appl icable to point sources within the category. The datasets and cost analysis of the additional control technology for existing power plants is likely inadequate to justify additional treatment for the sources removed from the existing definition of low vo lume waste sources. EPA is charged to properly assess existing sources and technology to establish credible technology

- based standards for each category. The Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) in its comments raises numerous substantive concerns with the Pro posed Rule. The UWAG comments highlight significant deficiencies, including the protocols for identifying pollutants of concern; reliance on old or very limited data; and assumptions that pollutants were present in concentrations equal to the very high de tection or quantification limits associated with very old data. These and other deficiencies (including censoring data to remove high cost measurements) resulted in significantly underestimated costs for the limits included in the Proposal.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 231 For instance, EPA notes that in the absence of readily available data on flue gas mercury control wastewater, it assumes the pollutants of concern are the same as in fly ash transport water. The assumption that vapor control liquids are similar as transport water is wi thout technical basis and clearly indicates the Agency did not put forth the diligence necessary to meet the intentions of the Act.
Section 304 (b) (2) (B) indicates the cost of achieving the effluent reduction is to be factored into determining the best m easure and practices available to base a categorical standard. UWAG comments note in the instance of FGD wastewater that EPA calculated maximum design flow rates for plants that have no FGD treatment system. This faulty assumption leads EPA to underestima te the actual design flow rate and as a result underestimate the capital costs for the treatment options.
In the cost estimates for water recycling, in most instances EPA has assumed the only cost for recycling will be piping. This is an unsupported estim ate of the true costs to reuse in

- plant waste liquids. Providing water treatment systems to assure corrosion protection and prevent creation of biological hazards, and producing a recycled water stream suitable for reuse, are more costly than the capital of piping and significantly more costly to operate and maintain. EPA must revisit their cost estimates to more adequately represent the true cost of in plant recycling.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the datasets and cost analysi s is “likely inadequate” to justify the rule. As stated in preamble section VIII, EPA considered the technologies described in the preamble and Section 7 of the TDD, and selected BAT in light of the factors specified in CWA sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 301(b) (2)(A) (also see preamble Section IV.B.3).
Other specific comments raised in UWAG’s letter, and referenced by the commenter, are addressed elsewhere in this comment response document.
Regarding the “very old data” referred to by the commenter see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
Regarding identification determining pollutants of concern see responses to comment code 6a.
Regarding flue gas mercury control wastewater, EPA is setting zero discharge for FGMC

w astewater in the final rule. Based on EPA’s evaluation of the responses to the Steam Electric Survey, EPA has determined that the dry handling or closed

- loop systems are the industry standard for the treatment of FGMC wastewater; therefore, EPA there are no compliance costs for any plants to meet the zero discharge requirements. EPA disagrees that it “did not put forth the diligence necessary to meet the intentions of the Act.” See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 88 in Comment Code 21.a.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that capital costs for FGD treatment equipment were underestimated. As indicated in Section 4.1.1 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Stan dards for the Steam ElectricEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 232 Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832), EPA used the scrubber purge flow as reported in the Steam Electric Survey for existing FGD systems. EPA used the 24

- hour average daily design flow rate as reported in response to the Steam Electric Survey for plants planning to install an FGD system. These flows were not dependent on whether a plant had an existing FGD wastewater treatment system in place. In both cases (existing and planned F GD systems), EPA used flow in conjunction with a capacity factor to estimate purchased equipment costs as described in Section 6 of the report.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion EPA has underestimated costs associated with FGD wastewater recycle

. EPA included costs for a pump and piping to handle recycle within the FGD system. As described in Section 4.5.4 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gen erating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) , EPA determined the amount of water recycled on a plant

- by

- plant basis such that 80% of the plant

specific maximum chloride limit reported in the Steam Electric Survey is not exceed ed. EPA does not expect plants will experience significant increases in corrosion or other hazards related to equipment because this is within normal operating parameters as indicated in the Steam Electric Survey.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 43 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Further, the UWAG comments point out that the EPA measurements were often of measurements made below the detection level . UWAG points out that EPA also made regulatory determinations based upon raising “nondetect” results to the detection limit. This is no t proper. For combined ash ponds, EPA’s estimate of sulfides was based on 17 sampling events, only three of which were above the detection limit. Over half of EPA’s estimates of TWPE for ash impoundment effluent, then, have no basis in fact. In additio n to the inappropriate use of undetectable sulfides, EPA’s statistical method was biased so as to overestimate the loading of pollutants from ash ponds.
EPA’s method for estimating the average loading in pounds per year per impoundment was to multiply the average concentration (the average over all impoundments) times the average transport water flow rate (the average over all impoundments). EPA then multiplied its estimate of the average loading per impoundment times the number of impoundments to estimate industry

- level loadings. To do the calculation correctly, EPA should have calculated the product of the concentration times the transport water flow rate for each impoundment and then averaged the results over all impoundments.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 233 Adjusting EPA’s estimates to account for this bias reduces the estimated total loadings (summed over the three impoundment types) by 63%, from 2,182,900,000 to 801,786,870. Adjusting each estimate of TWPE to account for the bias reduces the total TWPE by 59%, from 5,233,000 to 2,169, 828.
Combined, the two errors (assuming numbers for undetectable sulfides and calculating pollutant loadings as the product of averages) probably caused EPA’s baseline TWPE estimates to be too high by a factor of six. Computing the total TWPE without the i nvalid sulfide data reduces the baseline TWPE from 5,240,000 to 2,121,609. Adjusting the estimate to account for the likely bias in loading estimates further reduces the baseline TWPE to 859,686. Thus, the combined effect of EPA’s calculation errors was to produce an estimate of total TWPE that is six times too high

. This overestimate of pollutant loadings in turn made EPA’s calculations of dollars per TWPE too low.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 4 for more information on methodology for multiplying plant

- specific ash transport discharge flows by average pollutant concentrations and information on sulfide.
EPA revised its estimates of pollutant loadings (pounds and TWPEs) for the final rule so EPA does not ag ree with the values cited by the commenter. For EPA’s final estimates, see TDD Section 10. Regarding how EPA used nondetect data see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.
Also see responses to comment code 6 .h.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respon se: No
Comment Excerpt:

 US EPA (2013b, Section 10) presents a detailed methodology to calculate industry

- wide pollutant loadings. The equations used to calculate the total pollutant loadings from steam electric power generating facilities via wastewater discharges are simple and technically sound. However, insufficient documentation of key input prohibits interested parties from reproducing the analysis to ensure calculations are error free. Specifically, the TDD does not present pollutant concentration a nd the effluent wastewater data obtained as a result of US EPA's sampling efforts. While, the TDD does refer to supporting documentation containing the sampling data, multiple values for the same pollutant are reported, and it isEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 234 therefore difficult, if no t impossible, to determine which values were used. For example, at the Duke Energy Carolinas' facilities (i.e., Belews Creek and Allen), both dissolved and total metal concentrations were reported for influent and effluent discharges. Similarly, at the Pro gress Energy Carolinas Roxboro facility, multiple values for metal concentrations were reported and it was not mentioned if the results are for total metals or dissolved metals. US EPA should be more explicit about how the data were used to develop the sum mary values presented in the TDD.

 In some cases we were not able to replicate the calculations US EPA used to determine baseline pollutant loadings and the amount of pollutants removed upon using a specific treatment technology. For example, multiplying data presented in Table 10

- 3 of the TDD by the average flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater discharge noted in Table 10

- 9 of the TDD produces a resultant total pollutant loading of 2,924,198,666 lbs/year. However, the total loading value reported in T able 10

- 9 is 3,240,000,000 lbs/year. The difference between these values is too large to be rounding error. The TDD and supporting documents (cited in the TDD) do not provide details of the pollutant loading calculations for each individual wastewater stre am. US EPA should review the pollutant loading calculations to check the accuracy of the reported pollutant loadings or provide more information on how the values were obtained, if they are in fact correct.
Comment Response:
As at proposal, for the final rule EPA has included available sampling data in the record, and data that met the data acceptance criteria that EPA had in time for decision

- making were included in the analytical database for the final rule (DCN SE05359. EPA’s methodology for handling m ultiple values for the same pollutant at the same plant is described in the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Re port) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) . In general, for each plant, EPA first averaged sample and sample duplicate results, then averaged multiple samples from the same day, and then calculated a plant average pollutant concentration. This information was also descri bed in the supporting technical documentation for the proposed rule. EPA’s baseline pollutant loadings and pollutant removal estimates use total metals, not dissolved metals. EPA does not agree that fact was unclear at proposal. Information about dissolved metals concentrations provides valuable insight to the operation of a treatment system; however, using dissolved metals to quantify the pollutant removals would underestimate the actual removals because it would not take into account the contributions fro m pollutants in particulate form. Regarding the form of metals reported in tables, the value represents total metals (also referred to as total recoverable metals) unless the entry specifically notes the value represents dissolved metals.
However, the appr oach used by the commenter would not replicate EPA’s baseline pollutant loadings because the approach described is not the approach used by EPA. The commenter used pollutant concentrations from TDD Table 10

- 3, which provides information on average effluen t concentrations for FGD wastewater from surface impoundments. EPA’s methodology, however, is more precisely tailored to the site

- specific conditions at each plant and uses three datasets of pollutant concentrations, shown in Tables 10

- 3 through 10

- 5, to r epresent effluent from surface impoundments, chemical precipitation systems, and biological treatment systems. Thus, theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 235 difference between EPA’s and the commenter’s pollutant removal calculations is due to the commenter using a different (and less precise ) methodology, not due to rounding error.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

1. The costs presented by EPA do not appear to include all the costs of doing business.
The costs presented by EPA do not appear to include all the costs of doing b usiness. AEP presents costs on a direct basis in these comments for comparison purposes, but a more accurate portrayal of expected compliance costs would be to “fully load” the direct costs with indirect costs, such as company overheads, as well as an Allo wance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC). AFUDC is an accounting mechanism that recognizes the cost of debt and equity used to finance the construction of new utility assets. AFUDC is allowed for virtually all regulated utilities under FERC rules and allows a utility to capitalize the interest cost of construction.
Fully

- loaded costs represent the total amount that will be borne by utility customers as a result of this regulation. EPA does not account for company indirect and overhead costs in it s estimates, but it is standard practice to include these additional real costs as they are a necessary cost of doing business for any activity.
According to the AEP Cost Allocation Manual:
“Indirect costs cannot be identified with a particular activity an d must be charged to the appropriate activity or activities to which they relate using relevant cost allocators. Indirect costs include, but are not limited to, corporate or business unit overheads, general and administrative overheads, and certain taxes. ”
EPA’s calculation of the full cost to affected facilities neglects to include these indirect costs and company overheads which are real costs that will be borne by a company’s customers, and ultimately cause further underestimation of the compliance cost s associated with these guidelines.
The AEP direct cost estimates include contingencies to cover difficult construction situations with limited acreage for installing new equipment. Contingencies also cover “known unknowns,” such as deviations from project ed inflation or currency exchange rates, abnormal seasonal weather affecting construction schedules, and variances in commodity prices. AEP estimated fully

- loaded costs for each wastewater that it evaluated.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 236 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review Extern al Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Over half of EPA’s estimated baseline TWPE for ash impoundment effluent is attributable to EPA’s invalid estimates of sulfide concentrations in ash impoundment effluent. EPA’s estimates of sulfid e concentrations for bottom ash ponds and fly ash ponds were based on only 5 sampling events, all of which found no sulfide above the reporting limit. For those 5 sampling events, EPA claimed the concentrations were at the reporting limits. For combined a sh ponds, EPA’s estimate of sulfide concentration was based on 17 sampling events, of which only three were above the reporting limits. Accordingly, over half of EPA’s estimate of TWPE for ash impoundment effluent has no basis in fact.

EPA’s statistical fo rmulation for estimating industry level loadings is fundamentally biased. In particular, when: 1) pollutant concentrations and ash transport water flows are negatively correlated, 2) the transport water flows are highly variable among impoundments, and 3) the concentration for a pollutant are highly variable among impoundment, the bias is positive and large. Data from responses to EPA’s Information Collection Request (“ICR”) Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines (EPA 20 10) demonstrate that all three of these conditions were satisfied in the ash transport data. Furthermore the data indicate that EPA’s estimates of industry level pollutant loadings from ash impoundments are too high by a factor of more than 2.

EPA’s inclus ion of invalid TWPE estimates for sulfide combined with EPA’s biased method for estimating loadings likely caused EPA’s baseline TWPE estimates to be too high by a factor of six.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Num ber 4. Also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 237 Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 52 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Capital Costs Are Underestimated and All Additional Costs Will Result in Higher Electricity Costs to the Consumer

APPA supports UWAG’s critique of EPA’s economic assessment methods. UWAG’s comments contain numerous examples of how EPA (and its contractors) failed to look at the capital expenditures expected by utilities in response to this rulemaking. For example, EPA’s co st documentation makes no mention of electrical, mechanical (except for tie

- in of pipeline that previously went to the ash pond), upgraded control systems, boiler modifications, upgraded piping (more erosive

- resistant material), or demolition/relocation, o r structural modifications. EPA notes that “[t]he estimated prices are approximate as each plant site will vary in layout.” 21 In fact, when EPA requested the cost data, it asked that the cost data “assume average industry operating conditions and no spec ial circumstances ( e.g. , headroom below the boiler).” EPA recognizes that costs will vary from plant to plant based on boiler configuration, capacity, conveyance distance, and number of units, but does not include any additional costs or contingency to cov er these expenses. 22 APPA points out (in agreement with UWAG’s detailed critique) that EPA’s capital costs for conveyance and intermediate storage are underestimated because they do not consider all of the Balance of Plant (BOP) costs and costs associated with site

- specific issues. EPA’s analysis does not look at conveyance and intermediary storage for smaller or scaled down plants.

21 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2007, p. 6.

22 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 1959.20.
Comment Response:

As described in Section 9 of the TDD
, EPA has revised the costs estimates associated with indirect capital costs from proposal to ensure they include engineering, engineering overhead, contractor fees, construction expenses, and contingency costs. EPA acknowledges that some sites ma y require costs in addition to average industry costs but has accounted for them by including contingency costs. See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 69. The requirements of the ELG would not result in plants needing to impl ement boiler modifications or upgrade existing piping to more erosive

- resistant material, and plants should not need to make major structural modifications or demolish or relocate existing equipment (except, in specific instances such as replacing equipme nt under the boiler for MDS installation).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 238 Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review Ex ternal Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s method for calculating Baseline Ash Impoundment Loadings (pounds per year) has four steps:

1. Estimate industry

- level average pollutant concentration (pounds per million gallons) 2. Esti mate impoundment

- specific ash transport water flow rates (million gallons per day)

3. Estimate impoundment

- specific loadings based on the industry

- average pollutant concentration and impoundment

- specific transport water flow rates 4. Estimate the industry

- level loadings as the sum of impoundment

- specific loading estimates.
EPA’s method is algebraically equivalent to estimating the industry

- level loadings as the product of the number of impoundments times an estimate of the average loading per impoundment (s ee Appendix A). Furthermore, EPA’s formulation for estimating the average loading per impoundment is algebraically equivalent to multiplying the average pollutant concentration times the average transport water flow rate (see Appendix A).
For each ash impo undment type and pollutant, EPA calculated a toxicity weighted pound equivalent (“TWPE”) by multiplying the estimated annual loading times the pollutant

- specific toxicity weighting factor (“TWF”). EPA calculated values for the TWFs for each pollutant from chronic aquatic life values and the human health values from the literature (EPA, 2006).
EPA then summed the TWPEs over all pollutants of concern to calculate the overall TWPE for each ash impoundment type.
Comment Response:
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 4.

Commenter Name: Mark W. Metcalf Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPS) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4770

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 239 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For each waste stream, EPA excluded all pollutants that were measured below the quantitation limit in all samples representing the baseline effluent discharges for that specific wast e stream. Therefore, if a pollutant was measured above the quantitation limit at least once (emphasis added) in the baseline effluent concentration dataset, that pollutant was included in the loadings analysis. As part of the analysis EPA utilized a proces s of assigning a value to results that were less than the quantitation limit (i.e., results between the method level of detection and level of quantitation, and nondetects below the method detection limit) as half the sample

‐ specific quantitation limit fo r all analytes (Technical Development Document, EPA

‐ 821

‐ R

‐ 13

‐ 002, page 10

‐ 5) in order to calculate pollutant loading from a waste stream.
Assigning a value to samples that have non

‐ detected values artificially inflates the TWPE (and reducing the corresponding cost effectiveness $ per TWPE) when a particular pollutant of concern may not be present at all. The practice of assigning a value to a data point that is non

‐ detect when calculating a TWPE results in a significant bias in the po tential amount of pollutants and should not be used.
Comment Response:
As described in Section 6 of the TDD, for wastestreams where EPA is establishing numeric effluent limits, the pollutants of concern (POCs) are those pollutants that are present at t reatable concentrations in a significant percentage of untreated wastewater samples. EPA reviewed data for the untreated FGD wastewater, combustion residual leachate, and gasification wastewater to identify pollutants detected at greater than or equal to 1 0 times the quantitation limit in at least 10 percent of all samples. For wastestreams where EPA is establishing zero discharge standards ( i.e. , fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wastewater), POCs are all pollutants that are con firmed to be present ( i.e. , detected) in at least 10 percent of all samples.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in comment code 15.d.
Also see responses to comment code 6.h.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 199 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 240 Comment Excerpt:

B. Pollutant Loading

1. Pollutant Loading
In addition to its more qualitative assessment of environmental damage based on the case studies, EPA uses a model to estimate the impacts of power plant effluents on current surface water quality, as well as changes under differen t types of controls. Pollutant loading estimates (both baseline loadings and reductions due to controls) are central to EPA’s risk estimates and ultimately to EPA’s benefits estimates.
Regarding the characterization of baseline conditions, Gradient’s revi ew identified several shortcomings in the analysis that undermine the reliability of the results. Collectively, these limitations lead to uncertain (and likely overestimated) baseline loadings that cannot reliably serve as the benchmark from which to meas ure improvements from alternative control technologies. Specific shortcomings of EPA’s analysis of baseline pollutant loadings include:

 model inputs and assumptions are not always transparent, and so key results cannot be replicated;

 the estimation of bas eline pollutant loadings using measured effluent concentrations are based on a limited data set that are not representative of industrywide discharges; and

 the effectiveness of some baseline control technologies is mischaracterized, leading to likely over estimates of discharges.
Comment Response:
EPA notes that the details of the pollutant loading calculations, including model inputs, were included in the non

- CBI Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Sta ndards for the Steam Electric Generating Point Source Category Report

- DCN SE03581 (see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2256).
For the final rule, based on data submitted in comments and in follow up to those comments, EPA expanded its ash characterization datase t used for baseline pollutant loadings. See Section 6.6.4 of the TDD for a description of the characterization data used to identify POCs in bottom ash and Section 10.2.2 for a description of ash impoundment data. Regarding the representativeness of the ba seline pollutant loadings, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 4.b for a discussion of the sufficiency of EPA’s dataset for this rulemaking. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Numbe r 72 in comment code 15.d.
EPA disagrees that “the effectiveness of some baseline control technologies is mischaracterized.” EPA notes that the commenter has not provided any data to demonstrate how the “effectiveness of some baseline control technologies” has been “mischaracterized.”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 241 Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Pollutant Loading
In addition to the more qualitative assessment of environmental damage based on the case studies, US EPA uses a model to estimate the impacts of ELG effluent on current surface water quality, as well as changes under different types of controls. Pollutant loading estimates (both baseline and reductions from controls) are central to US EPA's risk estimates and ultimately to US EPA's benefits estimates. Our review identified several shor tcomings in the baseline conditions analysis that undermine the reliability of the results. Collectively, these limitations lead to uncertain (and likely over estimated) baseline loadings that cannot reliably serve as the benchmark from which to measure im provements from alternative control technologies. Specific shortcomings of US EPA's analysis of baseline pollutant loadings include:

 Model inputs and assumptions are not always transparent, so key results cannot be replicated;

 The estimation of baseline po llutant loadings using measured effluent concentrations are based on a limited data set that may not be representative of industry

- wide discharges; and

 The effectiveness of some baseline control technologies is mischaracterized, leading to likely overestim ates of discharges.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 199.

Commenter Name: Jay Hudson Commenter Affiliation: Santee Cooper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4476

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 E xternal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

CostEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 242 It appears that EPA has not fully examined the capital expenditures that will be required to comply with these regulations as proposed. For example, we see no cost documentation or mention of electrical, mechanical (except for tie

- in of the pipeline that previously went to the ash pond), upgraded contro l systems, boiler modifications, upgraded piping (more erosive

- resistant material), demolit ion/relocation or structural modifications that would be required. EPA notes that "[t]he estimated prices are approximate as each plant site will vary in layout. " 1 In fact, when EPA requested the cost data, EPA asked that the cost data "assume averag e industry operating conditions and no special circumstances (e.g., headroom below the boiler)." It appears that EPA recognizes that costs will vary from plant to plant based on boiler configuration, capacity, conveyance distance, and number of units, but does not include any additional costs or contingency to cover these expenses. 2 It also appears that EPA's capital costs for conveyance and intermediate storage are underestimated because they do not consider all of the Balance of Plant (BOP) costs and cost s associated with site

- specific issues.

1 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2007, p. 6.

2 EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 1959.20.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 110 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

• EPA also underestimated costs fo r balance of plant, engineering overhead, and profits and overhead for both fly ash and bottom ash retrofits.

• For both fly ash and bottom ash retrofits, EPA failed to provide for contingency. A standard level of contingency would be 20% of the capital co sts.

• EPA also did not include costs for any land acquisition to provide space for the retrofitted fly ash and bottom ash handling systems. This assumes that all sites have adequate space for the equipment already, which is not accurate.

• For FGD wastewa ter retrofits, EPA understated costs by using “typical” FGD purge flow rates instead of maximum design flow rates. When constructing a new treatment system, engineersEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 243 must use the maximum design flow rate rather than an average or typical flow rate. There fore, it is inappropriate to base construction costs on an average or typical flow rate.

• Also, EPA did not include any contingency costs for FGD wastewater retrofits. A standard level of contingency would be 20% of the capital costs for a relatively unco mplicated retrofit, and could be higher for a more complex retrofit.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 212 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

XXV. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Also Depends on Faulty Input Values

The RIA (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2239) suffers from the same major problem as the BCA: the compliance cost inputs are erroneous. As we have listed above, the many flaws in EPA’s cost estimates for bottom ash, fly ash, and FGD retrofits renders the overall compl iance cost analysis invalid. These flaws are not small matters; for instance, we suspect EPA’s use of the wrong formulas for conveyance and intermediate storage portions of dry fly ash retrofits lowers costs of those components by 46%.
UWAG urges EPA to r e

- evaluate its entire methodology for estimating compliance costs for the rule and to do the same for its assessment of pollutant loadings. It should then revise the BCA and the RIA to better reflect more accurate costs and environmental benefits, as well as more accurate industry

- level impacts of this rulemaking. EPA’s re

- evaluation, since it covers very significant portions of the supporting evidence for the rule, should be presented to the public for additional review and comment.
Comment Response:

S ee response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern CompanyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 244 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 151 External Review Flag: No Externa l Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Assertion That Pollutant Discharges are Increasing is Not Supported in the Record
Additionally, EPA asserts that the volume and total mass of the pollutant discharges have increased each year (presumably since the enactment of the current regulations in 1982) as a result of new technologies for generating electric power and the implementation of air pollution controls. In particular, EPA contends that technology like coal ga sification, and air pollution controls like flue gas desulfurization, selective catalytic reduction, and flue gas mercury controls, have altered existing wastestreams or created new wastewater streams that have purportedly led to an increase in discharges. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34435. Southern does not believe EPA’s characterization of the extent and increase in pollution from the industry is supported by the record. Even if there were some increases in pollution discharged from some individual plants, it does no t appear that EPA fully considered the overall industry trend and expansion of water

quality based effluent limits on power plant discharges.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that that record does not show that pollutant discharges increased as plants im plemented controls such as FGD systems and gasification systems. It is indisputable that pollutant discharges from a plant increase when a process, such as an FGD system, is installed and creates a new wastewater discharge that contain pollutants that have been captured from the air emissions and transferred to the wastewater. Furthermore, since the ELGs were last revised in 1982, plants have moved towards new technologies like coal gasification and the number of flue gas desulfurization systems greatly inc reased. These new technologies and air controls are contributing new pollutants to wastewater that were previously not present or were present in much lower numbers.
EPA also disagrees that water quality

- based effluent limitations take the place of techno logy

based effluent limitations and standards. Technology based standards provide the minimum that is supposed to be implemented by all dischargers. BP Exploration & Oil Inc. v. EPA , 66 F.3d 784, 789 (6th Cir. 1995) (In formulating these guidelines, the CWA directs EPA to institute progressively more stringent effluent guidelines in stages); Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n et al v. US EPA , 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998) (The CWA prescribes progressively more stringent technological standards that the EPA must us e as a guidepost in setting discharge limits for regulated pollutants.)
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 61 in Comment Code 6.c. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that water quality

- based effluent limits for power plants have not been implemented widely. In EPA’s evaluation of many permits for these facilities, EPA found the permits did not have metals limits even where the waterbodies theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 245 facilities were discharging to are impaired for metals. Even when WQBELs have been implemented, such as for the FGD wastestream, the wastewater still contains substantial quantities of pollutants.

Commenter Name: Michalene Reilly Commenter Affiliation: Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4471

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In addition to the problems noted in the preceding comments, EPA has mishandled effluent data for several pa rameters. Not only is the majority of the mercury data flawed due to the high detection levels of the analytical methods used, but EPA apparently rounded up the mercury results from 0.00063 mg/L to 0.001 mg/L for bottom ash effluent. There is no reason to do this, all other concentrations are reported to at least two or three significant figures. This misleadingly increases the estimated mercury TWPE by almost 60%. For other POCs, EPA treated numerous

non

- detects at full value, also leading to mistakenly hi gher TWPEs. Proper treatment when

numerous non

- detects occur is to set them at no more than one

- half the detection limit, not at the detection limit. If all the results are non

- detects, as was the case for cadmium in the bottom ash pond effluent at the Rat ts plant, no TWPEs should be calculated. There would be no aquatic toxicity from effluents with all non

- detect analysis.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that there was a rounding error in the mercury data for ash transport water presented at proposal in Table 10

- 7 of the proposed rule TDD. For the final rule, EPA has since updated its ash characterization dataset and the revised value for bottom ash impoundment effluent is 0.709 ug/L, as shown in Table 10

- 7 of the final rule TDD (or 0.000 709 mg/L).

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 99 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporate d into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 246 In addition to its qualitative assessment of environmental damage, EPA uses a more quantitative model to understand the impacts of power plant effluents on current surface water quality, as well as changes that would be predicted under different types of controls. Pollutant loading estimates (both baseline loadings and reductions due to controls) are central to EPA’s estimates of risks and ultimately benefits, underlying both ecological and human health aspects of the proposed rule. Specific shortcomings of EPA’s analysis of baseline pollutant loadings include:

 Model inputs and assumptions are not always transparent, and so key results cannot be replicated;

 The estimation of baseline pollutant loadings using measured e ffluent concentrations are based on a limited data set that may not be representative of industry

- wide discharges; and

 The effectiveness of baseline control technologies has been mischaracterized, leading to likely overestimates of discharges.
Comment Resp onse:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 199 in Comment Code 6.f.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number : 193 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For some plants, EPA miscalculated fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water flow rates. In some cases, the flow rates used by E PA are four or five times the actual flow rate. EPA appears to have used the total ash pond influent flow rate (reported in Part D of the 2010 ICR), rather than the bottom ash and fly ash sluice rates (reported in Part C of the 2010 ICR). Since other typ es of wastewaters such as storm water, coal pile runoff, and low volume wastes may also be directed to the ash ponds and be part of the ash pond influent, use of the total influent flow rate as the equivalent of the ash sluice flow rate grossly overstates the ash sluice rates for some ponds. Overstating the flow rates means that EPA also overstated the pollutant loadings attributable to these wastewaters. EPA appears to have made this mistake for a number of facilities within the industry, thereby renderi ng its industrywide pollutant loading analysis invalid.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 247 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 134 in Comment Code 17 for more information on EPA’s calculation of ash transport water discharge flow rates. EPA disagrees that it used the total ash pond influent flow rate; rather, it used the ash pond influent flow rates specifically designated as “fly ash sluice,” “bottom ash sluice,” and/or “combined ash sluice. Additionally, EPA accounted for any recycle to acc urately reflect the discharge.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The estimates of the impacts of discharges from steam electric plants are overstated because EPA has overestimated the pollutant loadings. These overestimates of pollutant loadings stem from using old data , making assumptions about undetected pollutants, counting sulfides that were almost certainly not present, counting intake pollutants not added by power plants, and using statistical methods that biased the results high.
Having overestimated the pollutant loadings, EPA also overestimated their environmental impacts by relying on old cases of damage from coal combustion material releases, measures of impact without evidence of actual environmental harm, and discredited models of human health effects.

Finall y, EPA underestimated the costs of retrofitting technologies such as equipment for dry handling of fly ash and balance

- of

- plant, engineering overhead, and contingency costs.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 210.

Commenter Name: Ron Shipman Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 248 Steam Electric Pollutant Loading Contributions Are Flawed.
UWAG's analyses, which Georgia Power adopts, shows that EPA has vastly overstated the amount of pollutants being discharged from power plants. Based on additional sampling and

a nalysis by UWAG's consultant, sulfides are generally not present in ash pond discharges, so the huge amount of TWPEs that EPA calculates into industry loadings should be removed. That adjustment alone would dramatically reduce the steam electric percentag e range by EPA's own calculations. See EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232. EPA should also review the ash pond flow rates used in its analysis, as we suspect they were over

- estimated. Since it appears that EPA has overstated the percentage of TWPEs attributable to the steam electric industry by at least a factor of two, Georgia Power requests that EPA make every effort to correct the record on this point and adjust its Proposed Rule accordingly.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 134 in Comment Code 17 for more information on EPA’s calculation of ash transport water discharge flow rates.
Regarding Sulfides, for the reasons explained in EPA’s response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt 14, EPA did not includ e loadings estimates for sulfide in the final rule for ash transport water, so related comments are outside the scope of the final rule.

Commenter Name: Paul Chu Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 67 External Review Flag: Statistics External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:



### 6.8 Treating all data that are less than the quantitation limit as one

- half of the sample

- specific quantitation limit for all analytes decreases the variability of the resulting estimates, leading to a standard deviation of the fitted distribution that is too low.

On page 10

- 5 and elsewhere in the TDD [EPA, 2013], EPA treated all results less than the q uantitation limit (that is, J

- values and non

- detects below the method detection limit) as one

- half of the sample

- specific quantitation limit for all analytes.

Alternative recommendation : Use censored

- data methods, such as Kaplan

- Meier, to estimate statisti cs for data with non

- detects and J values. Because it is the standard method used in drug trials and medical statistics for estimates from censored data, Kaplan

- Meier has precedent in other regulatory contexts.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 249 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- H Q

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 130 in this comment code, response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 66 in Comment Code 31.h.i, and Appendix A, Essay Section 4.2.2.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Domini on Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Dominion's Chesterfield Power Station in Chesterfield, Virginia uses treated effluent from a nearby publicly owned sewage treatment plant to supply water to its wet FGD scrubbers. This novel water reuse arrangement avoids additional water withdraws from the James River. The water sourced from the sewage treatment plant contains higher values of nitrates and nitrites than those seen at Allen and Bellow Creek. We are concerned that Chesterfield will be unable to apply the GE ABMet technology and remove nitrates and nitrates to the levels necessary to comply with the proposal. We estimate that Chesterfield will need to install a much larger ABMet system to accommodate the increased nitrates and nitrites in the influent. We do not believe the proposal accounts for these additional capital costs in i ts estimates.
Comment Response:
While EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that water sourced from a publically owned sewage treatment plant may contain higher levels of nitrates and nitrites than those seen at Allen and Belews Creek, the two plants operating the BAT biological trea tment technology whose data

were used to calculate pollutant loadings
, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that Chesterfield will need to install a much larger biological treatment system to accommodate the increased nitrates and nitrites. As dis cussed in Section 6.2.1 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) , the biological t reatment system is designed to treat FGD wastewater with nitrate/nitrite as N concentrations up to 100 ppm. For plants demonstrating nitrate/nitrite as N concentrations above 100 ppm, EPA included additional costs for a denitrification system upstream of the ABMet system. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 44 in Comment Code 10.b. Generally, POTW effluent has a total nitrogen concentration of 18 to 30 ppm. The normal total nitrogen concentration is well below the 100 ppm concen tration for nitrate/nitrite as N which would require additional denitrification treatment. EPA has reviewed the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines responses provided by Chesterfield. Because no nitrate/nitrite as NEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 250 c oncentrations were reported in response to question B6

- 2 EPA has reasonably assumed that the wastewater used at Chesterfield is within the typical POTW total nitrogen concentrations and no additional costs associated with denitrification are included in EP A’s compliance cost estimate. EPA notes that the commenter did not provide any data along with its comments to show that the total nitrogen concentration in the FGD wastewater at Chesterfield is not within this range.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Com menter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Inc reased operating costs
The proposed regulations will impose on all covered sources significant increased capital and operating costs including: energy, chemicals, water, labor, permits, fees, health & safety, training, solids disposal, maintenance, operato rs licenses, liability insurance and connection fees.
Sources that are not covered by the regulation still anticipate an increase cost of purchased power because the additional regulatory burden on electric generating units will result in higher electric

r ates. In addition, these sources will incur direct costs because state agencies will very likely apply the regulations to power plants that are associated with manufacturing. This has happened before for other regulations that apply to steam electric gen erating units.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that some of the plants covered by the final rule will have “increased capital and operating costs.” EPA also agrees with the commenter that “[s]ources that are not covered by the regulation still anticipate an increase cost of purchased power because the additional regulatory burden on electric generating units will result in higher electric rates.” See the RIA for additional information regarding the estimated increase in electricity rates.
Regarding increases in costs associated with power plants located at manufacturing facilities, EPA has revised the applicability to help clarify that these plants are not included within the scope of the ELG. Therefore, any additional cost that they may in cur is outside the scope of this rulemaking. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2, Excerpt Number 2 in Comment Code 5.a.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 251 Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 43 79

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Based on Southern’s estimates of its own costs to comply with the Rule, EPA has grossly underestimated both Southern ’s costs and those for the industry at large. For example, based on a screening level analysis, Southern estimates it will expend between $2.0 and $4.8 billion to comply with Option 4a, while EPA estimates Southern will expend only $732 million for that op tion. In contrast, EPA estimates an industry total cost for compliance of $5.5 billion for Option 4a. Clearly if Southern’s costs are even the minimum estimate of $2 billion (which is about 37% of EPA’s total of $5.5 billion) then EPA has greatly underesti mated the costs to the industry as a whole.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 133.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. McNelly Commenter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (AR IPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In addition, EPA’s concept of using an effluent limits and loading limits appears to be a new approach. In the past, EPA had established effluent limits and did not couple that to loading limits. The concept of loading is tied to the amount of water to be treated. This is a problematic issue from the perspective t hat any water contributions that is highly variable will result in wide swings in pollutant loading. Determining the volume of water that will be treated will be problematic; especially if it is tied to precipitation events (of an unknown duration) making if difficult to insure proposer treatment; especially with relationship to CCR management.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that the “concept of loading is tied to the amount of water to be treated [which can be] a problematic issue from the perspective that any waterEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 252 contributions that is highly variable will result in wide swings in pollutant loading.” EPA disagrees with the commenter that “EPA’s concept of using an effluent limits and loading limits appears to be a new approa ch.” The Steam Electric Power Generation ELGs have always been written in 40 CFR 423 as mass

- based limitations, based on multiplying the flow by the numeric concentration limitations. However, the final rule allows for the use of concentration

- based limita tions, by including the following language: “At the permitting authority's discretion, the quantity of pollutant allowed to be discharged may be expressed as a concentration limitation instead of any mass based limitations.”
The final rule does not require internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain numeric limitations and standards. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 117 in 26d.

Commenter Name: Lisa C. Messinger Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation Docu ment Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4317

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Although this section of the proposed rule does not appear to affect our plants, we would like to take the opportunity to correct inaccuracies with how our data is used in supporting documentation for the rulemaking. In the Technical Development Document (EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 002) (pp 6

- 8 and 6

- 9), EPA correctly states that fly a sh / bottom ash transport water flow rate is the rate of the sluicing system to the impoundment and does not necessarily represent the fly ash / bottom ash discharge flow rate FROM the plant, yet proceeds to use the total flow rates in all pollutant loading an d TWPE calculations.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 134 in Comment Code 17 for more information on EPA’s calculation of ash transport water discharge flow rates.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Comme nter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 45 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 253 Comment Excerpt:

In addition, the cost modules f or Fly Ash Transport and Bottom Ash Transport Water did not include the closure costs for the transport piping; dewater bins and other miscellaneous equipment or expedited closure costs for existing impoundments and costs for providing new treatment facili ties for low volume wastes no longer directed to these closed impoundments. The model costs needs to consider the impact of the anti

- circumvention requirements that would require the separation of low

- volume waste water from "zero" discharge wastes or lea chate (if landfill expansions are considered new sources.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that closure costs for ash transport water piping and impoundment closure costs are not included in the compliance cost estimates. EPA is not requiring plants to dismantle piping or close existing impoundments. In some cases EPA’s cost estimate assumes that some piping and other existing equipment will be reused to save costs, see Sections 7 and 8 of the Incremental Costs and Pollutant R emovals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) for more details. Any existing impoundment, including those that receive wastewat ers other than ash transport water, is not required to close under the final rule; these impoundments can continue to operate.
Additionally, EPA does not expect that plants will incur any additional costs associated with anti

- circumvention requirements tha t are included in the final rule. As described in preamble section VIII, anti

- circumvention provision only apply to wastestreams with zero discharge limitations or standards. For fly ash and bottom ash, the installation of the technology bases will result in separation of the transport water from other low volume wastes. Therefore, EPA concludes that there are no additional costs required. Combustion residual leachate is not subject to any anti

- circumvention provision.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. McNelly Commenter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
ARIPPA is further concerned that the proposed methodology to address discharge limits are tied to loadings that are based on flows and the limitations established in the rule. associated with storm water runoff from CCR stor age or management sites. The rule does not look at situations The management of these flows could become very expensive in terms of property andEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 254 impoundment storage capacity as well as managing biological treatment systems for selenium and having the syste m function properly.
Comment Response:
EPA focused this rulemaking on revisions to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for specific wastestreams discharged from steam electric power plants. EPA identified the specific wastestreams included in this rulemaking based on the results from its detailed study that was completed in 2009. Storm water runoff from CCR storage or management sites was not identified for inclusion in this rulemaking. This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 43 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Exc erpt:
Method for Estimating Plant

- Specific Costs
EPA's cost estimates include two cost components:

 Capital costs (onetime costs) and

 Annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.
As appropriate, EPA also accounted for expected reductions in the plant's costs associated with their current operations or treatment systems that would no longer be needed as a result of installing and operating the technology bases (e.g., avoided costs to manage surface impoundments).
Comment Response:
EPA agrees that its cost estimates include both capital costs and O&M costs. EPA also agrees that it “accounted for expected reductions in the plant's costs associated with their current operations or treatment systems that would no longer be needed.”

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 31Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 255 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

It should be noted that this issue of bias, due to EPA’s method for estimating loadings, may extend beyond ash impoundment pollutant loadings to any of EPA’s estimates of pollutant loadings that were calculated as the product of averages . The proper method of calcul ating the average annual pollutant loading, as the technical report explains, is the average of the products

. The effect of this bias is illustrated in examples provided in the report by AKRF, Inc.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 081 9

- 4655

- A1, Excerpt Number 4.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Selenium should be regulated based upon realistic Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalent (TWPE). EPA made poor analytical judgments by showing pollutants that were actually at the non

- detect level. EPA’s exaggerated calculation also increased the projected reductions TWPE by nine times the actual number . APPA defers to the Utility Water Act Group’s (UWAG) more detailed critique but points out that this is type of error is not a good basis for regula ting selenium.
Comment Response:
EPA does not select regulated pollutants, pollutants of concern, based on TWPE. For details on EPA’s selection of regulated pollutants, see Section 11 of the TDD.
Other specific comments raised in UWAG’s letter, and refe renced by the commenter, are addressed elsewhere in this comment response document.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 256 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 101 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Selenium should be regulated based upon realistic Toxic Weighted Pound Equivalent (TWPE). EPA made poor analytical judgments by showing pollu tants that were actually at the non

- detect level. EPA’s exaggerated calculation also increased the projected reductions TWPE by nine times the actual number . APPA defers to the Utility Water Act Group’s (UWAG) more detailed critique but points out that thi s is type of error is not a good basis for regulating selenium.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 95 in Comment Code 10.c.
Other specific comments raised in UWAG’s letter, and referenced by the commenter, are addressed elsewhere in this comment response document.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 108 External Review Flag: N o External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
As demonstrated by UWAG’s analysis of EPA’s cost

- effectiveness using model plants, as well as other cost analyses discussed above, EPA assumptions systematically resulted i n an underestimation of costs associated with the proposed rule. Additionally, this underestimation of costs associated with the proposed rule was demonstrated to carryover on an industry

- wide basis by UWAG’s consultant, NERA Economic Consulting (NERA).

C omment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Numbers 136 in Comment Code 6.h and 210 in this comment code. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule , see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 257 Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 85 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The annual operating cost of disposing fly ash in an onsite landfill ranges between $3.50 and $6.00 per ton, compared to wet handling, where the annual cost is little more than pump maintenance. EPA must consider costs such as these before it can estimate the cost or cost

effectiveness of its options for disposing of bottom ash, fly ash, FGMC wastewater, and FGD solids.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 153.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
APPA believes that the EPA cost analyses and technology assessments were not very realistic. See Tables 3

- 6. These costs far exceed EPA’s typical $404 per TWPE reduction cost

. Comment Respon se:
See responses to comment code 6.h.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 102 External Review Flag: No External R eview External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 258 Comment Excerpt:
APPA believes that the EPA cost analyses and technology assessments were not very realistic. See Tables 3

- 6. These costs far exceed EPA’s typical $404 per TWPE reduction cost.

Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Excerpt Number 12.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. McNelly Commenter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4 453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The concept of using effluent limits to determine loading is problematic based on how one determines projected volume of water to be managed, including precipitation events.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1, Excerpt Number 14.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Additionally, several flaws were identified with EPA’s methodology for calculating toxic

weighted pound

- equ ivalent (TWPE) loadings and removals for each regulatory option.
Comment Response:
Regarding baseline loadings for FGD wastewater see responses in comment codes 8.c and 8.d.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 259 Regarding loadings and removals for FGD chemical precipitation see responses in comment code 9.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for FGD biological treatment see responses in comment code 10.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for fly ash wastewater see responses in comment codes 13.c, 13.d, and 14.c.
Regarding loadings and removals f or bottom ash wastewater see responses in comment codes 15.c, 15.d, and 16.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for leachate see responses in comment codes 18.c, 18.d and 19.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for flue gas mercury control wastewater see respo nses in comment code 21.d.
Regarding loadings and removals for nonchemical metal cleaning wastes see responses in comment code 22.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for gasification wastewater see responses in comment code 23.c.
Regarding loadings and remo vals for FGD evaporation see responses in comment code 8.d.
For further discussion on EPA’s estimates of loadings and removals see TDD Section 10 and the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards f

or the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)

. Also see responses to Comment Code 6.h.
Responses to other specific comments made by the commenter are located in elsewhere in this comment response document.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4477

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review Externa l Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 260 EPA should consider further regulatory options, including exempting all bottom ash wastewater flows, and setting higher exclusion levels for fly ash and FGD wastewaters.
Comment Response:

See res ponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1, Excerpt Number 20 in Comment Code 5.c.
EPA determined that it would inappropriate to include a threshold in the final rule for fly ash wastewater, other than the 50 MW threshold for small generating units, based on its analysis for the final rule, see preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: B. Hasten Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4832

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The technology for complete pollutant removal is available from the French/Japan.
Comment Response:
EPA made every effort to study available wastewater treatment technology for the steam e lectric power industry. See preamble Section VIII and the TDD for details on the technology bases that EPA selected for the final rule.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s methodology for calculating toxic weighted pound equivalent (TWPE) loadings and removals was flawed in several areas.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 261 Regarding baseline loadings for FGD wastewater see responses in comment codes 8.c and 8.d.
Regarding loadings and removals for FGD chemical precipitation see responses in comment code 9.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for FGD biological treatment see responses in comment code 10.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for fly ash wastewater see responses in comment codes 13.c, 13.d, and 14.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for bottom ash wastewater se e responses in comment codes 15.c, 15.d, and 16.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for leachate see responses in comment codes 18.c, 18.d and 19.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for flue gas mercury control wastewater see responses in comment code 21.d.
Regarding loadings and removals for nonchemical metal cleaning wastes see responses in comment code 22.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for gasification wastewater see responses in comment code 23.c.
Regarding loadings and removals for FGD evaporation se e responses in comment code 8.d.
For further discussion on EPA’s estimates of loadings and removals see TDD Section 10 and the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832)

. Also see responses to comment code 6.h.
Responses to other specific comments made by the commenter are located in elsewhere in this comment response document.

Commenter Name : Eric Schaeffer Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Integrity Project et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4761

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 262 Comment Excerpt:
This case by case approach to setting BAT limits on toxic pollutants imposes significant costs on EPA, state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. The Agency has enough information to provide a reasonable estimate of th ese costs to permitting agencies given the time and effort it has spent on the Merrimack permit, the estimates that we have provided in comments submitted separately, and taking into account concerns states have expressed about the burden of having to set standards in each permit. 10 These administrative costs would be eliminated through an ELG that set industry

- wide standards based on appropriate consideration of the best available technologies. 11

Even more significant, setting standards on a permit

- by

- pe rmit basis will impose treatment costs in the absence of an ELG. Yet EPA has failed to include these costs under Options 3a and 3b, which require case

- by

- case BAT determinations for FGD wastewater discharges. 12 These costs must be accounted for in this rulemaking. EPA Region 1 has already proposed that chemical and biological treatment reflects BAT for treatment of scrubber waste from the Merrimack plant, although that facility has gone further by installing a zero liquid discharge system. 13 And if st ates conduct a proper BPJ analysis, they will arrive at BAT determinations that are close to what EPA has proposed for Options 4 and 5. 14

EPA has the information it needs to estimate the costs, or at least a range of costs, that would be incurred based on BAT limits that are likely to be required through individual permits in the absence of an ELG. EPA must include these costs in compliance estimates for Options 3a and 3b. Furthermore, because these case

- by

- case determinations are required now, in the abs ence of an ELG, the estimated costs of complying with the standards that EPA has proposed should be adjusted by subtracting investments in treatment processes that would otherwise be required through individual permit decisions.

The Clean Water Act mandate s that EPA promulgate revised ELGs that reflect BAT. 15 As we have clearly stated in our comments, it is also fairer, more protective, and likely less expensive in the long run to set industry

- wide standards than to develop BAT limits on a permit by permi t basis. 16 Taking the latter course will add layers of administrative burden and cost to the process of upgrading wastewater treatment to the technology based standards required by law. The adoption of effluent guidelines based on the best available tec hnologies will eliminate that burden, and EPA’s cost estimates should be adjusted to reflect that reality.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 Id.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 263 14 Id.

15 Id. § II.

16 Id. § III.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 (in Comment Code 6.j.i) and other responses in Comment Code 6.j.i.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4704

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 32 External Review Flag: No Exter nal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA Used an Improper Method to Backout Costs for the 400 MW and Smaller Units
The EPA estimated the cost of Option 4a, which includes the 400 MW threshold, by backing out the costs of these smaller units using a procedure based on the fraction of the total wet bottom ash contributed by the 400 MW and smaller units. EPA initially developed plant

- level costs by summing unit

- level costs. CAR, p. 8

- 4. Rather than using these origin al unit

- level costs to back out the costs for 400

- MW and smaller units, EPA developed a different method to convert the plant

- level costs to unit level costs. In this new method, EPA calculated an "adjustment factor" as the ratio of wet bottom ash from uni ts greater than 400 MW to total plant wet bottom ash. This "adjustment factor" was multiplied by plant

- level costs and TWPE to estimate the costs and TWPE reductions for units subject to regulation under Option 4a. 143

However, most of the costs are not pr oportional to the amount of wet bottom ash produced, but rather to the capacity of the unit. The installed capital cost, for example, is proportional to the design capacity of the unit (CAR, Sec. 8.1.4). Many of these smaller units (<400 MW) operate at

ver y low capacity factors and thus produce a small fraction of the bottom ash (wastewater and TWPE) from a plant with other larger units that operate at higher capacity factors. Thus, this procedure distributes too much of the industry

- wide cost of bottom as h transport water control to the >400 MW units. This overestimates the cost of Option 4a expressed in dollars per TWPE. The 400 MW and under costs could have more simply and accurately been broken out using the original unit

- level data used to calculate th e plant

- level costs!Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 264 143 “ERG Memorandum from TJ Finseth, Danielle Lewis, and Elizabeth Sabol,” Re: ‘Methodologies for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Removals for Steam Electric ELG Regulatory Option 4a,’ April 15, 2013.
Comment Response:

EPA has revised its estimates of compliance costs and pollutant loadings for the final rule. See Section 9 of the Technical Development Document for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (TDD) ( DCN SE05904 ) for details specific to the compliance cost estimates and Section 10 of the TDD for details specific to pollutant loadings and removals. In addition, EPA has not selected proposed regulatory option 4a so the commenters concerns about the 400 MW threshold are no longer relevant. For discussion on option selection for BAT for the final rule see preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Co mment Excerpt Number: 156 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
As explained more fully in the accompanying report by Synapse Energy Economics, compliance cost estimates prepared before the installation of controls often overestimate costs. 686 Studies have documented this effect in major federal rule makings. 687 Researchers have identified explanations for the trend. Once a rule is finalized and the deadline approaches, a market is

cre ated, or strengthened, in the pollution controls required, which often leads to technological innovation and a drop in price. 688 Additionally, cost analyses may rely on high

- end estimates because of conservative, counterfactual assumptions by agencies and because of strategic behavior by the regulated industry. 689 Finally, since the regulated industry has better access to information on compliance costs, industry is better positioned to point out underestimates than the public is able to point out overest imates of costs. 690

In this case, it is not necessary to wait until the compliance deadline to compare EPA's cost estimates to the actual compliance costs. Instead, the attached report by Dr. Phyllis Fox, Appendix E, documents that EPA's assumptions have resulted in significantly overestimating the cost of compliance. 691

Dr. Fox focused her comments on EPA's inflated cost estimates for bottom ash handling systems, but the errors she identified applied to the controls for other waste streams as well. EPA ignored economies of scale when calculating the cost of controls for all waste streams, which systematically inflates the cost of all proposed options. Similarly, EPA's inclusion of units that have already announced they will retire results in overestima ting the total complianceEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 265 cost for all proposed options. As explained in the attached, 88 units have announced that they are shutting down completely or switching fuels, and will not incur compliance costs

– yet these units are included in EPA's calculati on of total compliance costs. 693 Finally, the inappropriately high annualization factor was used to calculate the cost of all options, and therefore increased the cost of all options. Taken together, these assumptions and methodologies have dramatically inflated EPA's cost estimates for all options, confirming research showing that ex ante compliance costs are usually overestimated.

686 Synapse Report, Appendix A.

687 Id. at 16

- 18.

688 Id. at 16.

689 Id. at 16

- 17.

690 Id. at 17.

691 Fox Report, Appendix E.

693 List of Announced Retirements Included in EPA’s Cost Calculations, submitted by Commenters as an exhibit to this letter.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that costs associated with the treatment technology used as the basis for the final rule will decrease over time. EPA’s compliance cost estimates reflect the best available cost data for the treatment technology a t the time the analysis was conducted. Because EPA cannot accurately predict how costs associated with a specific treatment technology will change in the future, EPA used the data currently available.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that econo mies of scale were ignored. EPA’s approach of using cost curves accounts for economies of scale. As described throughout the Incremental Costs and Pollutant Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Costs & Loads Report) (DCN SE05831/SE05832) , EPA used vendor cost estimates for the costs associated with equipment or treatment systems at several specific wastewater flow rates and generated a curve to relate costs to wa stewater flow rate. Using these curves, EPA was able to scale costs to a plant

- specific wastewater flow.
Additionally, EPA has updated the Industry Profile Memo (Memorandum to the Steam Electric Rulemaking Record: Changes to Industry Profile for Steam Ele ctric Generating Units for the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Final Rule

- DCN SE050 6 9) to reflect recent changes in retirements and fuel conversions.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 266 Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Total annualized compliance and social costs: EPA’s assertion that the cost to industry of

r equiring Option 5 is too high is presented without explanation or justification. Dollar

‐ figure costs can only be understood in the context of the scale of an industry. Costs that would be far too high for a small industry to bear may be indiscernible to a larger industry such as steam

‐ electric power generation. In addition, EPA’s cost analysis is inflated by the inclusion of some plants that have since retired. Cost

‐ to

‐ revenue analysis (discussed below) is a more appropriate way for EPA to present evidence of high costs.

In addition, EPA’s measure of compliance cost (and, therefore, the use of this measure in cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratios and cost

‐ effectiveness tests) is based on a strong and

— by EPA’s own admission

— inaccurate assumption. EPA assumes that all of th e compliance costs associated with the proposed steam electric ELGs will be borne by the owners of the power plants and not, as is undeniably the common practice in the industry, passed on in some part to consumers in higher utility rates. 154

154 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,495.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the record does not provide the proper basis for rejecting the option that uses evaporation as the technology basis for FGD wastewater (Option 5 at proposal). See Section VIII of the preamble and EPA’ s response to related comment DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 216 (in comment code 28.b) for a discussion of the rationale for rejecting the option.
EPA notes that it has updated the Industry Profile Memo (Memorandum to the Steam Electric R ulemaking Record: Changes to Industry Profile for Steam Electric Generating Units for the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Final Rule

- DCN SE050 6 9) to reflect recent changes in retirements and fuel conversions. The analysis of the final rule reflects th ese revisions to the universe of steam electric power plants.

Commenter Name: Becky Hayat Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 267 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4490

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Using a dry handling system may be the most cost

- effective choice in the long

- run for steam electric generating facilities. The use of water in a wet handling system , as opposed to air as a cooling agent in a dry handling system, can incur additional costs. Factors such as water treatment, corrosion damages, and higher disposal and maintenance costs all should be considered as plants re

- evaluate their wet ash handling practices. 20

20 United Conveyor Corporation, Wet

- to

- Dry Conversion: Bottom Ash & Fly Ash Systems (2009).
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes BAT requirements for fly ash and bottom ash based on dry ash handling (or closed

- loop systems for botto m ash), as described in preamble section VIII.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 79 External Review Flag: No External Review External R eview Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s industry

- wide cost estimate also does not account for how the closure of FGD wastewater settling ponds will make space available for on

- site landfills, which would dramatically reduce the operat ing costs (transportation and fuel) compared to off

- site disposal.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter’s assertion that the closure of FGD ponds would make space available for on

- site landfills. However, the final rule does not require plants to close existing impoundments. Because plants may continue to operate these impoundments, EPA does not estimate costs associated with closing these impoundments, nor was any space associated with these impoundments assumed to be reallocated or reused as part of the analyses for the final ELG.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 268 6.g. Regulatory Options

- Definitions

Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Power plants that do not own offsite landfill receiving its waste; should not be held responsible for the receiving facility complying with the effluent limitations guidelines. The steam electric ELGs do not apply to offsite landfills for coal

- related waste where the landfill is not owned or operated by a utility. Rather, if the offsite landfill is an ordinary landfill unit in the Landfills Point Source Category, then it is regulated by the ELGs in 40 C.F.R. Part 445.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees that plants operating landfills that do not meet the applicability of 40 CFR 423.10 are not subject to this rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 269 6.g.i. Combustion residual leachate (leachate)

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Inco rporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

IV. EPA SHOULD AMEND OR CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM “COMBUSTION RESIDUAL LEACHATE” SO THAT IT IS NOT OVERBROAD
It is important for EPA to confirm in the final ELG rule that the definit ion of the term “combustion residual leachate” does not capture wastewater streams that are not subject to regulation under this rulemaking; specifically, wastewaters that are not channeled and discharged via points sources to a water of the United States

. The proposed definition of leachate is as follows:
The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuel. Leachate includes liquid, includi ng any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials placed in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leach ate also includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34533 (proposed to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r)).
This definition is overbroad in at least three respects

. First, it could be misconstrued as stating that stormwater flowing off of a landfill is leachate. Second, the proposed definition potentially is broad enough to apply to water that comes into contact with CCR that is beneficially used. Third, the prop osed definition could be read to mean that EPA intends to regulate seepage and leakage from units that is not collected or channelized and discharged through a point

source. It would be inappropriate to construe water as leachate subject to the proposed E LG requirements in any of these circumstances, and USWAG does not believe that EPA intended the definition to be as broad as it appears to be. Therefore, we request that the Agency revise the regulatory text accordingly.

A. Stormwater That Flows from a Landfill Is Not Regulated Combustion Residual Leachate
The proposed definition of combustion residual leachate includes liquid that is “drained from waste or other materials placed in a landfill.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533 (proposed to be codified at 40 C.F .R. § 423.11(r)). This imprecise wording could be misinterpreted as convertingEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 270 stormwater that flows off of a capped or active landfill unit into leachate. Rather, only water that has percolated through a landfill and collected by a leachate collection s ystem should be regulated as combustion residual leachate.
As the Agency is aware, rainwater that runs off of a landfill unit is defined in several existing regulations as stormwater. For example, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 defines stormwater, in part, to include “stormwater runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage .” Id . at § 122.26(b)(13) (emphasis added). This definition captures any stormwater runoff from a landfill site, including those that are capped and those that are still in operation. Further, contaminated stormwater that runs off of the active portion of a landfill and comes into contact with CCR is captured by the term “stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity,” which includes, among other things, activities involving “[l]andfills . . . that receive or have received any industrial waste” and “[s]team electric power generating facilities, including coal handing sites.” Id . at § 122.26(b)(14)(v) & (vii)). Similarly, the effluent limitations guidelines for the landfills point source category characterize rain water flowing off a capped portion of a landfill as non

contaminated stormwater and water flowing off the active portion of a landfill as contaminated stormwater. 40 C.F.R. § 445.2(b) & (g). This distinction is re flected in EPA’s Multi

- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity (“MSGP”), which likewise expressly categorizes rainwater flowing off of a landfill as contaminated or non

- contaminated stormwater (depending on whet her it comes into contact with wastes). MSGP Sector L, Sections 8.L.4.1 & 8.L.4.5.
To avoid confusion and unnecessary regulation, EPA should unambiguously differentiate between leachate and stormwater in the text of the final ELG rule and/or its preamble. Any water flowing off a capped or active portion of a landfill site should be properly considered stormwater. As EPA has proposed in its preferred option (Options 3a, 3b, and 4a), leachate percolating through CCR should be subject to existing BPT limits for low volume waste, whereas water flowing off a capped or active landfill should remain subject to applicable standards for stormwater.

B. Water That Comes into Contact with a CCR that Is Beneficially Used Is Not Combustion Residual Leachate

In add ition to the above, it is important for EPA to clarify that the definition of combustion residual leachate does not inappropriately include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and which has not been disposed or otherwi se managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment. The proposed definition of combustion residual leachate extends only to leachate from “landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuels.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533 (proposed to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r)) (emphasis added). On its face, this definition embraces only leachate from CCR that was placed in the unit for con tainment

– i.e. , either disposal or storage. CCR that is beneficially used is not placed in a surface impoundment or landfill for containment, but rather it is used to serve a functional purpose as a replacement for virgin materials.
While the proposed d efinition of “combustion residual leachate” should not and does not encompass water that comes into contact with CCR that is beneficially used, confirmation of thisEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 271 point in the final rule is important to avoid any unnecessary confusion that would run coun ter to EPA’s important policy goal of promoting the beneficial use of CCR. As the Agency acknowledged in the CCR Proposal, utilities and other commercial sectors are continually exploring means for using CCR for beneficial uses, as opposed to managing the se materials in landfills or surface impoundments. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35153. And as EPA has expressed on numerous occasions, it does “not wish to place any unnecessary barriers on the beneficial use of [CCR],” id . (quoting the 2000 CCR Regulatory Determinat ion). We are concerned, however, that the final ELG rule may cause confusion unless EPA clarifies that the term “combustion residual leachate” refers only to leachate from units that manage or dispose of CCR and does not encompass water that may come into contact with CCR that is beneficially used.
For example, landfills and impoundments often are constructed using structural fill and embankments that utilize CCR. During the operation of a landfill operators also may use CCR for daily cover, and at the en d of a unit’s operational life CCR may be used as part of the final cover material. CCR also may be used as road base for service roads for these units and for other roads. In these circumstances, the CCR is not being placed in the landfill or impoundmen t for containment, but instead is being used as a construction material. When these units contain only

non

- CCR low volume wastes, the fact that there may be some incidental contact between water and beneficially used CCR should not be interpreted to mean that any leachate from the unit is “coal combustion leachate.” This is because the units are not being used to “contain” CCR and therefore any leachate from these units is not encompassed by the definition of “combustion residual leachate.”

In addition to the beneficial use of CCR in the construction and operation of impoundments and landfills, CCR is commonly used throughout the country for a wide array of other beneficial uses, including by state Departments of Transportation and other local and municipa l entities for use in the construction of roadbed embankments and for structural fill in other state and municipal construction projects. Indeed, work is underway to revise and reinstate an ASTM standard setting forth particular standards for the design a nd construction of engineered structural fills using CCR ( see ASTM E2277 Standard). Obviously, these types of CCR beneficial use activities are outside the scope of the proposal rule (which applies only to the steam electric power industry) and therefore any water than may pass through CCR when used in these types of structural fill beneficial use applications is not subsumed within the proposed definition of combustion residual leachate.
To avoid any confusion in the final ELG rule, it is important for E PA to confirm that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not encompass any water that may come into incidental contact with CCR when used in beneficial use applications.

C. The Proposed ELG Standards for Leachate Do Not Apply to Water that Is No t Collected or Channelized And Discharged Through a Point Source
USWAG also is concerned that the definition of combustion residual leachate may be construed as applying the ELG requirements for leachate to non

- point source discharges, such as stormwater r unoff and seepage or leakage from a CCR management unit. It is important for EPA to clarify that this is not the Agency’s intent. Wastewaters from a landfill orEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 272 impoundment are not “discharged” through a point source if they are not first channelized o r otherwise collected. Rather, water leaving the site of a landfill or surface impoundment can be characterized as a regulated discharge for purposes of this rulemaking only if it first goes through some kind of “conveyance” ( e.g ., a pipe or ditch). See Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brown , 617 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011); Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck , 172 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 1998); Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. Harbor at Hastings Assocs. , 917 F. Supp. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Obviously, stormwater that flows off a landfill site and water that seeps from the bottom of a unit that has not been collected or channelized through any discrete conveyance and discharged through a point source cannot be regulated under this rulemaking.

As discuss ed above, however, the definition of combustion residual leachate is vague and potentially could be read as applying to stormwater flowing off of a landfill. This definition may suggest that EPA intends to include such stormwater (improperly defined as le achate) as being subject to the proposed ELG requirements. It should be evident that diffuse stormwater cannot be regulated as a point source discharge unless it is first collected and channelized by the utility. We ask that EPA make this point expressly to remove any potential confusion.
Similarly, the proposed definition of combustion residual leachate also “includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage.” Like stormwater, seepage or leakage of any water from a CCR management unit cannot be subject to t he proposed ELG standards unless it collected and discharged through a point source. Seepage and leakage from a landfill or surface impoundment that is not collected or channelized and discharged through a point source is not subject to this rulemaking; r ather, such seepage or leakage may subject to state regulations and will be subject to the groundwater monitoring requirements under the standards for CCR management units included in the proposed CCR rule.
In fact, in a webinar on the ELG proposal, EPA correctly stated that the “proposed effluent guidelines apply to leachate that is collected and then subsequently discharged as a point source to surface waters. So to the extent that there may not be a system and perhaps there is leachate that makes it to groundwater . . . the effluent guidelines and the NPDES permit would not apply to that.” Transcript from EPA Aug. 20, 2013 Webinar on “Stream Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

– Proposed Rule,” at 12

- 13. This situation would be appropriately subject to the CCR rule rather than the ELG rule. Therefore, USWAG requests that the Agency unambiguously affirm in the final ELG rule, as EPA made clear during the Agency’s ELG webinar, that wastewaters from CCR units that are not channelized and discha rged via a point source to a water of the United States

— including stormwater, seepage, and leakage

— are not subject to the proposed ELG standards.
Comment Response:
The definition of point source (and indirect discharger/industrial user) and who needs an NPDES permit is a basic issue that is outside the scope of this rule. This rule specifies the technology

based limits and standards and pretreatment standards that apply when those underlying requirements are triggered. Determining who is a point source i s generally a fact

- specific determination made by the permitting authority. The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point source.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 273 The final rule defines combustion residual leachate as follows: “The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing combustion residuals. Leachate is composed of liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated t hrough waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that passes through the surface impoundment’s containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms). Combustion residual leachate includes seepage and/or leakage from a combustion residual landfill or impoundment unit. Combustion residual leachate includes wastewater from landfills and surface impoundments located on non

- adjoining property when under the operational control of the permitted facility.”
EPA wishes to distinguish “combustion residual leac hate” from stormwater for purposes of this rule. (EPA is not intending to change or address the definition of stormwater under the Act in this rule.) Conceptually, “combustion residual leachate” is more about percolating through a landfill or impoundment and stormwater is about surface flow from a landfill. (Surface flow from an impoundment would be neither combustion residual leachate nor stormwater under this rule). For purposes of distinguishing combustion residual leachate from stormwater under this rule, stormwater simply runs off from the top layers of the landfill. Although the stormwater may theoretically come into contact with some CCR material, it is does not percolate, nor is it seepage or leakage and thus it is not combustion residual leachate . See Figure 4

- 10 in the TDD. Although under this rule, stormwater is not leachate, it is stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).
The commenter also mentions the use of combustion residual as structural fill for imp oundments and landfills and/or as a daily cover for the landfill. In this instance, where the stormwater percolates through a CCR landfill, or seeps or leaks from the landfill, the wastewater discharges are leachate. Although the use of the combustion resi duals as structural fill or cover may be considered a “beneficial reuse” in the sense that it prevents that need to use virgin materials, the combustion residuals have higher levels of toxic pollutants compared to the virgin materials; therefore, the perco lation, seepage, and leakage receive the same level of control as discharges coming from a leachate collection system. EPA generally agrees with the comments that the combustion residual leachate definition does not “include water that has come into contac t with CCR that has been beneficially used and which has not been disposed or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment.” For example, EPA agrees that water contacting combustion residuals used in road base or in roadbed embankments would not be considered combustion residual leachate. This application clearly is not a landfill or surface impoundment.
Regarding the non

- point source discharges, the final rule does not define whether something is a point source; that is outside the scope of t his final rulemaking. As is the case for any ELGs, the final rule requirements only apply to NPDES permitted discharges or discharges to POTWs.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 146Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 274 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. “Leachate” Cannot Include Runoff from Landfills or Seepage and Leaks that Are Not Point Source Discharges to a Water of the United States
The proposed definition of “combustion residual leachate” is too broad because, on its face, it could be inappropriately interpreted to include stormwater runoff from landfills. It also could be interpret ed to capture seepage from landfills and surface impoundments that does not constitute a “point source” discharge to a water of the United States. EPA should make clear in the final rule, either by amending the definition or by explaining in the preamble, that such runoff and seepage are not “combustion residual leachate” subject to the ELGs.

1. Leachate Should Not Include Stormwater Runoff From Landfills
EPA proposes to define combustion residual leachate as follows:
Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leach ate also includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,533 col. 3 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r)).
The phrase “drained from waste” in this definition could be read to include rainwater that runs off a landfill, even though such runoff is defined as stormwater under EPA’s regulations. EPA should be careful not to alter this important regulatory distinction in this rulemaking. In fact, EPA recognizes this important difference in section 4.3.5 of the TDD, where it distinguishes between leachate and stormwater by including a diagram, Figure 4

- 10:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 275 The same diagram was “Figure 3” in the Federalism/UMRA Supplemental Information

– Package #2 that EPA distributed. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0909, p. 10. Figure 4

- 10 shows leachate percolating through the landfill and collecting in a leachate collection system

. Separately it shows rain falling on the landfill surface and runoff from the landfill running into a runoff drainage ditch. The clear and appropriate distinction here is that runoff from a landfill is not “leachate.”
Indeed, this point is consistent w ith EPA’s existing regulatory regimes for runoff from landfills of various types where the runoff is regulated as stormwater. For example, “stormwater” in 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 is defined to mean “storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage .” Id . at § 122.26(b)(13) (emphasis added). This definition captures any stormwater runoff from a landfill, including those that are capped and those that are still in operation. Furthermore, contaminated stormwater that runs off a landfill ( e. g. , from an active portion of a landfill) is captured by the term “[s]torm water discharge associated with industrial activity,” including, among other things, activities involving “[l]andfills . . . that receive or have received any industrial waste” and “[s]team electric power generating facilities, including coal handing sites.” Id . § 122.26(b)(14)(v) & (vii)).

The fact that runoff is characterized as stormwater also is consistent with the effluent limitations guidelines for the “landfills” point source category (40 C.F.R. Part 445), which cover stormwater that is “contaminated”:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 276 Landfill wastewater means all wastewater associated with, or produced by, landfilling activities except for sanitary wastewater, non

- contaminated storm water, contaminated groun d water, and wastewater from recovery pumping wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but is not limited to, leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, laboratory derived wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact washwater from washing truck, equipment, and railcar exteriors and surface areas which have come in direct contact with solid waste at the landfill facility

40 C.F.R. § 445.2(f) (emphasis added).
That landfill runoff is regulated as stormwater is further reflected in EPA’s Mult i

- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity (“MSGP”). Specifically, with respect to runoff from a capped landfill, sector L of the MSGP provides, in relevant part, that such stormwater is viewed as “non

- contaminat ed stormwater,” which includes “stormwater that does not come into direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas, or landfill wastewater. Non

- contaminated stormwater includes stormwater that flows off the cap, cover, intermed iate cover, daily cover, and/or final cover of the landfill .” Section 8.L.4.5 of Sector L of the MSGP (emphasis added). Stormwater from the uncapped part of a landfill is designated as “contaminated stormwater,” which is defined, in relevant part, to inc lude “stormwater that comes into direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas, or landfill wastewater. Some areas of a landfill that may produce contaminated stormwater include (but are not limited to) the open face of an ac tive landfill with exposed waste (no cover added)....” Section 8.L.4.1 of Sector L of the MSGP.
The point is that runoff from a landfill is stormwater and differs from water that percolates through waste placed in a landfill or surface impoundment, which is “leachate.” Therefore, it is critical that EPA clarify in the final rule that “combustion residual leachate” does not include stormwater runoff from landfills. 70
Moreover, stormwater runoff from a landfill is not a “discharge” (and hence does not need an NPDES permit) if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a discharge only if it goes through some kind of “conveyance” (which is understood to mean a pipe or ditch). So if the stormwater is not channelized, it cannot be a “discharge” requiring an NPDE S permit. See Hudson Riverkeeper Fund v. Harbor at Hastings Assocs. , 917 F. Supp. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (dismissing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point source because it eventually flowed into a nearby river). As the Ninth Circuit said, “[s]tormwater that is not collected or channeled and then discharged, but rather runs off and dissipates in a natural and unimpeded manner, is not a discharge from a point source as defined by § 502(14).” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brown
, 640 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Courts have declined to classify pollution coming from “runoff caused primarily by rainfall around activities that employ or create pollutants” as a “point source.” Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Dombec k , 172 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9 th Cir. 1998).
Similarly, courts define pollution as a “nonpoint source” when it is caused by diffuse sources such as runoff. “Broad though [the] definition [of point source] may be, we are of [the] opinion that it does not includ e unchannelled and uncollected surface waters.” Appalachian Power Co.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 277 v. Train , 545 F.2d 1351, 1373 (4 th Cir. 1976); see also Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 842 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 1085 (2004) (“Diffuse runoff, such as rainwater that is not channeled through a point source, is considered nonpoint source pollution and is not subject to federal regulation.”). 71

70 Despite the definitions already in EPA’s regulations, the 2013 TDD at 6

- 12 states that “[l]eachate, which includes contaminated stormwater, that has come into contact with combustion residual solids deposited in an impoundment or a landfill . . . .” To th e extent this statement is inconsistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure distinguishing between stormwater and leachate, it must be revised to be consistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure.

71 See also Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Fore st Serv. , 550 F.3d 778, 785 (9 th Cir. 2008) (explaining Congress chose not to regulate “generalized runoff”); Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA , 915 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9 th Cir. 1990) (explaining that runoff of pesticides from farmland is not a “point source”) ; Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc. , 575 F.3d 199, 220 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Nonpoint source pollution is, generally, runoff: salt from roads, agricultural chemicals from farmlands, oil from parking lots, and other substances washed by rain, in diffuse patter ns, over the land and into navigable waters”) (quoting United States v. Plaza Health Lab. , 3 F.3d, 643, 652 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 147 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

2. Seepage that Is N ot Channeled or Discharged to a Surface Water Cannot Be Regulated Leachate Under the ELG Rule
If stormwater has to be channeled before qualifying as a point source discharge, so must “seepage” and “leakage.” Another problem with the proposed definition of “leachate” is that the language in the proposed text (“seepage, leak or leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment”) might imply that all such seepage and leakage would qualify as “combustion residual leachate.”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 278 As with stormwater, here again the language of the proposed regulatory text sweeps too broadly. Seepage or leakage can be regulated as combustion residual leachate subject to this rulemaking only if the water is a “point source.” And that means only if it is ch anneled and discharged to a “water of the United States.”
As with stormwater, discussed above, EPA is authorized to regulate “discharges” from a “point source.” A point source is a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance (33 U.S.C. § 1362(14)), whi ch generally means a channel or conduit (though it also includes wells, containers, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operations, and vessels). See Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co. , 620 F.2d 41, 45 (5 th Cir. 1980) (a “point source” is the “conv eyance” that constitutes “the means by which pollutants are ultimately deposited into a navigable body of water) (emphasis added); see also Plaza Health Lab., Inc. , 3 F.3d at 646 (point sources are “physical structures and instrumentalities that systematic ally act as a means of conveying pollutants from an industrial source to navigable waterways,” such as a pipe); Hudson Riverkeeper Fund , 917 F. Supp. at 257 (dismissing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point source because it eventually flowed into a nearby river). See Comments of the Utility Water Act Group on Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines, Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0052 (April 8, 2010) at 58.
In short, “seeps” and “leakage” from la ndfills and surface impoundments cannot be regulated as combustion residual leachate under this rulemaking unless the water is collected or channelized and then discharged via a point source to surface water that constitutes a water of the United States. While seepage that is not collected or channeled would be subject to the groundwater monitoring and corrective action requirements under EPA’s proposed CCR rulemaking, the ELG regulations apply only when the seepage is channeled and released through a poin t source to a surface water that constitutes a water of the United States. Therefore, it is important for EPA either (1) to clarify in the final rule “seepage” and “leakage” means only seepage and leakage that is collected and then discharged via a point source to a water of the United States or (2) to amend the regulatory text to ensure that these conditions attach to the terms “seepage, leak, and leakage” in the definition. 72

72 Any contrary interpretation

– i.e. , that uncollected seepage or drainage c onstitutes combustion residual leachate

– is not only inconsistent with the plain language of the statute. Also, it would result in the impractical obligation of compelling affected facilities to incur hundreds of millions of dollars to install systems to collect such water. This would effectively require removing the combustion residue from the unit and retrofitting the unit with a liner and collection pipe. The costs of such a requirement

– which have not been calculated by EPA in this rulemaking

– wou ld be enormous. Based on member input, the average cost for installing leachate collection systems for 13 different ash ponds was about $3,600,000, an average of about $275,000 per installation. The actual cost at one plant for three ash ponds was $1.6 m illion, or over $500,000 per pond. Other plants owned by the same company had systems installed that cost in the mid

- $100,000 range (meaning, again, about $500,000 per pond). But these were unusually low costs, because they did not include engineering an d design costs or alarms, controls, and buildings for controls that would ordinarily be included. A cost of $500,000 might be achievable for a small,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 279 one

- acre treatment pond. But a larger, 100+ acre deep disposal pond would cost upwards of $10 million. Large as these costs are, they could be much worse if EPA applied an “anticircumvention” provision that required the leachate to be monitored and treated before reuse or recycling.
Comment Response:
The definition of a point source is outside the scope o f the final rulemaking. The definition of what is the wastestream “combustion residual leachate” is not tied to the definition of what is a point source. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Al dridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 148 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

C. “Combusti on Residual Leachate” Should Not Include Water That May Contact CCR That Is Beneficially Used
EPA should clarify that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and has not been disposed of or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment.
It is important to encourage the beneficial use of CCR. For example, landfills and impoundments are sometimes constructed using structural fill and embankments using CCR. Operators of a landfill may use CCR for daily cover and as part of the final cover material when the landfill is closed. CCR also can be used as road base for service roads to landfills and for other roads as well.

These uses of CCR are not to “contain ” residuals and therefore do not fall within the proposed definition. But EPA should clarify that this is so. The final ELG rule should say clearly that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that may come into incidental contact with CCR used in beneficial use applications.

D. Regulation of “Combustion Residual Leachate” Should Not Interfere with Beneficial Reuse Activities
Either in the definition of “combustion residual leachate” or in the preamble to the final rule, EPA shou ld be careful to limit the interpretation of the term so as not to have the effluent standards apply to unintended activities. For example, the limits on “leachate” should not applyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 280 to pond dewatering, which might include collecting and pumping out water from existing coal combustion residuals in old impoundments, before capping the site. Likewise the limits should not apply to intercepting a contaminated groundwater plume some distance from an impoundment so the groundwater can be treated and discharged.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
The final rule regulates the discharges from dewatering an impoundment as “legacy wastewater” subject to the BAT legacy wastewater requirements promulgated in the final rule. For example, if a plant dewaters an impoundment used to treat fly ash transport water, the existing fly ash transport water “legacy wastewater” BAT limitations would be applied to the discharge during dewatering.
In this rule, EPA is not speci fying what would happen if groundwater were contaminated and the site was being cleaned up. The definitions of the rule apply to discharges requiring an NPDES permit and indirect dischargers (pretreatment standards).

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The definition for this wastestream must be revised to clarify that: (1) stormwater runoff if not included, (2) leachate does not include any liquid unless it is collected or channelized and subsequently discharged via a point source, and (3) that this definition does not include leachate from o ffsite landfills that are not owned or operated by the permittee.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
Regarding item (3) provided in the comment above, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Exc erpt Number 103. The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point source.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 281 Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 30 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA also needs to revise the definition of combustion residual leachate to (1) exclude stormwater runoff, (2) cl arify that “seeps” or “leaks” from surface impoundments which are not collected or channelized and are not subsequently discharged via a point source are not included, and (3) clarify that leachate from offsite landfills that are not operated or owned by t he permittee are not included.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 14.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt N umber: 103 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Proposed Definition of Combustion Residual Leachate is Inconsistent and Must Be Modified to Exclude Storm Water Runoff, Seepage, and Leaks that Do Not Constitute a Point Source Discharge to a Water of the U.S.
Duke Energy recommends that EPA make several changes to the proposed definition for “combustion residual leachate” because the definition(s) EPA proposes is inconsistent, overly b road and does not represent EPA’s intent based on the information presented in the Proposed Rule and supporting technical documents.
First, EPA provides three different variations for the definition of combustion residual leachate. At least two different d efinitions are listed in the Proposed Rule and a third version is listed in the Technical Development Document (TDD). Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in This Notice 69 in the Proposed Rule states that the definition for combustion residual leachate “Includes landfills and surface impoundments located on non

adjoining property when under the operational control of the permitted facility.” The TDD, Section 2.2, pages 2

- 5 and 2

- 6 asserts that “The term combustion residual leachate mean sEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 282 leachate from onsite landfills or surface impoundments....” 70 In §423.11 (r) 71 of the Proposed Rule, the definition of combustion residual leachate does not make it clear whether it applies to leachate from both onsite and offsite landfills and impoundmen ts.
Duke Energy asserts that the definition for combustion residual leachate should not apply to offsite landfills where the landfill is not owned or operated by the utility. These landfills would already be regulated by ELGs under the Landfill Point Sourc e Category 72

. Second, EPA is proposing an overly broad definition of combustion residual leachate which could be inappropriately interpreted to include storm water runoff from landfills and seepage from landfills and surface impoundments that do not consti tute a point source discharge to a water of the United States.
EPA proposes to define combustion residual leachate as follows:

Leachate includes “liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, drains, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in

re ference to leachate from an impoundment. 73
The phrase “drained from waste” in the above definition could be interpreted as capturing rainwater that runs off of a landfill, when such runoff is in fact defined as storm water under EPA’s existing regulations 7 4 . Runoff from a landfill differs from water that percolates through waste placed in a landfill or surface impoundment. Therefore, EPA must clarify in the final rule that the definition of “combustion residual leachate” does not include stormwater runoff f rom landfills, because this stormwater is already regulated under the CWA Industrial Storm Water permit program.
In addition, stormwater runoff from a landfill is not a “discharge” if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a discharge only if it goes th rough some kind of conveyance, such as a pipe or ditch, and only then would it require an NPDES permit.
It should also be noted, that again, there is an inconsistency between the proposed regulatory language and the Technical Development Document 75 with re gards to this definition. The TDD states that “leachate, which includes contaminated storm water, that has come into contact with combustion residual solids deposited in an impoundment or a landfill...” To the extent this statement is inconsistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure distinguishing between stormwater and leachate, it must be revised to be consistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure.
Another problem with the proposed definition of “leachate” is that the language in the proposed text referencing “seepage, leak or leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment” implies that all such seepage and leakage would qualify as combustion residual leachate. This language is overly broad and does not represent EPA’s assumed intent based on the information presented in the Proposed Rule and supporting technical documents.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 283 “Seeps” and “leakage” from landfills and surface impoundments cannot be regulated as combustion residual leachate under this rulemaking unless the water is collected or channelized, and then discharged via a point source to surface water that constitutes a water of the U.S. Any seepage that is not collected or channeled would be subject to the groundwater monitoring requirements under EPA’s prop osed Coal Combustion Residual (CCR) rule. Therefore, EPA must clarify in the final rule that the definition of “combustion residual leachate” only includes leachate that is collected or channelized and subsequently discharged to surface water classified

as a water of the United States.
Duke Energy strongly recommends that these inconsistencies and clarifications be included in the final rule through a revised definition and the explanatory text in the preamble and provides a suggested revised definition for combustion residual leachate:

The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

derived fuel. Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or diss olved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through the CCR or other materials placed in a landfill, subsequently captured in a leachate collection system or channelized and then discharged via a point source. This definition excludes stormwater r unoff.
Clarify that the Term “Combustion Residual Leachate” Does Not Apply Where CCR is Beneficially Used
Duke Energy recommends EPA confirm in the final ELG Rule that the definition of “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come into contact with CCR in all applications where CCR has been beneficially used. The proposed definition of c ombustion residual leachate includes only leachate from “landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuels." 76 This definition embraces only leachate from CCR that was placed in the unit for conta inment for either disposal or storage. CCR that is beneficially used is not placed in a surface impoundment or landfill for containment, but rather it is used to serve a functional purpose as a replacement for natural resources and virgin materials.

While the proposed definition of “combustion residual leachate” should not and does not encompass water that comes into contact with CCR that is beneficially used, confirmation of this point in the final ELG Rule is important to avoid any unnecessary confusion t hat would run counter to EPA’s goal of promoting the beneficial use of CCR. EPA acknowledged in the CCR Proposal, that “utilities and other commercial sectors are continually exploring means for using CCR for beneficial uses, as opposed to managing these m aterials in landfills or surface impoundments.” 77 The beneficial applications include the beneficial use of CCR in the construction and operation of impoundments and landfills and the wide array of other beneficial uses, including State Departments of Tran sportation use in the construction of roadbed and embankments. These types of CCR beneficial use activities are outside the scope of the ELG Proposal. Therefore, any water that may come in contact with, and/or pass through, CCR that has been beneficially u sed should not be included in the proposed definition of combustion residual leachate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 284 Duke Energy recommends that the final ELG Rule clarify that the term “combustion residual leachate” refers only to leachate from units that manage or dispose of CCR and does not encompass water that may come into contact with CCR that is beneficially used.

69 Id . at 34532

70 TDD at Section 2.2, pages 2

- 5 and 2

- 6 [EPA

- 921

- R

- 13

- 002]

71 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533

72 40 CFR Part 445

73 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r))

74 Additional information on EPA’s existing regulatory treatment of stormwater is included in UWAG’s comments (Sept. 20, 2013)

75 TCC Section 6.3, page 6

- 12

76 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533 as proposed to be codified at 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r)

77 75 Fe d. Reg. at 35153
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
Also, regarding the commenter’s assertion that “the definition for combustion residual leachate should not apply to offsite landfills where the landfi ll is not owned or operated by the utility,” the rule applies to “owners and operators.” EPA may look to whether one entity exercises control over another to determine in a specific case that one entity is an owner or operator of another facility. See e.g

. , Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA , 399 F.3d 486 (2 nd Cir. 2005)(discharges “under the control of” a CAFO can be regulated),
The provisions of this part are applicable to discharges resulting from the operation of a generating unit by an establishment p rimarily engaged in the generation of electricity for distribution and sale which results primarily from a process utilizing fossil

- type fuel (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with a thermal cycle employing the steam water system as the th ermodynamic medium.

Commenter Name: Leonard F. Hopkins Commenter Affiliation: Southern Illinois Power Cooperative (SIPC)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 285 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4309

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

3) EPA should designate that stormwater or process water that comes in contact with “de minimis” levels of coal combustion residual is not treated as CCR leachate.
Comment Response:

The final rule does not designate “de minimis” levels in the definition for combustion residual leachate. EPA notes the commenter did not provide data to support its assertion. Note that stormwater that comes into contact with combustion residuals, for example an open pi le of coal ash, may create a contaminated stormwater. This wastewater is not covered in the combustion residual leachate definition. See preamble Appendix A.

Commenter Name: Joe L. Citta Commenter Affiliation: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Definition of "Leachate" from Landfills Does Not Include Sto rmwater Runoff from Covered Landfills

Rainfall that runs off a landfill should not be classified as "combustion residual leachate."
According to EPA' s proposed definition, leachate includes "liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, drains, l eak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment."

This definition should not be read to encompass stormwater runoff , which is entirely different. EPA recognized the distinction in section 4.3.5 of the TDD, which di stinguishes between leachate and stormwater by including a diagram, Figure 4

- 10. This figure shows leachate percolating through the landfill and collecting in a leachate collection system. Separately it shows rain falling on the landfill surface and runof f from the landfill running into a runoff drainage ditch. The implication is that stormwater runoff is not "leachate."Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 286 Some confusion may be caused, however, by the words "drained from waste" in the definition and from TDD Sections 4.3.5 and 6.3, where EP A says that leachate includes stormwater runoff from a landfill:
The two sources of landfill leachate are precipitation that percolates through the waste deposited in the landfill and the liquids produced from the combustion residual placed in the landfill . In addition to leachate, stormwater that contacts the landfill wastes and flows over the landfill may be contaminated. Leachate and contaminated stormwater contain heavy metals and other contaminants through the contact with the combustion residuals.

EPA should maintain the distinction between "leachate" and stormwater runoff ' to be consistent with its existing regulatory regimes for runoff from landfills. Runoff from a landfill is stormwater, different from water that percolates through waste placed in a landfill or surface impoundment , which is "leachate." EPA must clarify in the final rule that "combustion residual leachate" does not include stormwater from landfills .
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 115 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comm ent Excerpt:
The Proposed Definition of “Leachate” Must be Modified to Exclude Runoff From Landfills and Seepage and Leaks that Do Not Constitute a Point Source Discharge
The proposed definition of the term “combustion residual leachate” is overly broad because, on its face, it could be inappropriately interpreted to include stormwater runoff from landfills and also could be interpreted to capture seepage from landfills and surface impoundments that does not constitute a point source discharge to a water of the United States.
EPA should make clear in the final rule, either through amending the definition or including explanatory text in the preamble, that such runoff and seepage are not combustion residual leachate subject to the ELGs.

Leachate Does Not I nclude Stormwater Runoff From Landfills
EPA proposes to define combustion residual leachate as follows:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 287 Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other ma terials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an imp oundment.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,533, col. 3 (proposed 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(r)).
The phrase “drained from waste” in the above definition could be interpreted as capturing rainwater that runs off of a landfill, when such runoff is in fact defined as stormwater under EPA’s existing regulations. We assume that EPA is not attempting to alter this important regulatory distinction in this rulemaking. In fact, EPA recognizes this important difference in section 4.3.5 of the 2013 TDD where it distinguishes between leac hate and stormwater by including a diagram, Figure 4

- 10:

(The same diagram was “Figure 3” in the Federalism/UMRA Supplemental Information

– Package #2 that EPA distributed. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0909, p. 10.) Figure 4

- 10 shows leachate percolating through the landfill and collecting in a leachate collection system. Separately it shows rain falling on the landfill surface and runoff from the landfill running into a runoff drainage ditch. The distinction here is that runoff from a landfill is not “leachate.”
This point is consistent with EPA’s existing regulatory regimes for runoff from landfills of various types where the runoff is regulated as stormwater. For example, the definitions of “stormwater” under 40 C.F.R. § 122.26 is defined to mean “storm water ru noff, snow meltEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 288 runoff, and surface runoff and drainage .” Id . at § 122.26(b)(13) (emphasis added). This definition captures any stormwater runoff from a landfill, including those that are capped and those that are still in operation. Further, contaminated stormwater that runs off of a landfill ( e.g. , from an active portion of a landfill) is captured by the term “[s]torm water discharge associated with industrial activity” including, among other things, activities involving “[l]andfills . . . that receive or have received any industrial waste” and “[s]team electric power generating facilities, including coal handing sites.” Id . at § 122.26(b)(14)(v) & (vii)).
The point is that runoff from a landfill is stormwater, which differs from water that percolates through waste placed in a landfill or surface impoundment, which is leachate. EPA should clarify in the final rule that “combustion residual leachate” does not include stormwater runoff from landfills. 41
In addition to the above, stormwater runoff from a landfill is not a “discharge” (and hence does not need a permit) if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a discharge only if it goes through some kind of “ conveyance” (which is understood to mean a pipe or ditch). So if the stormwater is not channelized, it cannot be a discharge requiring an NPDES permit. See Hudson Riverkeeper Fund v. Harbor at Hastings Assocs. , 917 F. Supp. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (dismis sing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point source because it eventually flowed into a nearby river). As the Ninth Circuit noted, “[s]tormwater that is not collected or channeled and then discharged, but rather runs off and d issipates in a natural and unimpeded manner, is not a discharge from a point source as defined by § 502(14).” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brown , 617 F.3d 1063, 1170 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Courts repeatedly have declined to classify pollution coming from “runoff caused primarily by rainfall around activities that employ or create pollutants” as a “point source.” Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck , 172 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 1998).
Similarly, courts define pollution as a “non

- point source” when it is caused by diffuse sources such as runoff. “Broad though [the] definition [of point source] may be, we are of [the] opinion that it does not include unchannelled and uncollected surface w aters.” Appalachian Power Co. v. Train , 545 F.2d 1351, 1373 (4th Cir. 1976); see also Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 841 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 1085 (2004) (“Diffuse runoff, such as rainwater that is not channeled through a point source, is considered nonpoint source pollution and is not subject to federal regulation.”). 42

“Seepage” that Is Not Channeled or Discharged to a Surface Water Cannot Be Regulated Leachate Under the ELG Rule
Another problem with the proposed defi nition of “leachate” is that the language in the proposed text referencing “seepage, leak or leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment” implies that all such seepage and leakage would qualify as “combustion residual lea chate.” Here too, the plain language of the proposed regulatory text sweeps too broadly. Such seepage or leakage can be regulated as combustion residual leachate subject to this rulemaking only if the water is a “point source.” And that means only if it is channeled and discharged to a “water of the United States.”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 289 As with stormwater, discussed above, EPA is authorized to regulate “discharges” from a “point source.” A point source is a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance (33 U.S.C.§ 1362(14)), wh ich generally means a channel or conduit (though it also includes wells, containers, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operations, and vessels). See Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co. , 620 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir. 1980) (a “point source” is the “conve yance” that constitutes “the means by which pollutants are ultimately deposited into a navigable body of water) (emphasis added); see also Plaza Health Lab., Inc. , 3 F.3d at 646 (point sources are “physical structures and instrumentalities that systematica lly act as a means of conveying pollutants from an industrial source to navigable waterways,” such as a pipe); Hudson Riverkeeper Fund , 917 F. Supp. at 257 (dismissing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point source because it eventually flowed into a nearby river). See Comments of the Utility Water Act Group on Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines, Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0052 (April 8, 2010) at 58.
In short, “seeps” and “leakage” from lan dfills and surface impoundments cannot be regulated as combustion residual leachate under this rulemaking unless the water is collected or channelized and then discharged via a point source to surface water that constitutes a water of the United States. Wh ile seepage that is not collected or channeled would be subject to the groundwater monitoring and any applicable corrective action requirements under EPA’s proposed CCR rulemaking, the ELG regulations apply only when the seepage is channeled and released via a point source to a surface water that constitutes a water of the United States.

41 Despite the above, we note that text in the 2013 TDD Section 6.3 states that “[l]eachate, which includes contaminated storm water, that has come into contact with com bustion residual solids deposited in an impoundment or a landfill . . . .” To the extent this statement is inconsistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure distinguishing between stormwater and leachate, it must be revised to be consistent with EPA’s existing regulatory structure.

42 See also Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 550 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining Congress chose not to regulate “generalized runoff”); Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA , 915 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir. 19 90) (explaining that runoff of pesticides from farmland is not a “point source”); Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club , 575 F.3d 199, 220 (2d Cir. 2009) (“‘Nonpoint source pollution is, generally, runoff: salt from roads, agricultural chemicals from farmlands, oil from parking lots, and other substances washed by rain, in diffuse patterns, over the land and into navigable waters.’”) (quoting United States v. Plaza Health Lab. , 3 F.3d, 643, 652 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 290 Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 43 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

b. Clarification on the definitions of leachate, contact storm water runoff and noncontact storm water runoff is needed.
EPA defines “leachate” as “the liquid that drains or leaches fr om a landfill or surface impoundment.” The agency notes two sources of leachate

– precipitation that percolates through the wastes disposed in a landfill or impoundment and the storm water that enters the impoundment or contacts and flows over the landfill (78 FR at 34450). According to EPA, “leachate and contaminated storm water contain heavy metals and other contaminants through contact with the combustion residuals” (Id.). The agency also notes that leachate and storm water may be treated in separate imp oundments or combined together.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Jacob G. Smeltz Commenter Affiliation: Electric Power Generation Association (EPGA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4450

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should clarify in the final rule (1) the term “combustion residual leachate” does not encompas s water that may come into contact with CCR that is beneficially used, and (2) that combustion residual leachate generated from additional landfill capacity developed for the sole purpose of managing CCR displaced from impoundments as a result of the final ELG requirements is not leachate from a “new source” and therefore is not subject to the new source pretreatment standards for combustion residual leachate.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 291 See respon se to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149 in Comment Code 6.g.vii regarding new sources with respect to combustion residual leachate.

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We also support UWAGs definition of “leachate” that excludes stormwater runoff from covered l andfills and nonpoint source seepage.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. McNelly Commenter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The storm water runoff that comes in contact with CCR’s should not be considered leachate and

as such does not require treatment. and/or allowed to be comingled.
If the effluent limitation guidelines of combustion residual leachate are applicable to storm water runoff that has come in contact with CCR’s, has EPA considere d the need to build storm water holding impoundments of adequate size (to be defined) to serve as flow equalization impoundment in order to control the hydraulic loading on the treatment processes being used to treat the storm water runoff considered leach ate?
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17. The rule does not prohibit co

- mingling but requires each wastestream to meet the applicable technology

- basedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 292 effluent limitations and standards in this rule. Permi tting authorities may use the “building block” approach or combined wastestream formula to do this. Stormwater is not regulated in this rule, but is regulated as “stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity” 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).

Commenter N ame: Jeffrey A. McNelly Commenter Affiliation: Anthracite Region Independent Power Producers Association (ARIPPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4453

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review I ncorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

There needs to be clarification relative to the term “Coal Combustion Residual Leachate” such that it does not include storm water runoff.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Nysa Hogue Commenter Affiliation: Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review I ncorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Combustion Residual Leachate (CRL) BAT:

o The proposed rule is unclear if "contaminated stormwater" is subject to the proposed combustion residual leachate BPJ and BAT limits. Please clarify if the following a re subject to the aforementioned limits:

o stormwater runoff which contacts combustion residuals and then runs off a landfill;

o surface impoundment seepage which is contained and does not discharge to regulated waters;

o general plant stormwater discharged and treated by a surface impoundment (SI); andEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 293

o closed surface impoundments (with and without leachate collection systems).
Based on the proposed definition of CRL included in Appendix A of the rule, stormwater does not appear to be regulated under the aforeme ntioned limits.
IPL's consultant, CH2M HILL, contacted EPA regarding this question. On July 2, 2012, Mr. Ron Jordan verbally communicated to CH2M HILL that the CRL requirements do not apply to stormwater runoff, and that the runoff may be addressed as a low

- volume wastew ater. IPL appreciates this clarification, and asks that the ELG language be made consistent with this clarification that stormwater runoff is not to be regulated with CRL leachate and that EPA also clarify that stormwarter runoff even if exposed to outdo or CCR storage piles is not considered a LVW but should be regulated under facilities' NPDES stormwater permit limits.
Comment Response:

Stormwater runoff is not included in the definition of combustion residual leachate; therefore, such discharges are n ot subject to the final limitations and standards for combustion residual leachate. Stormwater is not regulated in this rule, but is regulated as “stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity” 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). General plant stormwater that is collected and treated in an impoundment and then discharged from the impoundment is not subject to the combustion residual leachate limitations and standards.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
Lastly, the final ELGs do not differentiate requirements based on the “type” of surface impoundment. In the event that a closed surface impoundment discharges wastewater meeting the definition of combustion residual leachate, it is subject to the final requirements.

Commenter Name: Nysa Hogue Commenter Affiliation: Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Based on the proposed CRL definition, it appears that stormwater runoff co

- mingled with exposed CCR material (such as outdoor storage piles and incidental vehicular material tracking) is not subject to the proposed CRL limits. In additi on, it would appear that these stormwater discharges would not be regulated under 40 CFR 423 but under the stormwater non

- numeric effluent limitations established under our facilities NPDES permits. Please clarify.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 294 Stormwater runoff co

- mingled with exposed CCR materials such as outdoor storage piles and incidental vehicular material tracking, is not subject to the combustion residual leachate limitations and standards. The stormwater is be regulated as “stormwater discharge associated

w ith industrial activity” 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14).
Regarding stormwater discharges, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Nysa Hogue Commenter Affiliation: Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should clarify that the term "combustion residual leachate" does not include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and has not been disposed of or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment. In the case of IPL, we are approved to use CCR for intermediate landfill cover and are als o approved to use CCR for a base layer associated with future expansion of our existing on

- site landfill. In addition, IPL uses CCR as road base for service roads to landfills and for other roads as well. These uses of CCR are not used to "contain" residu als and therefore do not fall within the proposed definition. Please clarify.
Comment Response:

The final rule defines combustion residual leachate as follows: “The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing combustion residuals. Leachate is composed of liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated through waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that passes through the surface impoundment’s containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms). Combustion residual leachate includes seepage and/or leakage from a combustion residual landfill or impoundment unit. Combustion residual leachate includes wastewater from landfills and surface impoundmen ts located on non

- adjoining property when under the operational control of the permitted facility.”
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17. There, EPA explains that EPA generally agrees with the comments that the combustion resi dual leachate definition does not “include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and which has not been disposed or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment.” However, beneficial uses such as road base differ emplacement of CCREffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 295 in a landfill, even if they also are acting as intermediate landfill cover. See the definition of combustion residual leachate.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA cannot and should not regulate groundwater through its proposed regulation of Combustion Residual L eachate.
EPA is explicit that the definition of combustion residual leachate includes liquids “that pass through the containment structure”. If leachate has passed through the containment structure, which is assumed to have passed through the containment s tructure’s liner, then the leachate will infiltrate to groundwater. While this could be an eventual pathway to waters of the U.S. it is not a point source discharge to surface waters and not subject to NPDES regulation. This language in the combustion resi dual leachate definition introduces uncertainty about what EPA is intending to regulate and to what liquids the ELG applies to both now and in the future.
Comment Response:
The definition of point source (and indirect discharger/industrial user) and who needs an NPDES permit is a basic issue that is outside the scope of this rule. This rule specifies the technology

based limits and standards and pretreatment standards that apply when those underlying requirements are triggered. Determining who is a point source is generally a fact

- specific determination made by the permitting authority. The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point source.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 296 EPA cannot regulate “Combustion Residual Leachate” unless the leachate from landfills and impoundments is collected and directed to a point source discharge to waters of the U.S. The definitions and discussion in the final rule shoul d make this clear.

Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 34 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The definitions of Combustion Residual Leachate should be consistent in the ELG Rule and CCR Rule.
EPA is charged with ensuring that the steam ele ctric ELG proposal is coordinated and consistent with other existing and proposed regulation. In order to properly coordinate this rulemaking with the coal combustion residual (CCR) rulemaking, EPA should change the definition of combustion residual leacha te for this rulemaking to be “liquid that has percolated through materials placed in a landfill or has drained from a surface impoundment containing waste materials, that is collected and actively directed to discharge into waters of the U.S.” The rule sho uld be clear that impacts to ground water, even leaks and seeps, are not intended to be regulated by the rule.
Comment Response:
EPA’s CCR Rule does not include a definition for combustion residual leachate. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A 1, Excerpt Number 17 for a discussion regarding the use of the terms seeps and leaks in the final rule definition for combustion residual leachate. Also, see responses to Comment Code 27.e regarding the role of the ELGs and the role of the CCR rule.

Comm enter Name: John C. Pozzo Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Energy Resources Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4459

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 297 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comm ent Excerpt:
The 2013 Technical Development Document and the Preamble to these rules contain discussions of leachate which differ, and may lead to confusion by State regulators. We ask that this definition be clarified by two additions. First, it should plainly state that storm water which falls upon or runs off a covered or capped ash impoundment or landfill, such that it does not contact or flow through ash, should not be classified or regulated as leachate. Second, it should clarify that leachate assoc iated with ash impoundments or landfills are not subject to these regulations, unless it is discharged via a point source conveyance, to waters of the US.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17. The definitio ns in the final TDD and preamble are consistent.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No Exter nal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
CCR Leachate: The proposed definition of this waste stream should be revised to clarify that storm water runoff is not included nor is any liquid that is not discharged via a poin t source.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 32 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 298 EPA proposes to define combustion residual leachate as:

Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure (e.g. bottom, dikes, berms) or a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms se epage, drains, leaks and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment. 6

This definition may be interpreted to include rainwater that runs off of a landfill, which is defined as storm water under existing EPA regulations. F urther, if this storm water is not collected to form a point source discharge, it would not require an NPDES permit.

It is further recommended that the definition for “combustion residual leachate” be clarified so as to exclude storm water runoff and seepa ges that do not constitute a point source discharge consistent with the transcript of EPA statements during the August 20, 2013 Webcast.

6 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

C ommenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

 "Leachate" should not include runoff from landfills or seepage and leaks that are not point source discharges to a water of the United States. The proposed definition of "combustion residual leachate" is too broad because, on its face, it could be inappropriately interpreted to include stormwater runoff from landfills. It also could be interpreted to capture seepage from landfills and surface impoundments that does not constitute a "point source" discharge to a water of the United Stat es. USEPA should make clear in the final rule, either by amending the definition or by explaining in the preamble, that such runoff and seepage are not "combustion residual leachate" subject to the ELGs;Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 299  Leachate should not include stormwater runoff from landfills. USEPA includes the phrase "drained from waste" in the definition of combustion residual leachate which could be read to include rainwater that runs off a landfill, even though such runoff is defined as stormwater under the agency's regulations. USEPA should be careful not to alter this important regulatory distinction in this rulemaking. Moreover, stormwater runoff from a landfill is not a "discharge" (and hence does not need an NPDES permit) if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a dischar ge only if it goes through some kind of "conveyance" (which is understood to mean a pipe or ditch);
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

 Combustion residual leachate should not inc lude water that may contact CCR that is beneficially used;

 Combustion residual leachate should not interfere with beneficial use activities. Either in the definition of "combustion residual leachate" or in the preamble to the final rule, USEPA should be ca reful to limit the interpretation of the term so as not to have the effluent standards apply to unintended activities. For example, the limits on "leachate" should not apply to pond dewatering, which might include collecting and pumping out water from exis ting coal combustion residuals in old impoundments, before capping the site;
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 148 regarding dewatering impo undments.

Commenter Name: James S. Alves Commenter Affiliation: Florida Electric Power Coordinating GroupEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 3 00 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4474

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Clarification re ELGs Applicability
The definition of “combustion residual leachate” as set forth in the proposed rule revisions (78 Fed. Reg. 34533) is overbroad in that as drafted it encompasses liquids “ that pass through the containment structure...of a surface impoundment” and specifically includes “seepage” and “leakage.” This language, standing alone, could potentially be construed as indicating that non

point source discharges of leachate through diffus e groundwater flow are regulated under the proposed rule revisions.
The FCG acknowledges that EPA’s preamble statement (78 Fed. Reg. 34450, 34454) tends to indicate that the phrase “combustion residual leachate” includes only those leachates that are cap tured in “collection systems” and thereafter released to surface waters via a point source discharge. Additionally, this understanding appears to be confirmed by EPA’s statements to the effect that the effluent limitation guidelines and standards apply onl y to direct and indirect (via POTWs) point source discharges to surface waters. (78 Fed. Reg. 34437).
Nonetheless, the proposed definition of combustion residual leachate as currently drafted is susceptible to being misinterpreted as applicable to non

- poin t source seepage or leakage releases. Accordingly, the FCG requests that the “point source” clarifications which appear in the preamble statement be reflected in the final rule revision language.
Additionally, the FCG requests that EPA confirm that “combus tion residual leachate” does not apply to stormwater from landfills or water that comes into contact with CCRs that have been beneficially used.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Br uce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 301 “ Combustion Residu al Leachate” should exclude water that contacts beneficially used coal combustion residuals. We recommend that EPA confirm and clarify in the final ELG rule that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come in contact with coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) that is or has been beneficially used. CCR that is beneficially used serves a functional purpose and often replaces other mined or virgin materials in the construction industry. In an effort to avoid the potential for ad ditional stigma associated with the beneficial use of coal combustion products, EPA should specifically state that “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that may come into incidental contact with CCR when used in beneficial use applications

. Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 63 External Rev iew Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
“Combustion Residual Leachate” Should Not Include Water that may Contact CCR that is Beneficially Used
We Energies recommends that EPA confirm and clarify in the final ELG rule that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come in contact with CCR that is or has been beneficially used. The proposed ELG rule indicates that combustion residual leachate is “leachate from landfills or s urface impoundments containing combustion residuals.” Id. at 34,532 col. 2. This includes “liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials emplaced in a landfill. ” Id.
Landfills that generate leachate subject to regulation in the ELG rule are defined as follows:
A disposal facility or part of a facility where solid waste, sludges, or other process residuals are placed in or on any natural or manmade formation in t he earth for disposal and which is not a storage pile, a land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, an underground injection well, a salt dome or salt bed formation, an underground mine, a cave, or a corrective action management unit. Id. at 34,532 col. 3.
This definition of a CCR “landfill” differs than the definition of a “CCR landfill” in the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals Rule. See 75 Fed. Reg. 35,128, 35,130 col. 1 (June 21, 2010). TheEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 302 proposed CCR Rule includes language that may define CC Rs in sand and gravel pits, quarries, and “other large fill operations” as landfills. Id. at 35,133 col. 3. “Large fill operations” are not clearly defined in the proposed CCR Rule, and there is still some uncertainty as to what will be defined as a landf

ill versus a beneficial use in the future.
CCR that is beneficially used serves a functional purpose and often replaces other mined or virgin materials in the construction industry. Wisconsin regulates the beneficial use of industrial byproducts in NR 538 , Wisconsin Administrative Code. NR 538 includes provisions for characterizing coal combustion products into five categories based on a combination of laboratory testing on total elemental analysis and ASTM water leach test criteria. This process has pro ven to work well in matching materials to appropriate use applications from an environmental perspective. NR 538.04 establishes location performance standards that prohibit impacts to wetlands, endangered or threatened species, surface water, groundwater, and other appropriate criteria. With respect to “large scale fill operations,” NR 538.18 establishes public participation requirements for projects involving 30,000 cubic yards of material (some exemptions apply). Similarly in NR 538.22, property owner notification is required for large

sized beneficial use projects utilizing 10,000 cubic yards of industrial byproducts.
We Energies believes that EPA does not intend to regulate incidental contact water from CCRs used in beneficial use applications, incl uding CCRs used in “large fill operations,” in the ELG rule. In an effort to avoid the potential for additional stigma associated with the beneficial use of coal combustion products, EPA should specifically state that “combustion residual leachate” does n ot include water that may come into incidental contact with CCR when used in beneficial use applications.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

For a discussion of the final CCR rule revised definition for CCR landfill, see docket number EPA

– HQ

– RCRA

– 2009

– 0640.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 85 External Review Flag: No External Review Extern al Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Combustion residual leachate should exclude water that contacts beneficially used coal combustion residuals to avoid the potential for additional stigma associated with the beneficial use of coal combustion residuals.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 303 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Vicki Card Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Springs Utilities Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4483

- A1 Comment E xcerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

COMBUSTION RESIDUAL LEACHATE DEFINITION
The EPA’s Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Sta ndards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (Environmental Assessment / EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 003), states that “According to the documented case studies, lack of a liner [emphasis added] in surface impoundments and landfills is a signific ant factor in determining the extent of combustion wastewater impacts to ground water.”
The EPA's proposed definition of combustion residual leachate could unreasonably result in every concrete tank, impoundment, and landfill being subject to the ELG limit s for discharges to groundwater

- even those with appropriately designed liner and leachate collection systems, as no liner is completely impervious. Colorado Springs Utilities believes that the EPA must define an allowable seepage rate below which the ELG limits do not apply as the risk to underlying groundwater is negligible.
The following language is suggested:

(r) The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossi l or fossil

- derived fuel. Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials placed in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure ( e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment at a seepage rate exceeding 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage at rates in excess of 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment. Seepage, leak, and leakage at design rates less than 1 x 10

- 6 cm/sec would be considered "Allowable Seepage", and shall not be considered a point source or discharge to Waters of the United States, by virtue of the insignificant nature.

Commen t Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 304 Also see responses in Comment Code 27.e regarding the role of the ELGs and the role of the CCR rule. EPA disagrees with the commenter that an “allowable seepage rate” should be specified in the definition for combustion residual leachate because the rate at which the leachate moves through the liner does not preclude that fact that it is still leachate.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Coun cil of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Stormwater hitting the top of a landfill and running off appears to be considered leachate. It is not appropriate to consider stormwater flow as leachate because that runoff is often different from leachate and has lower metals loading than leachate.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Lisa M. Jaeger Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4486

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 16 External Review F lag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Nor has EPA laid the necessary foundation for the CCR management provisions as they relate to stormwater. There appears to be a disconnect between the Preamble and t he Technical Development Document for the ELGs dealing with CCR leachate. Unlike other EPA ELGs, the proposed effluent limit on CCR leachate does not clarify whether the leachate is only from the underdrain system or includes both the underdrain discharge and runoff. In prior rules for which stormwater was a concern, EPA has established guidelines for the type of precipitation event for which the stormwater management system should be designed. In this proposed rule, EPA has not identified the precipitati on event that should be addressed in stormwater management systems. The lack of specificity on this point makes designing controls very difficult.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 305 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment E xcerpt:

Combustion residual leachate should continue to be classified as low

- volume waste.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 140 in Comment Code 18.a.
Also, see preamble for why the final rule does not treat Combustion residual leachate as a low

volume waste.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 61 External Review Flag: No E xternal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA Should Make Clear That the Definition of “Leachate” Does Not Include Stormwater Runoff from Covered Landfills.
EPA should clarify that rainfall that runs off a covered landfill should not be classified as “combustion residual leachate.” Currently, EPA’s record does not make clear whether “leachate” includes stormwater runoff. For example, section 4.3.5 of the TDD includes a Figure 4

- 10 showing leachate percolating throu gh the landfill and collecting in a leachate collection system, and separately, showing rain falling on the landfill surface and runoff from the landfill running into a runoff drainage ditch. The implication is that runoff is not “leachate.” However, in T DD sections 4.3.5 and 6.3 EPA says that leachate includes stormwater runoff from a landfill, e.g.:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 306 “The two sources of landfill leachate are precipitation that percolates through the waste deposited in the landfill and the liquids produced from the combust ion residual placed in the landfill. In addition to leachate, stormwater that contacts the landfill wastes and flows over the landfill may be contaminated. Leachate and contaminated stormwater contain heavy metals and other contaminants through the contac t with the combustion residuals.”

TDD § 4.3.5.
EPA appears to be distinguishing between stormwater that runs off the top of a covered landfill (without contacting coal combustion residual) and “contaminated” stormwater that percolates down through the co al combustion residual in the landfill. It would help for EPA to clarify that “combustion residual leachate” does not include stormwater runoff from landfills that have been capped.
Moreover, stormwater is not a “discharge” (and hence does not need a perm it) if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a discharge only if it goes through some kind of “conveyance” (which is understood to mean a pipe or ditch). So if the stormwater is not channelized, it cannot be a discharge requiring an NPDES permit. See Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co., 620 F.2d 41, 45

- 46 (5th Cir. 1980) (a “point source” is the “conveyance” which constitutes “the means by which the pollutants are ultimately deposited into a navigable body of water) (emphasis added); see also United Stat es v. Plaza Health Labs, Inc., 3 F.3d 643, 646 (2nd Cir. 1993) (point sources are “physical structures and instrumentalities that systematically act as a means of conveying pollutants from an industrial source to navigable waterways, such as a pipe); Hudso n Riverkeeper Fund v. Harbor at Hastings Associates, 917 F. Supp. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (dismissing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point source because it eventually flowed into a nearby river).

As the district court in the latter case noted, “[s]tormwater that is not collected or channeled and then discharged, but rather runs off and dissipates in a natural and unimpeded manner, is not a discharge from a point source as defined by Section 502(14)” (Order at 9) (citing No rthwest Env’l Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). Courts have repeatedly declined to classify pollution coming from “runoff caused primarily by rainfall around activities that employ or create pollutants” a s a “point source.” Nat. Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck, 172 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 1998).
Similarly, courts define pollution as “non

- point source” when it is caused by diffuse sources such as runoff. “Broad though [the] definition [of point source] may be, w e are of [the] opinion that it does not include unchanneled and uncollected surface waters.” Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F.2d 1351, 1373 (4th Cir. 1976). See Envt’l Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 842 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003) (“diffuse runoff, such as rainwater that is not channeled through a point source is considered nonpoint source pollution and is not subject to federal regulation.”). 15

15 See also Or. Natural Desert Ass’n v. United States Forest Serv., 550 F.3d 778, 785 (9 th Cir. 2008) (expla ining Congress chose not to regulate “generalized runoff”); Natural Resources Def.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 307 Council v. EPA , 915 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9 th Cir. 1990) (explaining runoff of pesticides from farmland not a “point source”); Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club , 575 F.3d 199, 220 (2 n d Cir. 2009) (“‘Nonpoint source pollution is generally runoff: salt from roads, agricultural chemicals from farmlands, oil from parking lots, and other substances washed by rain, in diffuse patterns, over the land and into navigable waters.’”) (quoting Pla za Health Labs , 3 F.3d at 652).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
EPA agrees that discharges of stormwater from capped landfills is not combustion residual leachate as defined by the final rule. The def inition of point source and what is stormwater from a point source is outside the scope of this rule. See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point

source.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 62 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Resp onse: No
Comment Excerpt:
“Seepage” that is Not Channeled or Discharged to a Surface Water Cannot Be Regulated “Leachate”
Another definitional problem with “leachate” is that some of the language in the proposal suggests that “seepage” and “drainage” qualify as “combustion residual leachate.” This can be so only if the water is collected in a “point source.” And that means only if it is channeled and discharged to a “water of the United States.”

As with stormwater, discussed above, EPA is authorized to regulate “discharges” only from a “point source.” A point source is a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance (33 USC § 1362(14)), which generally means a channel or conduit (though it also includes wells, containers, rolling stock, concentrated ani mal feeding operations, and vessels). See Comments of the Utility Water Act Group on Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines, Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819 (April 8, 2010) at 58.
“Seeps,” unless collected or channelized, are no t “point sources,” especially seepage through the berm or dam at an ash pond that does not reach surface waters. So EPA’s proposed rule can apply only when the seepage is channeled and released to a surface water, including when leachate becomes subject t o the stormwater permitting regulations.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 308 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17. The definition of point source and what is stormwater from a point source is outside the scope of this rule. See 40 CFR 122.26 (b)(14). The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point source.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
“Combustion Residual Leachate” Should Not Include Water that May Contact CCR that is Benefi cially Used
Furthermore, EPA should clarify that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and has not been disposed of or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surfa ce impoundment.
It is important to encourage the beneficial use of CCR. For example landfills and impoundments are sometimes constructed using structural fill and embankments using CCR. Operators of a landfill may use CCR for daily cover and as part of the final cover material when the landfill is closed. CCR can also be used as road base for service roads to landfills and for other roads as well.

These uses of CCR are not used to “contain” residuals and therefore do not fall within the proposed definition

. But EPA should clarify that this is so. The final ELG rule should say clearly that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that may come into incidental contact with CCR used in beneficial use applications.
Comment Response:

Se e response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Dean Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Dynegy Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4491

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 309 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA must revise the proposed definition of “combustion residual leachate” to clarify that “seepage ... leak, and leakage” are covered by the definition only when such seepage, leak or leakage is collected or channeled and discharged via a point source to a surface water of the United States. A contrary interpretation would unlawfully exceed EPA’s statutory authority for ELGs, which is limited to “discharges” to a “point source,” and be unworka ble and unjustified. For example, short of requiring an existing impoundment to retrofit with a seepage or leak collection system, it would not be possible to determine compliance of seepage or leaks. However, requiring an existing impoundment to retrofit with a seepage or leak collection system would be extremely costly (costs which apparently were not analyzed as part of any of EPA’s proposed regulatory options) and not cost effective.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, E xcerpt Number 62.

Commenter Name: Cathy S. Woollums Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4495

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review In corporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should also define “combustion residual leachate” to include only leachate generated from landfills or surface impoundments and collected through a leachate collection system designed as such. Regulating leachate from unlined surface impoundments and landfills is inappropriate and beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA's pending CCR rule is a more suitable vehicle for regulation of leachate from unlined surface impoundments or landfills. 12 The groundwater monitoring system required under the proposed CCR rule would detect any impacts from unlined surface impoundments or landfills and require implementation of corrective action to address those impacts. 13 Furthermore, the definition of leachate s hould not apply to stormwater runoff, or stormwater in contact with beneficially reused CCR.

12 See 75 Fed. Reg. at 35204

- 35207.

13 Id.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 310 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 62.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 34 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA should not inclu de stormwater runoff from the tops of covered landfills within the definition of leachate. See TDD at 4

- 35.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 38 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA also needs to clarify the potential implicat ions of the revised definition of combustion residuals leachate and potential issues with commingling leachate with other low volume wastes or potentially contaminated storm water runoff in an impoundment prior to treatment and compliance with BPT effluent limits and/or new source numeric standards.
Comment Response:
The final rule does not contain a requirement that combustion residual leachate may not be commingled with other wastestreams nor does it contain a requirement to monitor for compliance prior to commingling with other wastestreams. See preamble.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 311 Commenter Name: Steve Jackson Commenter Affiliation: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4516

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: N o External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The definition of "combustion residual leachate" is overly broad.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name : Steve Jackson Commenter Affiliation: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4516

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The definition of "combustion residual leachate" is overly broad

. The proposed definition of "combustion residual leachate" is "leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuels." This definition is overly broad in that it does not include reference to the act or method of collection of leachate nor the design of structures that enable the operator to collect leachate, i.e., liner and leachate collection system. With out such a structure leachate cannot be readily collected and managed, and, if it can't be collected it can't be treated. EPA acknowledges at page 4

- 35 of the TDD, while discussing landfill and impoundment leachate and runof, that "Unlined impoundments and landfills do not collect leachate migrating away from the impoundment/landfill ...". However, the proposed definition would subject any leachate from a fossil fuel combustion residual landfill or surface impoundment to the ELG rule. Alliant Energy

recomme nds that EPA revise this definition to clarify that combustion residual leachate is "collected from landfills or surface impoundments containing residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuels."
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- H Q

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 312 Commenter Name: Chuck D. Barlow Commenter Affiliation: Entergy Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4519

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External R eview Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

III. The definition of "leachate" needs to exclude storm water runoff from covered landfills, and the leachate requirements need to be clarified.

The definition of "leachate" needs to be clarified to exclude storm water runoff from covered landfills (Technical Development Document ["TDD"] Figure 4

- 10 of Section 4.3.5). The wording in different parts of the proposed rule leaves this unclear (TDD Section 4.3.5 and Section 6.3). At one point in the rule, the agency specifically says storm water runoff is not considered leachate. Then, the definition of "leachate" includes water that percolates through or runs off of a landfill due to rainfall (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0909, p. 10).
Comment Response:
See respo nse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2, Excerpt Number 5 regarding closed/retired landfills/impoundments.

Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authorit y (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
TVA recommends that EPA clarify the current definition for leachate in §423.11(r) such that it pertains only to water that has come into contact with CCRs and that has subsequently passed through a dike or a berm (and not the surface water outfall). TVA suggests the following revision:
“Leachate includes liquid, i ncluding any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials placed in a landfill, andEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 313 [emphasis added] that pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a

s urface impoundment. Leachate does not include stormwater runoff that discharges via a surface outfall.”
Without that clarification, surface runoff discharging through the surface water outfall (with likely different characteristics) could be inappropriatel y included in the definition of leachate. Finally, TVA requests that the definition of leachate be modified to exclude waters emanating from CCRs in beneficial use situations.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Num ber 17.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We support EPA's proposal to maintain existing TSS and oil and grease limitations for ash pond and landfill leachate. While we support the existing numerical limitations for oil and grease and TSS, we do not support the recl assification of leachate from a low volume waste to a separate, standalone wastestream. This change in classification is without a clear and well supported rationale. We also do not support what we believe to be an overly broad definition of leachate. Sp ecifically, EPA's various definitions of leachate within the proposal appear to expand the definition of leachate to include stormwater runoff and seeps. We urge EPA to clarify that stormwater runoff and seeps are not covered by the definition of leachate. We also request that EPA clarify that a new cell at an existing landfill is not a "new source" to which the new source performance standards apply. Each of these issues is covered in detail in Section II.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- O W

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.
See preamble and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 47 in Comment Code 18.a regarding the rationale for removing combustion residual leachate from the definition of low volume waste sources.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149 in Comment Code 6.g.vii regarding new sources for combustion residual leachate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 314 Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 48 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We also do not support what we believe to be an overly broad definition of leachate. Within the proposal, we find that EPA employs two distinct definitions of combustion residual leachate.
Preamble definition at 78 Fed. Reg. 34450, col. 2:
"leachate is the liquid that drains or leaches from a landfill or surface impoundment. Most landfills have a system to collect the leachate and some impoundments have leachate collection systems. The two sources of leachate are precipitation that percolates through the waste deposited in the landfill/impoundment and the liquids produced from the combusti on residuals placed in the landfilll impoundment. In addition to leachate, stormwater that enters the impoundment or contacts and flows over the landfill would be contaminated with combustion residual pollutants. Leachate and contaminated stormwater contai n heavy metals and other contaminants through the contact with the combustion residuals. "
Proposed rule definition at 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533, col. 3:

"(r) The term combustion residual leachate means leachate from landfills or surface impoundments containi ng residuals from the combustion of fossil or fossil

- derived fuel. Leachate includes liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from waste or other materials placed in a landfill, or th at pass through the containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment."

In the first definition ab ove, it appears that EPA believes leachate includes stormwater. In the second, and arguably the controlling definition from the proposed rule EPA makes no mention of stormwater in relation to leachate. We request that EPA clarify that the definition of lea chate does not include stormwater runoff. This is because stormwater that runs off the top of covered landfill does not come into contact with combustion residuals. Any stormwater that infiltrates a covered landfill and comes into contact with the ash in t he landfill or that seeps from an impoundment does not result in a point source discharge if the seepage is not collected orEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 315 channelized. EPA authority to regulate leachate extended to point source discharges and, therefore, is outside the purview of the E PA proposal.
In the event that stormwater comes into contact with an exposed area of CCR, we agree that it is possible for the stormwater to carry with it suspended solids and this water could be a potential source of TSS. However, it is unlikely that the re will be enough retention time or volume of CCRs to create a metals contamination issue from this type of intermittent sheet flow across an exposed area. Therefore, we strongly urge the EPA to keep the two waste streams of stormwater and leachate separa te in the final rule.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In sections IV and V of the comments, USWAG requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that (1) the term “c ombustion residual leachate” does not encompass (i) water that may come into contact with CCR that is beneficially used, (ii) stormwater runoff from landfills, and (iii) stormwater runoff and seapage and leaks from landfills and surface impoundments that a re not collected and discharged through a point source,
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 316 It also is important for EPA to clarify in the final ELG rule that (1) the term “combustion residual leachate” (i) only encompasses wastewaters that percolate through CCR disposal units and where such wastewaters are collected and discharged via a point source to a water of the United States, and (ii) does not apply to wa ter that may come into contact with CCR that is beneficially used;
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17. The definition of point source and what is stormwater from a point source is outside the scope of thi s rule. See 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The definition of what is the wastestream combustion residual leachate is not tied to the definition of what is a point source.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 141 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Also, the definition of leachate should not be expanded to include seeps f rom impoundments. The “working knowledge” definition of leachate has always been leachate from landfills.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Julia M. Blankenship Commenter Affiliation : American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4670

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
AMP requests clarification from EPA as to the applicability of the Proposed ELG Rule to stormwater that enters a capped and closed landfill, such as the one owned by AMP. We doubtEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 317 EPA intended such a broad interpretation. AMP further requests guidance as t o what would be considered “legacy” wastewater from a closed landfill.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2, Excerpt Number 2 in Comment Code 16.b regarding stormwater entering a capped and closed landfill.

Commenter Name: Raymond L. Evans Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4677

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Also, to avoid any confusion in the final ELG Rule it is important that EPA clarify that the term "combustion residual leachate" does not include any water that may come into incidental contact with CCR when used in beneficial use applications.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Dennis Wene Commenter Affiliation: Alcoa Inc.'s Warrick Operations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4765

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Alcoa disagrees with the inclusion of seeps and weeps from ashpond systems into the definition of combustion residual leachate. The Proposed Rule states that they a re not low

- volume, but then applies a low

- volume limit. Alcoa does not see the need for this segregation. Seeps, weeps etc, should be included in low

- volume wastewater streams and managed accordingly.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 318 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 140 in Comment Code 18.a and the preamble for the final rule.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 78 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Definition of “Leachate” from Landfills Should Not Include Stormwater Runoff from Covered Landfills

Rainfall that runs off a landfil l should not be classified as “combustion residual leachate.” According to EPA’s proposed definition, leachate includes “liquid, including any suspended or dissolved constituents in the liquid that has percolated through or drained from waste or other mate rials emplaced in a landfill, or that pass through the containment structure ( e.g. , bottom, dikes, berms) of a surface impoundment. Leachate also includes the terms seepage, drains, leak, and leakage, which are generally used in reference to leachate from an impoundment.”
This definition should not be read to encompass stormwater runoff, which is entirely different. EPA recognized the distinction in section 4.3.5 of the TDD, which distinguishes between leachate and stormwater by including a diagram, Figure 4

- 10. The same diagram was “Figure 3” in the Federalism/UMRA Supplemental Information

– Package #2 (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 0909, p. 10.) that EPA distributed at a meeting on October 11, 2011. This meeting was arranged by EPA’s Congressional and External Affai rs Office who invited a number of city officials were invited to look at the ELG issues in advance of the rulemaking. Its purpose was to look at unfunded mandates resulting from the rulemaking. Six APPA member utilities attended as parties representing ci ty governments and electric utilities affected by the rule.
See Attachment 1 to these comments to see comments/questions filed as a follow up to this meeting addressing Unfunded Mandates Reduction Act impacts. This figure shows leachate percolating throug h the landfill and collecting in a leachate collection system. Separately it shows rain falling on the landfill surface and runoff from the landfill running into a runoff drainage ditch. The implication is that stormwater runoff is not “leachate.”

Some con fusion may be caused, however, by the words “drained from waste” in the definition and from TDD Sections 4.3.5 and 6.3, where EPA says that leachate includes stormwater runoff from a landfill:
The two sources of landfill leachate are precipitation that per colates through the waste deposited in the landfill and the liquids produced from the combustion residual placed in theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 319 landfill. In addition to leachate, stormwater that contacts the landfill wastes and flows over the landfill may be contaminated. Leachat e and contaminated stormwater contain heavy metals and other contaminants through the contact with the combustion residuals.

TDD §4.3.5; see also TDD §6.3.

EPA should maintain the distinction between “leachate” and “stormwater runoff” to be consistent with its existing regulatory regimes for runoff from landfills. Runoff from a landfill is stormwater, different from water that percolates through waste placed in a landfill or surface impoundment, which is “leachate.” EPA must clarify in the final rule that “ combustion residual leachate” does not include stormwater from landfills.
Moreover, stormwater is not a “discharge” (and hence does not need a permit) if it is not channelized. Stormwater becomes a discharge only if it goes through some kind of “conveyance ” (which is understood to mean a pipe or ditch). So if the stormwater is not channelized, it cannot be a discharge requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. As the Ninth Circuit noted, “[s]tormwater that is not collected o r channeled and then discharged, but rather runs off and dissipates in a natural and unimpeded manner, is not a discharge from a point source as defined by §502(14).” Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brown , 617 F.3d 1176, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Cour ts repeatedly have declined to classify pollution coming from “runoff caused primarily by rainfall around activities that employ or create pollutants” as a “point source.” Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. Dombeck , 172 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 1998).
Similarly, courts define pollution as a “non

- point source” when it is caused by diffuse sources such as runoff. “Broad though [the] definition [of point source] may be, we are of [the] opinion that it does not include unchanneled and uncollected surface wa ters.” Appalachian Power Co. v. Train , 545 F.2d 1351, 1373 (4th Cir. 1976). See Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA , 344 F.3d 832, 841 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[d]iffuse runoff, such as rainwater that is not channeled through a point source, is considered nonpoint source pollution and is not subject to federal regulation.”). 27

27 See also Oregon Natural Desert Ass’n v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 550 F.3d 778, 785 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining Congress chose not to regulate “generalized runoff”); Natural Res. Def. Council v. E PA , 915 F.2d 1314, 1316 (9th Cir. 1990) (explaining runoff of pesticides from farmland is not a “point source”); Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club , 575 F.3d 199, 220 (2nd Cir. 2009) (“‘Nonpoint source pollution is generally runoff: salt from roads, agricultural chemicals from farmlands, oil from parking lots, and other substances washed by rain, in diffuse patterns, over the land and into navigable waters’”) (quoting Plaza Health Labs. , 3 F.3d at 652).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 26.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 320 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 79 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
“Seepage” that Is Not Channeled or Discharged to a Surface Water Cannot Be Regulated as “Leachate”
Another definitional problem with “leachate” is that some of the language in the proposal suggests that “seepage” and “drainage” qualify as “combustion residual leachate.” This can be so only if the water is a “point source.” And that means only if it is channeled and discharged to a “water of the United States.”

As with stormwater, discussed above, wit h seepage or drainage, EPA is authorized to regulate “discharges” from a “point source.” A point source is a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance (33 U.S.C. §1362(14)), which generally means a channel or conduit (though it also includes wells, co ntainers, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operations, and vessels). See Sierra Club v. Abston Constr. Co. , 620 F.2d 41, 45

- 46 (5th Cir. 1980) (a “point source” is the “conveyance” that constitutes “the means by which pollutants are ultimately de posited into a navigable body of water) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Plaza Health Labs, Inc. , 3 F.3d 643, 646 (2nd Cir. 1993) (point sources are “physical structures and instrumentalities that systematically act as a means of conveying pollu tants from an industrial source to navigable waterways,” such as a pipe); Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. Harbor at Hastings Assocs. , 917 F. Supp. 251, 257 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (dismissing a CWA claim that rainfall touching an industrial building was a point s ource because it eventually flowed into a nearby river); Comments of the Utility Water Act Group on Questionnaire for Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines, Doc. No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819 (April 8, 2010) at 58.
“Seeps” and “leakage” from landfi lls and impoundments cannot be regulated as “combustion residual leachate” unless the water is collected or channelized and then discharged through a point source to a surface water that is a “water of the United States.” So EPA’s proposed rule should make this clear.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 26.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comm ent Excerpt Number: 80Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 321 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Combustion Residual Leachate” Should Not Include Water That May Contact CCR That Is Beneficially Used
EPA should clarify that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that has come into contact with CCR that has been beneficially used and has not been disposed of or otherwise managed in a CCR landfill or surface impoundment. It is important to encourage the beneficial use of CCR. For example, landfills and impoundments are sometimes constructed using structural fill and embankments using CCR. Operators of a landfill may use CCR for daily cover and as part of the final cover material when the landfill is clos ed. CCR also can be used as road base for service roads to landfills and for other roads as well.
These uses of CCR are not to “contain” residuals and therefore do not fall within the proposed definition. But EPA should clarify that this is so. The final E LG rule should say clearly that the term “combustion residual leachate” does not include water that may come into incidental contact with CCR used in beneficial use applications.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 81 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorpo rated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

“Combustion Residual Leachate” Should Not Interfere with Beneficial Activities
Either in the definition of “combustion residual leachate” or in the preamble to the final rule, EPA should be careful to limit the in terpretation of the term so as not to have the effluent standards apply to unintended activities. For example, the limits on “leachate” should not apply to pond dewatering, which might include collecting and pumping out water from existing coal combustion residuals in old impoundments, before capping the site. Likewise the limits should not apply to intercepting a contaminated groundwater plume some distance from an impoundment so the groundwater can be treated and discharged.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 322 Comment Response:
See respon se to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 148.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 57 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s proposed regulation of combustion residual leachate raises various issues for clarification. EPA staff provided helpful clarifications during the August 20, 2013 E LG rulemaking webcast, and EPA should reflect those and other clarifications in the final rule. First, consistent with the webcast, EPA should clarify that the only leachate regulated under the steam electric ELG is leachate that is collected and discharge d to a water of the U.S. EPA has no authority under the CWA to regulate pollutants that are not discharged from a point source. This clarification should make it clear that unanticipated seeps from landfills or surface impoundments, that are not collected and discharged and therefore are not covered by a NPDES permit, do not give rise to liability under the CWA.
Second, EPA should clarify that the steam

- electric ELG leachate provisions do not apply to stormwater runoff, even in the vicinity of landfills and ponds. Stormwater runoff is governed by EPA’s stormwater regulations.
Third, EPA should clarify that the leachate provisions apply only to generating units whose primary revenue is the generation of electricity and do not apply to off

- site, independently owned landfills. The construction and operation of off

- site, independently owned landfills are governed by EPA, state, and local landfill regulations and the landfills’ own direct NPDES permits, as applicable.
Fourth, also consistent with the August 2013 public meeting, EPA should explicitly acknowledge that CWA new source performance standards (NSPS) are not triggered by a new cell or new landfill built to manage CCR wastestreams displaced as a result of a facility’s compliance with a new ELG requirement

. As EPA staff noted on the webcast, modification of an existing generating unit and its affiliated disposal facilities is an “existing source,” not a new source.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1, Excerpt Number 17.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 323 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 14 regarding the application of the combustion residual leachate limitations and standards to off

- site landfills.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149 in Comment Code 6.g.vii regarding new sources for combustion residual leachate.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 324 6.g.ii. Nonchemical metal cleaning wastes (NCMCW)

Commenter Name: Patrick O’Loughlin Commenter Affiliation: Buckeye Power, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
the definition of NCMCW is overly broad

- it could encompass virtually all wash water used at a facility. Buckeye Power endorses the definition of NCMCW proposed by the Utility Water Act Group: "Any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning."
Comment Response:

The final rule does not establish BAT effluent limitations and standards for non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes (NCMCW) for the reasons discussed in the preamble to the final rule. Therefore, the final rule reserves revising the definitions for these wastestreams, which includes not defining non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. By not revising the effluent limitations and standards and not revising the definitions, the final rule will not result in changes to industry operations for the specified wastestreams. However, the permitting authority will continue to have discretion in determining which cleaning wastewaters are metal cleaning wastes based on the facility

- specific operations, the wastewater generated and the w astewater’s characteristics.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 113 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: No
Comment Excerpt:
Duke Energy recommends refining the definition of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes as follows: “The term nonchemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.”
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 325 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Joe L. Citta Commenter Affil iation: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA is taking commen t on the standards for nonchemical metal cleaning waste in the proposed rule. The existing definitions of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste are overly broad. The existing definitions of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste are overly broad. EPA should revise the definition of metal cleaning waste and chemical wastes.
EPA should define "nonchemical metal cleaning wastes" as follows: "The term nonchemical metal cleaning waste mean any wastewater from cleaning of ash from gas side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning but not soot blowing or similar in

- service boiler fireside cleaning." All other metal cleaning wast e streams should be treated as low volume waste water. Cleaning metal buildings, railings, siding, stairs, etc. has little potential for environmental harm. The definition for chemical metal cleaning should be defined to include only chemical boiler cleani ng waste water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.
The final rule does not establish or revise BAT for metal cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company D ocument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 98 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 326 The proposed definition of NCMCW should be amended to clarify that t he term only includes wastewater from the cleaning of gas (fire)

- side metal process equipment, without chemicals, from the boiler to the stack excluding soot blowing and boiler lancing.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 105 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA is Expanding the Universe of Water Washing Processes Regulated as NCMCW or MCW with Insufficient Analysis
As previously stated, in the 1974 and 1982 ELG TDDs and supporting documents, very limited NCMCW analytical data were available, and the data were exclusively chemical boiler cleaning wastes and NCMCWs associated with water washing of ash found on boiler fireside and the air

preheater. Without any additional analysis or discussion of costs, EPA now seems to interpret NCMCW as inclusive of any steam or water stream that contacts a metal surface that is associated with equipment at steam electric facilities. While EPA does not identify specific NCMCW sources in the proposed new definition, other than boiler tube, boiler fireside, and air preheater cleaning, EPA references an extensive list of NCMCW generation frequencies as reported in the 2010 ICR. 2013 TDD at 6

- 21, Table 6

- 14. Characterizing these wastewaters (from 20 different operations) as NCMCW and determining to r egulate them as such is certainly not supported by the record.
While a broader interpretation is not as problematic for an existing facility authorized to discharge NCMCW as a low volume waste using a centralized treatment system (ash pond, etc.), expandin g water washing to process equipment other than gas

- side will be extremely expensive and of very limited environmental benefit, especially if comingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits imposed.
Without additional clarification or a thorough analys is by EPA, any definition of NCMCW should be restricted to the gas

- side cleaning of metal process equipment without chemicals. For example, the proposed definition of NCMCW at 40 C.F.R. Part 423.11(u) could be modified as follows:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 327 "The term nonchemical met al cleaning waste means any wastewater resulting from the cleaning of metal fireside process equipment from the boiler to the stack, without chemical cleaning compounds, including, but not limited to boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning. Th e term does not include wastewater from processes that use steam or water to remove ash or slag during unit operation, including, but not limited to, soot blowing and boiler lancing."
No analytical data or supporting documents have been placed in the recor d to support the proposed expanded definition (that, if taken to the extreme, could be interpreted to include such benign discharges as intake screen backwash).
The interpretation of “any metal process equipment” also has created confusion over the decades . We recommend that EPA make it clear that NCMCWs are specific to the boiler fireside, or the gas path within the boiler system (process equipment) from the burners to the stack. This path usually includes: the furnace, furnace hopper, superheater, reheate r, economizer, air preheater, precipitator, induced draft fans and associated walls, hoppers, and ducting. Many of these surfaces will accumulate fuel ash and metal corrosion products that need to be cleaned both during operation and during a full or parti al outage condition.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Jacob G. Smeltz Commenter Affiliation: Electric Po wer Generation Association (EPGA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4450

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
To further clarify the rules gove rning nonchemical metal cleaning wastes and retain the original meaning of “metal cleaning wastes” as provided in the rulemaking records for 1974 and 1982, the EPA should provide a definition specifically for “nonchemical metal cleaning wastes.” As

recomme nded by UWAG in their comments on the Proposal, “the term nonchemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fire side cleaning and air preheater cleaning.”

Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 328 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Jerry Purvis Commenter Affiliation: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4455

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EKPC also seeks clarification on the scope of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. Be cause of the broad definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes as wastewater from "cleaning of any metal process equipment without chemical cleaning compounds," a question exists as to whether the definition would reach to general wash water from cool ing towers, coal handling equipment, as well as from floors or other surfaces that only incidentally come into contact with metal process equipment. It is especially important to clarify in the final rule that incidental contact of wash water with metal p rocess equipment, which is unintended from a process "cleaning" standpoint, is not within the scope of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. Additionally, EKPC requests that EPA specifically exclude from the definition of metal cleaning wastes washing down t he boiler, boiler houses, silos, silo houses, cooling towers, coal handling equipment, driveways, road ways, parking lots and general housekeeping. These general wash waters allow the utilities to maintain a level of site cleanliness that is beneficial to the employees' general health, welfare, morale and provides safe work conditions.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Nonchemical Metal Cleaning Waste should remain within the definition of a low volume waste and the associated ELGs for this waste stream eliminated from the final rule.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 329 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Regulation of Non

- Chemical Cleaning Wastes is overly broad as it would also re gulate waters that do not generate pollutants with BAT limits.
EPA’s definition, along with the discussion in the preamble, is overly broad and unsubstantiated for non

- chemical metal cleaning waste. The definition proposed includes all “wastewater from the cleaning of any metal process equipment without chemical.” EPA goes on to identify some examples with the disclaimer that the examples are not exclusive, but are illustrative and are “not limited to” the examples cited. If applied as written, tasks such a s washing off the outside of a metal housing around a pump to remove dust would be considered non

- chemical metal cleaning waste even though the process does not have the potential to generate the identified pollutants. We assume this was not the intent of the proposed rules but, as written, could potentially result in the inadvertent inclusion to these types of unrelated tasks and would be an overreach of EPA’s regulatory authority. EPA should change the definition to identify that only those waste streams with the pollutants identified in the ELG (iron and copper) are required to meet the proposed BAT limits for non

- chemical metal cleaning waste. During the permit application process, permittees should submit data to document whether or not waste streams a re required to comply with the BAT requirements. The process should include evaluation of actual contaminants and if copper and iron are not present, or can be historically demonstrated to be less than the BAT limits, then the non

- chemical metal cleaning w aste process should be exempt from the BAT limits.
EPA should narrow the definition such that only waste streams that discharge the identified contaminants are regulated by the ELG.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excer pt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Basil G. Constantelos Commenter Affiliation: Midwest Generation, LLC.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 330 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number : 26 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Midwest Gen Also Respectfully Requests Certain Clarifications.
Midwest Gen also asks that EPA clarify that its definition of NCMCW does not inc lude water used in condenser cleaning. In the condenser cleaning process, Midwest Gen shuts down each unit once per year and uses water to push brushes through the condenser tubes. The small volume of water used in condenser cleaning exits the tubes via t he outfall for non

- contact cooling water. It would be onerous and impractical for Midwest Gen to construct new piping to capture a small volume of condenser cleaning water, especially given that it would only be used once per year. EPA must consider proc ess changes under the statutory factors for BAT, and the burdensome process changes necessary should EPA consider condenser cleaning water to be NCMCW weigh heavily against its treatment as such. Historically, this water has not been considered to be NCMCW . Moreover, EPA has presented no data to support treating condenser cleaning water as NCMCW.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Michalene Reilly Commenter Affiliation: Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4471

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA should define non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes as wastewater generated from cleaning "fireside" metal process equipment, without chemicals. This would limited to equipment that is cleaned within the electric generating unit, and not all metal process equipment. The definition is so vague that even the water intake screens in a river or lake could be included. Intake screens are typically metal mesh and are cleaned with water sprays to remove debris; i.e. water washed without chemicals. It can certainly be argued that the screens are process equipment too. EPA should narrow the definition of nonchemical metal cleaning waste to exclude such equipment.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 331 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 41 83

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Vicki Card Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Springs Utilities Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4483

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporate d into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Utilities supports APPA’s proposed definition of “nonchemical metal cleaning wastes” as follows: “The term nonchemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning but not soot blowing or similar in

- service boiler fireside cleaning.” The limited record would only support a limited definitio n, such as APPA’s proposal.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Vicki Card Commenter Affiliation: Colorado S prings Utilities Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4483

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Due to the sparse data in the record, Utilities sup ports APPA’s recommendation to narrow the definition of nonchemical metal cleaning.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 332 Commenter Name: Chuck D. Barlow Commenter Affiliation: Entergy Corporation Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4519

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
II. The definition of "nonchemical metal cleaning wastes" is ambiguous an d should be more explicit and various requirements should be clarified.
EPA should define "nonchemical metal cleaning wastes " explicitly as "any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning." to prevent a myriad of other activities that generate wastewater with no probability of metal contamination from being captured under the umbrella of an ambiguous definition in the rule.
A broader definition may not be an issue for an existing facility authorized to discharge nonchemical metal cleaning waste using an existing, centralized treatment system for low volume wastes. However, expanding the meaning of "met al cleaning wastes" to water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal would be expensive and of limited environmental benefit, especially if comingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits are imposed. No analytical data or supporti ng documents have been added to the record to support the proposed expanded definition, which, if taken to extremes, could be interpreted to include such benign discharges as common plant wash down water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment code 22.

Commenter Name: Gregory D. Elmore Commenter Affiliation: Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4582

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed definition ofNCMCW should be amended to clarify that the term only includes wastewater from the cleaning of gas (fire)

- side metal process equipment, without chemicals, from the boiler to the stack excluding soot blowing and boiler lancing.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 333 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 31 External Review Flag: No Externa l Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The new definition in §423.11(u) for nonchemical metal cleaning waste also needs refinement as it currently includes wastewaters from cleaning ‘any metal process equipment’. If take n to the extreme this may be interpreted such that any wash down of metal components

- e.g., pumps, piping, ductwork, structural members, tanks

- would result in the generation of nonchemical metal cleaning waste. The proposed changes introduce the need to p rovide for segregation and treatment of any metal cleaning waste and are not only inconsistent with current industry practice, but would also be excessive and unnecessary. We therefore support the definition provided by UWAG in their comments for this wast estream.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 22 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
we request that EPA clarify the definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes to avoid expanding the practiced definition. We believe the EPA' s i nterpretation of the definition of non

chemical metal cleaning wastes in the proposed rule would require facilities to incur further costs and operational challenges while failing to produce the desired environmental benefit. We are especially c oncerned about expanding the universe of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes given the absence of effluent data, cost information, and benefit information in the proposed rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 334 We urge EPA to develop a practical definition of non

- metal cleaning waste that t argets EPA's concerns with ash and soot removal from boilers and air pre

- heaters and that avoids unintentionally burdensome consequences such as expanded treatment requirements at nuclear units. Additionally, we request that EPA classify water washes with nothing added but soap or detergent, as non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.g.iii.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Co mment Excerpt:
The EPA proposal defines non

- chemical metal cleaning waste as,

" any wastewater resulting from the cleaning of any metal process equipment without chemical cleaning compounds, including, but not limited to , boiler tube cleaning, boiler fir eside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning.. "
78 Fed. Reg. 34533 Col 3 (Emphasis Added) .
Under this definition, all wash waters of metal equipment regardless of copper or iron content require treatment. This definition would even include wash waters tha t contain little to no copper or iron. Yet, under the proposed definition these wash waters would need to be captured, separated from low volume wastewaters, and treated despite the lack of significant amounts of copper and iron, if any at all.
Specificall y, we are concerned that routine non

- chemical wash downs at nuclear power stations are unlikely to contain any significant amounts of copper or iron from ash or soot. Yet, the cost of collection and treatment of water washes at nuclear stations would be ex pected to be disproportionate to the amount of copper and iron removed. We note here that the rulemaking does not contain any pollutant or cost data for non

- chemical metal cleaning waters at nuclear stations. At this time, the majority of stations treat wa sh water as low volume wastes such that there is no convincing data available. Without proper data and cost information, we cannot support national copper and iron limits for non

- chemical washes at either nuclear or non

- nuclear stations.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 335 Likewise, a non

- ch emical wash down of an air

- cooled condenser at coal fired facilities and turbine washes at combustion turbine stations would not be expected to contain copper or iron. The record for this proposed rule contains little to no data to support including eithe r condenser cleaning water or turbine washes in the definition.
For the reasons set forth above, we request that EPA adopt a more narrow definition of non

chemical metal cleaning wastes. We suggest that EPA could define non

- chemical metal cleaning waste a s any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from flue gas

- side process equipment without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air pre

- heater cleaning. Specifically, we believe EPA should not expand the definition to water wash ing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal. There should also be a de minimis exemption for small wash streams such as the occasional washing of induced draft fan blades. This is an appropriate definition that restricts limitations to EPA's primary area of concern, ash and soot. Given that ash and soot are not found in nuclear stations, nuclear facilities should not be included in the definition of non chemical metal cleaning wastes.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22. See also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.g.iii.

Commenter Name: Dennis Wene Comme nter Affiliation: Alcoa Inc.'s Warrick Operations Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4765

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Alcoa

- Warrick bel ieves EPA should define non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes as wastewater generated from cleaning, without chemicals, to process contaminated metals such as "fireside" metal process equipment and not just any metal process equipment. The definition is vague and overly broad such that even the water intake screens in a river or lake could be included. The screens are typically metal mesh and are cleaned with water sprays to remove debris; i.e., water washed without chemicals and it can certainly be argued tha t the screens are process equipment too. EPA should state which wastewater streams it intends to regulate or provide guidance to the States.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 336 Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 88 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
One change is needed to clarify the rules and adhere to the meaning of “metal cleaning wastes” that was used in the 1974 and 1982 rulemaking records. EPA should define “nonchemical metal cleaning wastes” as follows: “The term nonchemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning but not soot blow ing or similar in

- service boiler fireside cleaning."
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Paul Ling Commenter Affiliation: Kansas City Power & Light Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA should also con firm that non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes mean only washes of gas

- side process equipment with nothing added but soap or detergent be recognized as nonchemical.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Com menter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 337 Comment Excerpt Number: 52 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: N o
Comment Excerpt:
EPA defines “metal cleaning waste” as “any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning” (78 FR at 34464). This definition includes any wastewater generated from either the chemical or nonchemical cleaning of metal process equipment. EPA defines “chemical metal cleaning waste” as “any wastewater resulting from cleanin g of any metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning” (78 FR at 34465). During the earlier development of BAT effluent guidelines for these wastewaters, the term “nonchemical metal cleaning waste”

wa s not defined, but in the EPA proposal, it is defined as “any wastewater resulting from the cleaning of metal process equipment without chemical cleaning compounds” (Id.).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 54 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: No
Comment Excerpt:

c. Metal cleaning wastes should be defined as washes of “gas

- side process equipment.”

As cited in the UWAG comments, 32 the terms “metal cleaning waste,” “chemical metal cleaning wastes,” and “boiler chemical cleaning waste” are not clearly defined and are often used synonymously in NPDES permits. These discharges are typically permitted with iron and copper limits if the y are associated with chemical cleaning compounds. EPA now seems to interpret “metal cleaning wastes” as all

- inclusive, which is not supported by the record. As shown in the following table of the various sources of wash water from cleaning metal process e quipment at AEP’s plants (Table 8), a literal interpretation of EPA’s proposed definition could be overly expansive. We do not believe that it is EPA’s intent to regulate the common washing of external surfaces of process equipment or associated structures. Therefore any definition must be limited to the washing of internal surfaces that are in direct contact with the steam generating process. Without additional clarification or analysis by EPA, any defi nition of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes should be restricted to the gas

- side removal of ash withoutEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 338 chemicals. AEP agrees with UWAG that expanding the definition of “metal cleaning wastes” to water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal would be expensive and of limited environmental benefit. No analytical data or supporting documents have been added to the record to support the proposed expanded (and possibly all

- encompassing) definition, which if taken to extremes, could be int erpreted to include such benign discharges as intake screen backwash.
As proposed by UWAG, a suitable definition of “nonchemical metal cleaning wastes’ would be “any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.” Limiting nonchemical metal cleaning wastes to gas

- side ash related cleanings is appropriate as the focus of the effluent guidelines is to regulate combustion related processes.
If iron and copper limits are applied, further clarification of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes is critical. The current definition refers to “metal process equipment;” however this is so vague it could be interpreted to ap ply to essentially any equipment fabricated from metal, such as tanks, coolers, pumps, piping, etc... The list of such equipment at AEP’s facilities is quite extensive and currently washes of this equipment are typically handled as low volume wastes and inte rnal iron and copper limits are not applied. Should such limits be applied, as proposed in the revised effluent guidelines, the cost impact, while difficult to determine, is expected to be both extremely significant and onerous. To determine the extent of nonchemical metal cleaning washes at its facilities, based on AEP’s interpretation of current nonchemical metal cleaning washes,

32 UWAG ELG Comments, September 20, 2013, at 268.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerp t Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii . The final rule does not establish or revise BAT for metal cleaning wastes or boiler cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Ronald H. Hix Commenter Affiliation: NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4461

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Limit the Definition of Nonchemical Metal Cleaning WastesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 339 EPA' s interpretation of "metal cleaning wast e" has evolved over the decades from a narrow focus in the 1974 ELG (see 39 Fed. Reg. at 36,199 col. 1) to one much more expansive in the proposed ELG rule. For years, permitters and permittees have understood nonchemical metal cleaning wastes to mean onl y the washes of gas

- side process equipment. Ifthe definition of "metal cleaning wastes" is expanded to encompass water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal, it would be expensive for compliance and of limited environmental benefit, especially if comingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits are imposed. The criteria would trigger extensive, fact

- specific analysis as applied to many types of power plant wash waters (e.g. non chemical turbine blades and condenser wash waters).
A specific example of the expansion occurring in this proposed rule is the consideration of condenser washes without the use of a chemical agent as a non chemical metal cleaning waste.
It is NEE' s position that power plant condenser cleaning, using high

- pressure sprays but without the use of chemicals, is not a metal cleaning waste. This position is based on the following premises:
The current version of 40 CFR 423.11 (d) Specialized Definitions states:
"(d) The term metal cleaning waste means any wastew ater resulting from cleaning (with or without chemicals compounds) and metal process equipment including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning."
Historically, metal cleaning wastes have been limited to processes where chemical agents (typically solvents or corrosive liquids) have been utilized for removal of scale and corrosion products that have built up on the metal to be cleaned. The most common type of metal cleaning is a boiler tube cleaning wh ich uses an acid, solvent or other agent to remove scale and contaminants to restore the heat conducting capacity of boiler tubes. The chemical is circulated through the tubes (the "water side") to conduct the cleaning. These cleaning solutions are gener ally neutralized, evaporated, sent to dedicated holding ponds for treatment or disposed of offsite.
Boiler fireside washes, air preheater washes and stack washes are examples of processes whose effluents have historically been considered metal cleaning was tes (more specifically non

chemical metal cleaning wastes). These processes consist of water used to rinse surfaces that have been exposed to combustion gases and flue gas, and often accumulate ash and slag.
Nowhere in the past has the simple process of u sing high pressure washes to clean the waterside (inside) of condenser tubes been considered as any type (chemical or non

- chemical) of metal cleaning waste.
On Page 145 of the "Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Perfo1m ance Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generation Point Source Category" (October 1974) condenser cleaning is discussed. It states:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 340 "Condenser Cleaning

- The other major heat transfer component in a boiler system (NEE Note: boiler and Pressurized Wate r Reactor nuclear steam generators were the other components discussed) is the condenser. The spent steam from the turbine is liquefied in the condenser by the condenser cooling water system .... Operational cleaning on the steam side depends on boiler wa ter quality and is not done frequently. The water side of the condenser is cleaned with inhibited hydrochloric acid."
Nowhere in this document does it discuss cleaning of condensers without utilizing chemicals.
Another excerpt for an EPA document, "EPA Of fice of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation Industry (September 1997), on Page 46, states,
"Metal and boiler cleaning waste (waterside)

- Metal cleaning wastes are produced during cleaning of the boiler t ubes, superheater, and condenser located on the water

- side or steam

- side of the boiler. Scale and corrosion products build up in the boiler and must be removed with chemical cleaning using an acid or alkaline solution."
This document only contemplates che mical metal cleaning of condenser tubes with no mention of high

- pressure cleaning.
In conclusion, it's is NEE's position that wastewater generated from condenser cleanings that utilize corrosives or solvents are metal cleaning wastes. Conversely, there is no indication that waterside condenser cleaning using high pressure water should be considered and regulated as a metal cleaning waste.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22. See also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.g.iii.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 67 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should also confirm, as permitters and permittees have underst ood for years, that nonchemical metal cleaning wastes mean only washes of gas

- side process equipment. SeeEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 341 UWAG 1981 Comments Section IV and Appendices IV(A)

- IV(F) at 1

- 2; 39 Fed. Reg. at 36,199 col. 2; and UWAG Comments. If the meaning of “metal cleaning wastes” were expanded to encompass water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal, this would be expensive and of limited environmental benefit, especially if comingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits are imposed. The criter ia could trigger extensive, fact

- specific analysis as applied to the many types of power plant washwaters (e.g., turbine blade and condenser washwaters). The following approach is more reasonable.
Specifically, EPA should define “nonchemical metal cleani ng wastes” as: “any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.”
Comment Response:
See response to D CN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22. The final rule does not establish or revise BAT for metal cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation : Alabama Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4489

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
B. The Regulatory Definition of “Nonchemic al Metal Cleaning Waste” Must be Clarified
To adhere to the definition of “metal cleaning waste” established in both the 1974 and 1982 limited rulemaking records applicable to steam electric power generating facilities, the term “nonchemical metal cleaning waste” should be defined as “any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.” In 1974, the term “metal cleaning waste” was narrowly defined as “any cleaning compounds, rinse waters, or any other waterborne residues derived from cleaning any metal process equipment including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning and air preheat er cleaning.” 39 Fed. Reg. at 36,199. This definition explains why many, including Bruce Smith, William Jordan, permit writers, and the regulated community, interpreted “metal cleaning wastes” to include only effluent streams from cleaning processes involv ing chemical solutions (acid cleaning of boilers); whereas water washing of ash found on boiler firesides and air preheaters constituted a “low volume waste.”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 342 In the decades since this 1974 rulemaking, the terms “metal cleaning waste,” “chemical metal clea ning waste,” and “boiler chemical cleaning waste” have been used loosely by many as synonyms in NPDES permits. Yet in these same permits, discharges have typically been saddled with iron and copper limits only if they are associated with chemical cleaning compounds. Specifically referencing NCMCWs in these permits was deemed unnecessary by permit writers and the industry alike because the Jordan Memorandum’s guidance clearly provided that such water washing operations constitute “low volume waste.” In ligh t of this clear, and well

- known historical backdrop, EPA cannot attempt to utilize this loose language or the easily explainable absence of NCMCW references in NPDES as a basis for asserting that the permit has iron and copper limits generically applicable to all “metal cleaning wastes” as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. As explained above, the omission of express references to NCMCWs is consistent with industry practice since the 1970s.
Only now in this Proposed Rule is EPA attempting to greatl y expand the definition of “metal cleaning wastes” as all

- encompassing without offering any substantiating discussion, analysis, or data beyond the very limited data included in the 1974 and 1982 rulemakings. That data was exclusively related to chemical b oiler cleaning wastes and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes associated with water washing of ash on boiler firesides and air preheaters and was deemed insufficient at that time. Such a broad interpretation of the term is simply not supported by the record. Attempting to expand the meaning of “metal cleaning wastes” to include water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal would be expensive and of limited environmental benefit, especially if commingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits are imposed. Without additional clarification and a thorough analysis by EPA, any new definition of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes should be restricted to the gas

- side removal of ash without chemicals.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: Patrick Finigan Commenter Affiliation: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0 819

- 4529

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
E. Nonchemical Metal Cleaning WasteEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 343 EPA is taking comment on the standards for nonchemical metal cleaning wa ste in the proposed rule. The ELGs define metal cleaning waste as ''any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside clea ning, and air preheater cleaning.'' The definition of chemical metal cleaning waste is "any wastewater resulting from cleaning of any metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning.'' The regulations do not have a definition of nonchemical metal cleaning waste.
The existing definitions of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste are overly broad, and sweep in low

- toxicity wastewater such as gas turbine compressor wash water comprised of s imple detergent and water. EPA should revise the definition of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste such that it includes a defined list of metal cleaning wastes. EPA may do this by limiting the definition to the cleaning of metal surfa ces associated with heat transfer or fuel combustion, by adding the terms "contact and noncontact non

combustion," after "any metal" or by limiting the cleaning waste covered to "boiler metal cleaning waste." Wastes that are currently covered by the metal cleaning waste provision, such as gas turbine compressor wash water, should instead be added to the list of low

- volume waste as specified in in 40 C.F.R. § 423.11. EPA may need to re

- open a comment period to make these changes.
Comment Response:

See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii. The final rule does not establish or revise BAT for metal cleaning wastes or boiler cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA is taking comment on the standards for nonchemical metal cleaning waste in the proposed rule. 24 The development of these standards have important implications for the existing ELG regulations for metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste. The ELG regulations define “metal clea ning waste” to mean ‘‘any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal process equipment, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning.’’ 25 The defi nition of “chemical metal cleaning waste” is “any wastewater resulting from cleaning of any metal process equipment with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, boiler tubeEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 344 cleaning.’’ 26 The existing regulations do not have a definition of nonc hemical metal cleaning waste. 27

The existing definitions of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste are overly broad, and sweep in low

‐ toxicity wastewater such as gas turbine compressor wash water comprised of simple detergent and water. EPA should revise the definition of metal cleaning waste and chemical metal cleaning waste such that it includes a defined list of metal cleaning wastes. EPA may do this by limiting the definition to the cleaning of metal surfaces associated with heat transfe r or fuel combustion, by adding the terms “contact and noncontact non

‐ combustion,” after “any metal” such that the definition would state, ‘‘any wastewater resulting from cleaning [with or without chemical cleaning compounds] any metal [“contact and

nonco ntact non

‐ combustion,”] process equipment, including, but not limited to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside cleaning, and air preheater cleaning’’ or by limiting the cleaning waste covered to “boiler metal cleaning waste.” Wastes that have been imprope rly categorized, such as gas turbine compressor wash water, should instead be added to the list of low

‐ volume waste as specified in in 40 C.F.R. § 423.11. EPA may need to re

‐ open a comment period to make these changes.

24 78 Fed. Reg. 34,465 (June 7, 2 013).

25 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(d).

26 40 C.F.R. § 423.11(c).

27 78 Fed. Reg. 34,465 (June 7, 2013).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii. The final rule does not establish or revis e BAT for metal cleaning wastes or boiler cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Raymond L. Evans Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4677

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Rev iew External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 345 To further clarify the rules governing nonchemical metal cleaning wastes and retain the original meaning of "metal cleaning wastes" as provided in the rulemaking records for 1974 and 198 2, the EPA should provide a definition for "nonchemical metal cleaning wastes." As recommended by UWAG in their comments, "the term nonchemical metal cleaning waste means any wastewater from the cleaning of ash from gas

- side process equipment from the boiler to the stack without chemical cleaning compounds, including boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning."
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Nu mber 154 in Comment Code 22.

Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 42 External Review Flag: No External Review External Revi ew Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Certain Definitions should be expanded and refined:

1. §423.11(a)

- Update total residual chlorine definition to remove reference to the method used for total residual chlorine. 2. Expand blowdown definition to include relatively small quantities of water from bottom ash dewatering systems that would be removed to address dissolved solids concentrations if the no discharge of bottom ash transport water is adopted. 3. §423.11(u)

- non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes

- Add “except where previously classified as low volume wastes by the permitting authority:”
Comment Response:
Neither the proposal nor the final rule revises the definition of “total residual chlorine” or “blowdown”. For more information regarding the def inition of non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 346 6.g.iii. Metal cleaning wastes (MCW); chemical metal cleaning wastes

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

LPPC members also want EPA to revise the definition of metal cleaning waste, which is overly broad.
Comment Response:
As described in preamble, the final rule does not revise the effluent limitations and standards for metal cleaning wastes, chemical metal cleaning wastes, and non

- chemical meta l cleaning wastes. Therefore, the final rule reserves revising the definitions for these wastestreams, which includes not defining non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. By not revising the effluent limitations and standards and not revising the definitions, the final rule will not result in changes to industry operations for the specified wastestreams. However, the permitting authority will continue to have discretion in determining which cleaning wastewaters are metal cleaning wastes based on the facility

- sp ecific operations, the wastewater generated and the wastewater’s characteristics.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
DP&L has the following general comments and/or requests for clarification on this topic:

 Metal cleaning waste should be defined as washes of "gas

- sid e process equipment"; expanding the meaning of "metal cleaning wastes" to water washing of process equipment other than gas

- side ash removal would be expensive and of limited environmental benefit, especially if comingling is prohibited and iron and copper limits imposed;

 Washwater from turbine blades is not "metal cleaning waste"; turbine washwater has always been classified as "low volume waste" and there is no sound reason to change that classification now;Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 347  "Boiler lancing" should be treated as bottom as h transport;

 Detergent should not be considered a "chemical".
Comment Response:
EPA is not revising the definition for metal cleaning wastes. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1, Excerpt Number 2 for more information about metal cleaning wast e definition.
Regarding wash water from turbine blades, EPA notes that the commenter provides no documentation to support the assertion that “turbine washwater has always been classified as ‘low volume waste.’" Additionally, EPA would interpret turbine was hwater as being included within the previously promulgated definition of metal cleaning wastes. Regarding boiler lancing, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 154 in Comment Code 22.
Regarding soaps and detergents, EPA disagrees wit h the commenter that detergents are not chemicals and notes that the use of soaps or detergents with water for metal cleaning would constitute chemical cleaning. However, as indicated in the final rule preamble, EPA is not revising the definition for metal cleaning wastes. For further details see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Jay Hudson Commenter Affiliation: Santee Cooper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4476

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19 E xternal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
This is concerning in that the definition of metal cleaning waste is not definitive and open

- ended. This is problematic as it allows permit writers to categorize ANY operation involving the cleaning of ANY metal surface and impose iron and copper limitations, regardless of what type cleaning is being performed, its purpose, or the concentrations and/or quantities of metals in the wash water. This is cle arly inappropriate for the simple rinsing of dirt or dust from such items as handrails and steel support structures, or pumps and other devices 22 prior to maintenance or repainting,or rinsing for nothing more than esthetic reasons. It is also inappropriat e to consider soap or detergent as a "chemical" for the purposes of defining chemical cleaning waste, as the definition of "chemical" is applicable to many common substances including water, salt, and sugar. Thus water washes with a detergent as the only a dded chemical should be clearly defined as "nonchemical".Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 348 An example of this type of inappropriate categorization is combined cycle combustion turbine compressor wash water, which occurred in a 2009 NPDES Permit for our Rainey Generating Station near Ander son, South Carolina (NPDES Permit No. SC0048135). A detailed letter dated July 20, 2009 was provided to EPA Region IV which contained data definitely demonstrating why metal limitations should not be applied to this waste stream . However, the permitting

a gency included the metal limitations per EPA's directive. This clearly proves the need for the definition to be limited to the particular waste streams that would be subject to metal limitations.
Therefore, the definition should list specific metal cleanin g waste streams that are shown to warrant metal limitations, and include all others in the definition of a "low volume waste". In particular, combusti on turbine compressor wash water should be listed as a specific "low volume waste" in Part 423.11 (b). In the October 14, 1980 proposed rule, EPA made a comparable determination when it decided to regulate boiler blowdown discharges as "low volume wastes". The reasoning provided was the low levels of iron and copper in boiler blowdown and the relatively lo w flow rates, citing a value of 33,280 gpd at an average coal

- fired plant and concentrations of 2 and 20 mg/I respectively. 23

22 Although the term "process" is included in the definition, this too is undefined and subject to varying interpretations.

23 47 FR 52297.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1, Excerpt Number 2 and to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1, Excerpt Number 27.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 349 6.g.iv. Transport water

Commenter Name: Doris Cooksey Commenter Affiliation: City Public Ser vice of San Antonio (CPS Energy) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The definition of transport water as it relates to bottom ash handling should be more clearly defined, especially in relation to submerged scraper conveyor (SSC) systems where the water is not utilized for the purpose of transport but for cooling or quenching. A large quantity of the

wa ter used in the SSC is re

- circulated or recycled from a small pond after co

- mingling with other water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 69.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Ene rgy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The specialized definition for transport water under 40 C FR Section 423.11(p) coupled with anti

circumvention requirements add to the impracticality of meeting the proposed zero discharge requirements and is unworkable as written. The proposed new specialized definition is:
(p) The term transport water means any process wastewater that is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash from the ash collection equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact with the ash.
In most furnaces, the hot bottom ash is quenched in a water

- filled hopper. Quench water is typically continuously fed into the top of the hopper and overflows into station floor drains. In addition, leaks of bottom ash transport water from valves, fittings, piping, dewatering bin seals, etc. also occur on a routine basis at all plants with this type of equipment. These wastewaters are not always directed back to bottom ash impoundments and are often treated within low volume wastewater industrial wastewater treatment systems or impoundments.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 350 Therefore, if the final rule requires zero discharge of bottom ash transport water, significant costs would be incurred to separate quench water and leakage from low volume wastewater treatment systems. Bottom ash quench water, equipment maintenance, and leaks should be specifically excluded from the definitio n of bottom ash transport water.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that bottom ash quench water and equipment maintenance should be specifically excluded from the definition of bottom ash transport water. First, EPA notes that quench wat er does not meet the definition of transport water, unless it is specifically pulled into the ash sluicing system. Additionally, as noted in preamble, EPA has accounted for the costs to temporarily store the bottom ash transport water during equipment main tenance and feed it back to the system without discharge in its cost analysis.
However, EPA agrees with the comment that leaks from the ash handling systems should not be included in the definition of transport water because the wastewaters are not always directed back to the bottom ash treatment systems and are often handled as low volume wastes. Additionally, EPA’s cost analyses do not account for any type of containment systems that could potentially be needed to segregate these waters and keep them with in the system. As such, EPA has revised the transport water definition. As described in preamble Appendix A, the term transport water means any wastewater that is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash from the ash collection or storage equi pment, or boiler, and has direct contact with the ash. Transport water does not include low volume, short duration discharges of wastewater from minor leaks ( e.g. , leaks from valve packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or minor maintenance events ( e.g. , replac ement of valves or pipe sections). See 40 CFR 423.11(p).

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 69 External Review Flag: No Exte rnal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
A. The Definition of “Transport Water” Should Be Clarified
EPA proposed to define “transport water” for bottom ash and fly ash as “any process wastewater that is used to convey f

ly ash or bottom ash from the ash collection equipment and has direct contact with the ash.” 78 Fed. Reg. 34,533 col 3, proposed § 423.22(p).
The important word here, “convey,” should be understood as conveying by means of the engineered system for carryi ng ash to treatment or disposal. It should not include washing of flyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 351 ash that may incidentally blow or fall onto floors or other surfaces, which properly belongs with “low volume waste.”
This is probably what EPA meant by using the words “from the ash co llection equipment.” And it is consistent with what EPA says about water that drains from a bottom ash dewatering bunker:
As the bottom ash continues dewatering in the nearby bunker, water that drains from the system may be discharged; however, EPA does n ot consider this water from the bunker to be bottom ash transport water because the mechanical conveyor, and not the water, is the transport mechanism that moves the ash away from the boiler. Instead, the wastewater draining from the bunker would be low vo lume wastes.
78 Fed. Reg. 34,449 col. 2. So there is no doubt, EPA should clarify that, as a general matter, “transport water” includes only the water used in the “transport mechanism” designed and intended for the handling of ash.
Comment Response:

As described in preamble Appendix A, the final rule provides a definition for transport water. The term transport water means any wastewater that is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash from the ash collection or storage equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact with the ash. Transport water does not include low volume, short duration discharges of wastewater from minor leaks ( e.g. , leaks from valve packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or minor maintenance events ( e.g. , replacement of valves o r pipe sections).
The definition clearly states that transport water is wastewater that is used to convey the ash. Water generated from the mechanical drag system (MDS) is not subject to the bottom ash transport water limitations and standards. In a mechan ical drag system, the mechanical scraper is used to convey the ash; therefore, these systems do not use water as the medium of transport and do not constitute a transport water system. Therefore, water generated from the mechanical drag system is not subje ct to the final rule requirements for bottom ash transport water. As such, the water draining from the bottom ash is also not transport water. However, in a system that does generate bottom ash transport water ( e.g. , remote MDS), the water that drains from the bottom ash in the dewatering bunker is considered bottom ash transport water and is subject to the bottom ash transport water limitations and standards.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA needs to clarify the definition of transport water becau se it is already clear in the definition and in the discussion included in the preamble.

Commenter Name: Michael G. Cashin Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Power (ALLETE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4768

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 352 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
10. Transport Water clarification. EPA, in the “specialized definitions” found on FR page 34533, defines the term “transport water”. The term “tran sport water” should be clarified and limited to mean only those waters that are used to convey fly ash or bottom ash from the generating facility to the ash impoundment and then only the bulk ash that is sourced from bag houses, electrostatic precipitators or other primary fly ash removal devices or bottom ash collection devices or similar systems that are designed to collect the majority of the fly ash or bottom ash from the coal combustion process.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the definition of transport water should be limited to the conveyance of “fly ash or bottom ash from the generating facility to the ash impoundment.” If EPA were to limit the definition to a specific destination, plants could alter their operations to tra nsport the wastewater to any destination other than an impoundment (e.g., basin, tank, dewatering bin, surface water) and only need to comply with the low volume waste sources limitations and standards.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the transport wate r is associated with the conveyance of ash from the “fly ash removal devices or bottom ash collection devices or similar systems,” which is why EPA included in the definition the language: “from the ash collection or storage equipment, or boiler.” EPA note s, however, that the definition also includes economizer ash, not just fly ash and bottom ash.

Commenter Name: Michael G. Cashin Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Power (MP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4484

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Transport Water clarification. EPA, in the “specialized definitions” found on FR page 34533, defines the term “transport water”. The term “transp ort water” should be clarified and limited to mean only those waters that are used to convey fly ash or bottom ash from the generating facility to the ash impoundment and then only the bulk ash that is sourced from bag houses, electrostatic precipitators o r other primary fly ash removal devices or bottom ash collection devices or similar systems that are designed to collect the majority of the fly ash or bottom ash from the coal combustion process.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 353 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4768

- A2, Excerpt Number 14.

Commenter Name: Nysa Hogue Commenter Affiliation: Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External R eview Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should clarify the definition of "transport water" to specify that it means only those waters used to convey fly ash or bottom ash from the generating facility to the ash impoundment. Transport water should include only water used to convey bulk ash t hat is sourced from bag houses, electrostatic precipitators, or other primary fly ash removal devices or bottom ash collection devices or similar systems that are designed to collect fly ash or bottom ash from the coal combustion process. IPL also recommen ds that EPA amend 40 CFR 423.11 to replace the current definition of "bottom ash" with the definition EPA includes in Appendix A. The proposed amended definition will clarify that boiler slag is bottom ash. In addition, the definition clarifies that ash r emoved through boiler lancing (i.e., "ash dislodged from furnace walls") is bottom ash.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4768

- A2, Excerpt Number 14.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Co de 6.g.ix.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 50 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporate d into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Definitions of Bottom Ash and Transport Waters Should Be Clarified.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 354 EEI recommends that EPA amend the proposed definition of “bottom ash,” which does not make clear that boiler slag is included, by replacing it with the definition in Appendix A to the proposed rule. 14 The Appendix A bottom ash definition explicitly includes boiler slag:
The ash, including boiler slag, that drops out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and which settles in the furnace or ar e [sic] dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 col. 2.
Consistent with the Appendix A bottom ash definition, similar references to boiler slag as bottom ash occur throughout the preamble and the 2013 TDD (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,450 col. 1; at 34,453 col 2; at 34,458 col.1; at 34,481, fn. 55; 2013 TDD at 8

- 2).
In addition to clarifying that boiler slag is bottom ash, such a proposed amended definition would clarify that ash removed th rough boiler lancing (i.e., “ash dislodged from furnace walls”) is bottom ash.
EEI recommends EPA amend section 423.11 to replace the current definition of “bottom ash” with the definition EPA includes in Appendix A. The proposed amended definition will c larify that boiler slag is bottom ash. In addition, the definition clarifies that ash removed through boiler lancing (i.e., “ash dislodged from furnace walls”) is bottom ash.
EPA also should clarify the definition of “transport water” at 78 Fed. Reg. 3453 3 to specify that it means only those waters used to convey fly ash or bottom ash from the generating facility to the ash impoundment. Transport water should include only water used to convey bulk ash that is sourced from bag houses, electrostatic precipit ators, or other primary fly ash removal devices or bottom ash collection devices or similar systems that are designed to collect fly ash or bottom ash from the coal combustion process.

14 It is unclear why EPA included Appendix A in the preamble. Appare ntly EPA wanted to help readers of the proposed rule by including “[d]efinitions, [a]cronyms, and [a]bbreviations used in this notice”(78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 col. 1). But in some cases the Appendix A definitions differ from the definitions in the proposed rule. The two should be consistent.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4768

- A2, Excerpt Number 14.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 in Comment Code 6.g.ix.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 355 Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridg e, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 165 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

5. The New Defini tion of “Low Volume Waste” Appears to Be Acceptable, with the Understanding that Ash from Venturi Scrubbers Is Not “Fly Ash Transport Water”
The proposed definition of “low volume waste” in proposed § 423.11 is as follows:

(b) The term low volume waste sources means, taken collectively as if from one source, wastewater from all sources except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established in this part. Low volume waste sources include, but are not limited to, the following: wastewaters fr om ion exchange water treatment systems, water treatment evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sampling streams, boiler blowdown, floor drains, cooling tower basin cleaning wastes, recirculating house service water systems, and wet scrubber air pollution con trol systems whose primary purpose is particulate removal. Sanitary wastes, air conditioning wastes, and wastewater from carbon capture or sequestration systems are not included in this definition.

This new definition includes “wet scrubber air pollution c ontrol systems” for particulate removal. In the preamble, EPA says that EPA proposes to remove FGD wastewater from the definition:
EPA is proposing to remove FGD wastewater, FGMC wastewater, gasification wastewater, and leachate from the definition of low

- volume wastes.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,457 col. 3.
As we understand the proposed definitions, ash collected in Venturi scrubbers is not considered “fly ash transport water” subject to a no

- discharge requirement.

“Low volume waste” sources include “wet scrubb er air pollution control systems whose primary purpose is particulate removal.” “Fly ash” does not include ash “when it is collected in wet scrubber air pollution control systems whose primary purpose is particulate removal.” Finally, flue gas desulfuriza tion wastewater includes process wastewater generated from a scrubber system, including “any solids separation or solids dewatering processes.”
Thus we understand the references to particulate removal to refer to Venturi scrubbers. As noted in this passag e from the 2013 TDD, EPA has determined that ash collected in Venturi scrubbers is not considered fly ash subject to the no discharge prohibition for fly ash transport water:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 356 Steam electric units employ three main particulate collection methods to remove f ly ash from the flue gas: electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), baghouses, and venturi

- type wet scrubbers....

.... Additionally, between fifteen and twenty

- five generating units use venturi

- type wet scrubbers to remove fly ash from the flue gas [ERG, 2013]. Ve nturi scrubbers contain a tube with flared ends and a constricted middle section. The flue gas enters from one of the flared ends and approaches the constricted section. A liquid slurry stream is added to the scrubber just prior to or at the constricted section. As the flue gas enters the constricted section, its pressure and velocity increases, which causes the gas and liquid slurry to mix. The greater the pressure drop in the scrubber, the better the mixing, and the better the reaction rate, which inc reases the particulate removal efficiency. However, venturi scrubbers must be operated at high pressure drops to remove the same level of particulates as ESPs, making their operation costs higher than ESPs [Babcock & Wilcox, 2005; U.S. EPA, 2010]. Based on the proposed revisions to the specialized definitions, described in Section 2.2, EPA does not consider the ash collected by venture [sic] scrubbers as fly ash, and therefore, the water generated by these systems is not considered fly ash transport water

.
2013 TDD at 4

- 19 to

- 21(emphasis added).
EPA would do well to clarify in the preamble to the final rule that ash collected by Venturi scrubbers is not considered “fly ash” and that water generated by Venturi scrubber systems is not “fly ash transport water.”
Comment Response:
The term fly ash means the ash that is carried out of the furnace by a gas stream and collected by a capture device such as a mechanical precipitator, electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter. Economizer ash is included in t his definition when it is collected with fly ash. Ash is not included in this definition when it is collected in wet scrubber air pollution control systems whose primary purpose is particulate removal. See preamble Appendix A.
EPA agrees with the commenter ’s evaluation and EPA confirms that ash collected by Venturi scrubbers is not considered “fly ash” and that the water generated by Venturi scrubber systems is not “fly ash transport water” for the purposes of this final rule because it does not fall under the definition of fly ash as described in this response and in the preamble.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 357 6.g.v. Dry bottom ash handling system

Commenter Name: Chas Spell Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Public Service Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4303

- A2 Co mment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
APS requests that EPA modify the definition of “dry bottom ash handling system.” The proposed rule defines a dry bottom ash handling system as, “[a] system that does not use water to convey bottom ash away from the boiler. It includes systems that collect and convey the ash without the use of water, as well as systems in which bottom ash is mechanically or pneumatically conve yed away from the boiler.” EPA should amend the definition to acknowledge that the addition of moisture, up to 30%, is required for disposal compaction and fugitive dust mitigation. Furthermore, the definition should include the use of water to capture bo ttom ash. As EPA discusses in the preamble of the proposed rule, many handling systems are available, which eliminate the discharge of bottom ash transport water yet utilize water to capture bottom ash. By changing the definition to reflect the realities o f water use in dry bottom ash handling systems, EPA can provide much needed clarity to the regulated community.
Comment Response:
EPA did not propose to define the term “dry bottom ash handling” in the regulation, nor is it doing so in the final rule. Th e ELGs establish requirements for the discharge of pollutants in fly ash or bottom ash transport water, thus it is the term “transport water” that EPA does define in the final rule. That definition states, in part, that ash transport water is “wastewater t hat is used to convey fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash from the ash collection or storage equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact with the ash.” This accomplishes as least part of what the commenter is requesting because it specifically states t hat the transport water is wastewater used to convey the ash ; by stating that, there is no need for the definition to also list mechanical and pneumatic conveyances as not being transport water. See preamble Appendix A for more information.

EPA included the term “dry bottom ash handling system” in the glossary for the preamble and support documents as a short

- hand term to easily refer to several technologies that do not use water as the motive force to convey ash. In these instances, it is broadly referri ng to types of ash handling technologies as a means of presenting information. Adding the language suggested by the commenter would not enhance the presentation of information in those documents and EPA determined that it may well introduce confusion.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 358 C ommenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Use of Wastewater to “Condition” Ash
EPA references the use of FGD water in U.S. power plants to “condition” dry fly ash to control dust and/or to assist with compaction in its Final Detailed Study Report (Page 4

- 39). Clear ly wastewater is already being mixed with ash as a mechanism to reduce wastewater volume and this referenced application is referred to as a “dry ash management technology”.
A primary intent of the proposed rule is to reduce, and in some cases eliminate, d ischarge of wastewater to the surface waters of the United States. This intent makes it understandable that the EPA emphasizes the use of “dry ash” management systems.
DSS technology clearly straddles the proposed ELG and CCR rules and is thus pertinent t o EPA’s discussion on the Intersection Between the Proposed ELG and Coal Combustion Residuals Rules (ELG preamble III, G). The wording of the proposed ELG rule uses the term “sluicing” with the same meaning as the specialized definition: “transport water” (423.11(p)). At first glance, this may seem correct. But the specialized definition of “transport water” also includes the term “wastewater”. With DSS, the water that is mixed with the ash (whether it is FGD water, impoundment leachate, process water or other water) is consumed by hydration, pozzolanic reactions, bound by capillary forces and/or encapsulation and some water evaporates. Thus, with DSS, “transport water” is not wastewater pursuant to how wastewater is defined in the proposed rule. Instead , the transport water is stabilized along with the ash in a solid end product exhibiting favorable environmental properties. Leachate collected from dense slurry ash impoundments and/or landfills can be returned to the plant and used to produce additional dense slurry if appropriate.
The proposed rule requires revision to further define and distinguish terms such as “sluicing”. While DSS resembles “sluicing” during the initial preparation of the slurry, it results in a solid product exhibiting high compres sional strength with no wastewater treatment or discharge requirements.
Comment Response:
EPA does not agree that the “ELG rule uses the term ‘sluicing’ with the same meaning as the specialized definition: ‘transport water.’” EPA uses the term “sluicing” to refer to the specific operation conducted at plants to transport fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash away from the ash collection system. EPA uses the term “transport water” to refer to the water generated fromEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 359 activities such as sluicing or any oth er activities that use transport water to convey the ash, such as the dense slurry operation. See preamble Appendix A for more information.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that “with DSS, ‘transport water’ is not wastewater pursuant to how wastewater is defined in the proposed rule” because EPA did not define “wastewater” in the proposed rule. EPA has determined that the dense slurry system does generate transport water; therefore, would be subject to the final rule requirements for fly ash or bottom ash transport water.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 13.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
GEA EGI recommends that the proposed rule be modified to refine the definition of “dry ash” management to mean any ash management system or technique that eliminates waste transport water destined for treatment and/or off

- site discharge regardless of its initial appearance or how it is prepared (even if it uses more water than the concept of “dry ash” management as referenced in the proposed rule). The current use and definition of “dry ash” in the proposed rule and preamble is not clear and seems to imply that “dry ash” management techniques do not employ the use of water even though most do.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4303

- A2, Excerpt Number 9.
In addition, EPA does not agree with the commenter’s suggested language, which might confuse people by implying that the definition of ash transport water is broader than intended in the final rule. The commen ter’s suggestion implies that ash handling technologies that do not use water as the means for transporting ash are within the definition of ash transport water, which they are not.

Commenter Name: Lili Kranitz Commenter Affiliation: GEA EGI Contract ing/Engineering Co. Ltd. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 13Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 360 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
GEA EGI suggests that the proposed ELG rul e be modified to recognize the dense slurry process as a viable option for wastewater and ash management. Specifically, the rule should be modified to recognize a distinction between the two fundamentally different types of slurry that are used to transpor t coal combustion products to an impoundment or landfill. The two types include:

1. Pumped ash slurries that use roughly 10

- 20 parts water to 1 part ash (commonly termed “lean slurry” )

. Lean slurry is the traditional ash transport method referenced in the pr oposed rules. Lean slurry contains copious amounts of excess contact water that is currently prohibited in new impoundments and that is prohibited altogether under the proposed ELG rule. This type of slurry does not produce a solid product but instead pro duces a sludge that presents a risk of liquefaction in the event of a dike failure. In addition, the contents of lean slurry impoundments are not consolidated or cemented. So in the event that this material dries on the surface, it can be easily mobilized by wind to create a dust hazard. Lastly, lean slurry impoundments exhibit relatively high hydraulic conductivity and so tend to produce large quantities of leachate that can pose a threat to ground water. 2. Pumped ash slurries that use roughly 1 part water to 1 part ash (commonly termed “dense slurry” )

. Dense slurry is initially a thick pumpable fluid that solidifies by virtue of hydration and pozzolanic reactions to create a solid product within 24

- 72 hours following discharge. The water mixed with the ash is consumed near stoichiometrically (depending upon ash chemistry) resulting in very small quantities of free liquids. Any small amount of free liquid that may be present is lost to evaporation or bound by capillary forces in the cured product. Thus, discharge or treatment of transport water is not required. Upon curing, the dense slurry product is not subject to liquefaction or release of fugitive emissions. Discharge of wastewater is not required and enhanced protection of ground water is realized b y virtue of enhanced metals sequestration, high capillary forces and low hydraulic conductivity of the cured product.
GEA EGI is suggesting that the proposed rule be modified to specifically allow power plant operators to pump dense slurry into landfills a nd/or impoundments provided the operator can demonstrate that the slurry solidifies within a reasonable period of time to produce a product that is not susceptible to liquefaction, does not require treatment/discharge of transport water and otherwise satis fies the intent of the proposed rule. Demonstrating dense slurry product performance can be achieved by testing selected “recipes” consisting of various mixtures of CCRs and wastewater from candidate plants in advance of deployment.
Comment Response:

Th e final rule does not require steam electric power plants to use any specific technologies to comply with the final rule requirements, nor does EPA find a need for the rule to differentiate between what the commenter refers to as lean slurry and dense slur ry wet ash handling practices.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 361 The final rule establishes a zero discharge limit for pollutants in fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water. Steam electric power plants may use the dense slurry process to transport the ash to the disposal sit e; however, because the dense slurry process generates transport water, the steam electric power plant must still meet the no discharge of wastewater pollutant limitations and standards.
As already noted, the ELGs do not require the use of a specific techn ology, nor do they prohibit the use of specific technologies. EPA recognizes the differences in the dense slurry process and traditional wet

- sluicing ( i.e. , lean slurry) processes. Because of the much smaller volume of water used for the dense slurry proce ss, steam electric power plants should be better able to engineer and operate the process that process so that there will be no discharge. To accomplish this, plants should divert stormwater away from the dense slurry to the extent practicable. If stormwat er or other wastestreams come into contact with the dense slurry prior to completing the solidification and evaporation or encapsulation of the transport water, the fly and bottom ash in the commingled wastestream would need to comply with the zero dischar ge standard for fly ash and bottom ash transport water.
Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5093

- A2, Excerpt Number 5.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 362 6.g.vi. Gasification wastewater

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 99 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Definition of Gasification Wastewater is Overly Broad and Should be Modified

There are two slightly different versions of the definition for “gasification wastewater” included in the Proposed Rule. 65 Both definitions are similar, but one says “any process wastewater”, while the other says wastewater “from all sources ... except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established.” This definition should be reconciled, such that sources with other established limitations would be excluded.
Additionally, EPA includes the following wastestreams they believe should be included in this de finition: “Gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to, the following: slag handling wastewater; sour/grey water (which includes condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams); CO2/steam stripper wastewater; air se paration unit blowdown; and sulfur recover unit blowdown.“ 66 However, this list is overly broad in including certain wastestreams, such as the air separation unit blowdown. Air separation unit blowdown is a clean condensate that does not warrant expensive treatment in a vapor compression evaporator. In addition, although the proposed definition lists a number of varied wastestreams from IGCC facilities, the sampling events that EPA conducted focused only on effluent consisting of the vapor

- compression evapo rator condensate from the grey water treatment systems. It is inconsistent to then establish the same effluent limits for all other ancillary wastestreams, which could be located at multiple additional outfalls, based only on the sampling data from the nar row subset of grey water effluent data associated with the vapor

compression evaporation technology installed.
EPA also requested comments on areas that could limit or hinder the reuse or recycling of water. Including the clean condensate streams in this b road definition of gasification wastewater could hinder the reuse and recycling of water at an IGCC facility. The water generated by the air separation unit process, which EPA currently lists in the proposed definition, is a relatively pure water condensat e generated from the compression of atmospheric air. If this condensate were to be included in this definition and then subject to the vapor

- compression evaporation treatment technology, it would become unavailable to be used in other plant processes, such as for cooling tower make

- up or gasification make

- up water, which would result in the unnecessary consumption of additional water to support these processes.
Therefore, Duke Energy recommends that if EPA includes effluent limits for gasification wastewat er in the Final Rule, then the definition be modified to clarify that gasificationEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 363 wastewater should only include wastewaters which are specific to the IGCC gasification process, which should include only wastewater that is associated with the grey water s ystem. The reference to the air separation unit and its associated condensate should be expressly removed.

65 78 Fed. Reg. at 34532 and 34533

66 78 Fed. Reg. at 34533
Comment Response:
In response to comments, EPA revised the definition for gasification wastewater in the final rule. See 40 CFR 423.11(q). The revised definition clarifies that gasification wastewater includes the wastewater generated from the “gasification block” associated with the gasifier or syngas cleaning, combustion, and cooling processes. As such, gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to the following: sour/grey water; CO 2 /steam stripper wastewater; sulfur recovery unit blowdown, and wastewater resulting from slag handling or fly ash handling, particulate

r emoval, halogen removal, or trace organic removal. As suggested by the commenter, EPA revised the definition to exclude wastewater from air separation unit blowdown. This wastewater was not treated in the evaporation systems evaluated by EPA for this rule, and EPA determined that setting limitations and standards that include the air separation unit blowdown would result in additional costs beyond what EPA estimated for the plants to retrofit their operations. Furthermore, the wastewater from this process d oes not result from the gasifier itself, nor from syngas cleaning, combustion, or cooling.
The revised definition also excludes noncontact cooling water and runoff from fuel and/or byproduct piles.
EPA notes that the final rule does not include any anticircumvention provisions related to commingling of wastestreams applicable to wastestreams with numerical limitations, like gasification wastewater. See preamble section VIII.G.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Aff

iliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 168 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A. The Two Different Definitions of “Gasification W astewater” Are Not ClearEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 364 In the proposed BAT rules, “gasification wastewater” from existing sources would be subject to BPT limits for TSS and oil and grease and BAT limits for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and total dissolved solids. In particular, the ars enic limits are 4 μg/L as a daily maximum and unspecified for a monthly average.
The definition of “gasification wastewater” in proposed § 423.11 (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,533 col. 3) is this:
...any process wastewater generated from a system used to create synthe sis [sic] gas from fuels such as coal or petroleum coke. Gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to, the following: slag handling wastewater, sour/grey water (which includes condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams ), CO 2 /steam stripper wastewater, air separation unit blowdown, and sulfur recovery unit blowdown.
A slightly different definition appears on page 34,532 col. 3:

Gasification Wastewater

– Wastewater from all sources at an integrated gasification combined

c ycle operation except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established. Gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to the following: slag handling wastewater; fly ash and water stream; sour/grey water (which consists of condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams); CO 2 /steam stripper wastewater; air separation unit blowdown; and sulfur recover unit blowdown.
Thus one definition says “any process wastewater,” while the other says wastewater “from all

sources ... except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established.”
All three existing integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants (Polk, Wabash River, and Edwardsport) are different, and there are significant design differences and variatio ns in the processes used, resulting in different byproducts.
The IGCC units generate different commercial byproducts. Each of the three burns a different fuel (petroleum coke, petroleum coke

- coal blend, and coal). More attention should be given to defin ing what the wastestreams are before turning to the question of what data are needed to characterize those wastestreams.
If EPA does promulgate different limitations for “gasification wastewater,” it should define the wastestream to include only wastewate r specific to the IGCC gasification process, meaning wastewater associated with the grey water system. References to air separation units and condensate from them should not be included.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 99.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 365 Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 76 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review In corporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Two Different Definitions of “Gasification Wastewater” are Not Clear
If EPA retains gasification wastewater as a wastestream, it should clarify the definition of “gasification wastewater” subject to the p roposed limitations and should specify that permit writers should fully take into account background levels of arsenic and selenium in setting and ELGs for those metals. The proposed rule contains two different definitions. First, the definition of “gasif ication wastewater” in proposed §423.11 (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,533 col. 3) is:
any process wastewater generated from a system used to create synthesis [sic] gas from fuels such as coal or petroleum coke. Gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to , the following: slag handling wastewater, sour/grey water (which includes condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams), CO2/steam stripper wastewater, air separation unit blowdown, and sulfur recovery unit blowdown.

However, there is a slightly different definition on page 34,532 col. 3:

Gasification Wastewater

– Wastewater from all sources at an integrated gasification combined cycle operation except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established. Gasification was tewater includes, but is not limited to the following: slag handling wastewater; fly ash and water stream; sour/grey water (which consists of condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams); CO2/steam stripper wastewater; air separatio n unit blowdown; and sulfur recover unit blowdown.
In short, one definition says “any process wastewater,” while the other says wastewater “from all sources...except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established.”
There should be only one definition. The second definition, which includes all wastestreams except those that have specific limitations, should be the only one.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 99.

Commenter Name: Paul Carpmone Commenter Affiliation: Tampa Electric Company (TEC)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 366 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4520

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Gasifi cation Wastewater Defined Inconsistently
There is inconsistency between the preamble and the proposed rule in the definition of gasification wastewater. The first definition provided in the preamble (78 Fed. Reg. at p. 34,532 col 3) is the following.

"G asification Wastewater

- Wastewater from all sources at an integrated gasification combined cycle operation except those for which specific limitations are otherwise established

. Gasification wastewater includes, but is not limited to the following: slag handling wastewater; fly ash and water stream ; sour/grey water (which consists of condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as other wastestreams); C02/stearn stripper wastewater; air separation unit blowdown ; and sulfur recover unit blowdown."

With in the proposed rule (78 Fed. Reg. at p. 34,533 col 3), EPA defines gasification wastewater to include
"any process wastewater generated from a system used to create synthesis [sic] gas from fuels such as coal or petroleum coke. Gasification wastewater in cludes, but it not limited to, the following: slag handling wastewater, sour/grey water (which includes condensate generated for gas cooling, as well as the other wastewater); CO2/steam stripper wastewater; air separation unit blowdown; and sulfur recover unit blowdown."
The definition in the proposed rule should be the same as the definition in the preamble to be consistent and to provide the distinction that gasification wastewater does not (and should not) include wastestreams "for which specific limita tions are otherwise established".
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 99.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 367 6.g.vii. New source

Commenter Name: David Y. Chung Commenter Affiliation: Homer City Generation, L.P Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5552

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Finally, to the extent a facility expands upon an existing landfill, such expansion should not t rigger the definition of “new source” in 40 C.F.R. § 122.29. Existing solid wastes ( e.g. , fly ash, bottom ash, gypsum, etc.) from the steam electric industry are routinely added to landfills. When new wastes are generated, disposal will likely occur in lan dfills. 4 Consequently, active captive and non

- captive landfills (and inactive landfills that become active) are in a continuous state of expansion and can be expanded horizontally and vertically for many years. Such expansions might include construction on onsite lands not contiguous with an existing landfill or at off

- site locations. When a facility merely expands an existing landfill, it is not: (i) constructing a facility at a site where no other source is located; (ii) totally replacing process of produ ction equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or (iii) a source whose processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. See id. § 122.29 (b)(1) (setting forth criteria for new source determinat ions). 5

4 For example, waste biosolids from a new biological treatment system or crystallized salts associated with a new spray drier would be considered new wastes requiring disposal.

5 As set forth in more detail above, Homer City urges EPA not to finalize any of its proposed “anti

- circumvention” provisions. If EPA chooses to do so, it should not impose any internal monitoring requirement for the BAT limits for leachate ( i.e. , it should not finalize Options 4 or 5), and it should retain the language allowing for co

- treatment of FGD wastewater with leachate without requiring operators to demonstrate compliance with the BAT limits for FGD wastewater prior to such co

- treatment.
Comment Resp onse:
See Response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 368 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

V. EPA SHOULD CONFIRM THAT ADDITIONAL LANDFILL CAPACITY DEDICATED TO CCR DISPLACED AS A RESULT OF AN ELG REQUIREMENT ARE EXISTING SOURCES
USWAG seeks confirmation that any landfills constructed to manage CCR displaced as a result of a facility’s compliance with a newly imposed ELG requirement is not a “new source” and that any combustion residual leachate from such landfills is not subject to the rule’s new source pretreatment standards for combustion residual leachate. Clarification of this position is important because, under EPA’s preferred options, certain existing wastewater streams could become subject to a zero discha rge standard. If this option is selected in the final rule, the likely alternative management practice for many utilities will be to convert to dry handling of fly ash and to dispose of the displaced CCR via dry handling in a landfill. While some utiliti es operate dry and wet handling systems in tandem and have adequate existing landfill space to manage the displaced CCR, many utilities currently manage CCR in impoundments and are unlikely to have existing landfill capacity to handle this diverted wastest ream. These facilities will be compelled in many instances to expand or construct additional onsite landfills at their facilities. If sufficient space is not available or conditions are not otherwise suitable for constructing a landfill onsite, additiona l offsite landfill capacity will need to be constructed for the displaced CCR. In either case, the additional offsite landfill capacity will be dedicated to the same CCR that has been diverted from the pre

- existing impoundment. For the reasons discussed below, USWAG requests that EPA clarify that this additional landfill capacity is not subsumed by the ELG requirements for new sources and, in particular, that the combustion residual leachate from such additional capacity is not subject to the proposed pr e

- treatment standards for combustion residual leachate from new sources.
EPA defines a “new source,” in part, as a newly constructed “building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a Discharge of pollutants.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 122. 2, 403.3(m). Importantly, though, EPA’s guidance is clear that the term “source” in the definition of new source refers to the “ facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it. ” Laura Boorznazian, EPA, to Regional Water Division Directors ( Sept. 26, 2006) (emphasis added); see also Transcript from EPA Aug. 20, 2013 Webinar on “Stream Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

– Proposed Rule,” at 13 (clarifying that “a new source is a new generating unit at an existing facility or . . . a new green field type of facility altogether.”). Thus, “in EPA’s view, where an owner or operator makes changes only to its wastewater treatment systems, and no changes occur in the production or wastewater generating processes of the plant, the source s hould not be reclassified as a new source.” Id

. The same logic applies to facilities that must alter their CCR management practices to comply with the forthcoming ELG standards, but which make no changes in the production process that produces the regula ted waste in the first instance

– i.e., the stream electric generation process.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 369 When finalized, the ELG rule likely will require existing sources to institute broad changes in how they manage certain CCR wastestreams. The waste management modifications lik ely to be required by this rule will reduce the volume of wastewater to be discharged from facilities and will change the character of the wastewater, for example, from predominantly fly ash transport water from an impoundment to a lower volume of combusti on residual leachate from CCR managed in a landfill. However, it is important to recognize that the source of these wastestreams

— i.e ., the steam electric generation facilities themselves

— are not required to undergo any changes as a result of this rule. T hese modifications solely affect the waste management process and therefore any changes to the waste treatment process

– i.e. , the additional landfill capacity used to manage the displaced CCR from the same production

source

– should not be construed as "ne w sources."
In addition to being consistent with EPA’s established guidance regarding the definition of a “new source,” there are sound policy reasons for confirming that additional landfill capacity constructed to manage CCR displaced due solely to compli ance with the ELG rule are not new

sources. As an initial matter, from a risk perspective, the combustion residual leachate from the additional landfill capacity is, for all practical purposes, identical in composition to combustion residual leachate from “existing source” landfills. Moreover, it is not equitable to compel facilities to expend vast sums to convert existing sources to dry handling and, as a result of their efforts to comply with the rule, transform their status from existing source to new source.
Therefore, for the above reasons, USWAG requests that EPA confirm in the final rule that additional landfill capacity constructed to manage CCR displaced in order for a facility to comply with a zero discharge standard (or other new standard) is no t a “new source” and that the leachate from such facilities are not subject to the new source pretreatment standards.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & W illiams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 149 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

E. New Landfill Cells and Additional Landfill Capacity Constructed to Manage Wastes Displaced as a Result of the ELG Revisions Are Not “New Sources”
It is possible that the new ELG rule, depending on what limits it sets for bottom ash and fly ash transport water, may cause power pl ants to cease managing certain coal ash transport waters inEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 370 impoundments and begin disposing of coal ash in landfills instead. As a result, existing landfills may have to be enlarged, and additional landfill capacity may have to be created either on

- or
o ffsite to manage the coal ash wastestreams displaced as a result of the revised ELG requirements that prohibits using impoundments to manage such wastes.
Because power stations may need to create addition landfill capacity for displaced wastestreams under the revised ELG rules, it is important for EPA to clarify in the final rule that new cells at existing landfills and additional landfill capacity

– whether constructed on

- or offsite

– necessary to manage coal ash wastestreams displaced as a result of a re vised ELG requirement are not “new sources” subject to “new source” performance standards. Similarly, EPA should clarify that combustion residual leachate from such additional capacity is not subject to the proposed pretreatment standards for combustion r esidual leachate from new sources (PSNS), but rather remains subject to the proposed PSES standards for existing sources.
This position is consistent with longstanding EPA policy. EPA guidance says that the term “source” in the definition of new source re fers to the “ facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it. ” Memo from L. Boornazian and M. Smith, EPA, to Regional Water Division Directors (Sept. 28, 2006) (emphasis added) at 4, available at www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/newsource_dates.pdf

. Thus, “in EPA’s view, where an owner or operator makes changes only to its wastewater treatment systems, and no changes occur in the production or wastewater generating processes of the plan t, the source should not be reclassified as a new source.” Id .; see also 49 Fed. Reg. 37,998, 38,044 (Sept. 26, 1984).
Indeed, EPA’s own definition of “new source” does not apply to new cells or additional landfill capacity constructed to manage wastestre ams from the same generating facility, for the reasons given below.

1. New Cells at an Existing Landfill
If a steam electric generating station opens a new cell in an existing landfill, the new cell is not a “new source” to which new source performance s tandards apply. The criteria for new source determinations are at 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b). Section 122.29(b)(1) defines when a “source” (defined in § 122.29(a)(2) as any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a dischar ge of pollutants) is classified as a “new source.”
First, a source is a new source when it is “constructed at a site at which no other source is located.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(i). An entirely new generating facility (at a “greenfield” site) is a new source. “New sources” also include sources (1) that totally replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source, 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(ii), and (2) whose processes are “substantially independent” of an existing source at the same site, 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(iii).
Obviously a new cell at an existing landfill does not “totally replace” the source of leachate discharges and is not “substantially independent” of the existing facility. Hence, a new ce ll at an existing facility would not be a “new source.” UWAG believes this is clear from 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b), but we recommend that EPA make it explicit in the final rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 371 2. Additional Landfill Capacity to Manage Displaced Wastestreams Is Not a New S ource
Likewise, if the facility builds additional landfill capacity

– whether onsite or offsite

– to manage wastestreams displaced as a result of revisions to the ELG rule, the additional landfill capacity is not a “new source.” Obviously it is not at a “ greenfield” site, as it is not a new generating station. And even if it “totally replaces” an existing landfill, it does not replace the power generating facility, which is the “source.” 73 Finally, the new landfill capacity does not have processes “subst antially independent” of the existing power plant

– indeed, in these circumstances, the new capacity has been created solely to manage wastestreams from the existing source

– i.e. , the power plant

– that have been prohibited from being managed in a surface impoundment by the revised ELGs.
If a power plant does not own the offsite landfill receiving its waste, it should not be responsible for complying with effluent limitations guidelines. The steam electric ELGs do not to apply to offsite landfills for coal

- related waste where the unit is not owned or operated by a utility. Rather, if the offsite landfill is an ordinary landfill unit in the Landfills Point Source Category, then it is regulated by the ELGs in 40 C.F.R. Part 445. But it is the owner of the l andfill that is responsible for meeting the requirements, not the party who contracts with the landfill to manage the waste material.

73 This position was reiterated by EPA during the EPA Webcast on the proposed ELG rule where, during the question

- and

- an swer session, EPA affirmed that “[w]hat actually has been put into practice is that, generally speaking, a new source is a new generating unit at an existing facility or, of course, it could be a new green field type of facility altogether.” Transcript fr om EPA Aug. 20, 2013 Webinar on “Stream Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

– Proposed Rule” (Attachment 28 to these comments) at 12

- 13.
Comment Response:
EPA generally agrees with the commenter’s interpretation of the “new source” definition a nd its application to new landfills or expansions to existing landfills to manage combustion residuals requiring disposal in response to the ELG. As such, EPA is confirming the following:

1. An expansion to an existing landfill (e.g., a new landfill cell) at an existing steam electric power plant to manage the combustion residuals generated by existing generating units is considered an existing source and the combustion residual leachate from such a landfill would be subject to the combustion residual leachate BAT limitations. 2. A new landfill built at an existing plant to manage the combustion residuals generated by existing generating units is considered an existing source and the combustion residual leachate from such a landfill would be subject to the combust ion residual leachate BAT limitations. 3. Numbers 1 and 2 above apply to both on

- site or off

- site landfills that are owned or operated by the steam electric power plant or its owner/subsidiary.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 372 Off

- site

- municipal landfills are not subject to the combustion re sidual leachate limitations and standards in the final rule, but rather, are subject to the requirements in 40 CFR 445, Landfills Point Source Category.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 108 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Duke Energy also recommends that EPA confirm that any new landfill or the expansion of an existing landfill constructed to manage the additional capacity needed for CCR displaced as a result of a facility’s compliance the ELG Final Rule is not classified as a “new source” and that any combustion residual leachate from such a landfill is not subject to t he rule’s “New Source Performance Limits” for this wastestream. Clarification of this position is important since under the ELG Proposal the prohibition of discharging CCR transport water will force utilities to begin alternative management practices by co nverting to dry collection and disposal of flyash, bottom ash or both into landfills. While some of Duke Energy’s coal

- fired units operate both dry and wet handling systems in tandem and may have adequate existing landfill space to manage the displaced CCR , many of the smaller generating stations currently only manage CCR in impoundments. Duke Energy will need to construct new landfills or expand existing landfills, some of which will be onsite, while some will be at off

- site locations. Duke Energy also has dedicated landfills that accept CCR from multiple stations and may need more of these types of landfills strategically located to provide additional landfill capacity to handle the flyash or bottom ash that could be collected dry in the future.

In all cas es, the additional onsite or off

- site landfill capacity will be dedicated to the same CCR that had been managed in the pre

- existing impoundments at existing generating stations. Duke Energy requests that EPA clarify that this additional landfill capacity, whether from a new landfill or new cells at existing landfills, is not considered a “new source” under the ELG requirements and that the combustion residual leachate from such additional capacity is not subject to the proposed limits for combustion residu al leachate from new sources.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Lisa C. Messinger Commenter Affiliation: Vectren CorporationEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 373 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4317

- A1 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We also request a more descriptive definition of “new source”, such as that offered in the EPA webcast which explained that i t pertains to new "generating" units. During the webcast it was further specified, that modifications to existing units or the construction of a new landfill or landfill cells for the disposal needs of an existing facility would not be subject to New Sour ce Perfomance Standards as listed in the ELG.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 43 79

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 142 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
PSNS Applicability
The new source definition and applicability is a significant consideration for both NSPS and PS NS. If ash ponds are eliminated as a treatment option for fly ash and possibly bottom ash, additional CCR landfills will be required at most plants. These landfills in many cases will be unable to be collocated at the generating facility, thereby necessita ting possible treatment and permitting offsite. The proposal is unclear as to whether the existing source definition will apply to the landfill operation and whether the landfill itself is a new source or whether the source is the generating facility.

Com ment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Mark Thoma Commenter Affiliation: Otter Trail Power CompanyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 374 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4446

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Rev iew Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should explicitly acknowledge that new source performance standards (NSPS) for combustion residual leachate are not triggered by a new cell or new landfill built to manage coal combustion residual wastes at an existing generating unit. Modification of an existing generating unit and its affiliated disposal facilities is an “existing source,” not a new source.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
New landfill cells and additional landfill capacity constructed to manage wastes as a result of the ELG revisions are not "New Sources". This position is consistent with longstanding agency policy. USEPA guidance says that the term "source" in the definition of new source refers to the ''facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it." Thus, "in EPA's view, where an owner or operator makes changes only to its wastewater treatme nt systems, and no changes occur in the production or wastewater generating processes of the plant, the source should not be reclassified as a new source."
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Na me: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 64Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 375 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We Energies Asks EPA to Clarify its Definition of Existing Sources and New Sources in Regards to which Limits Apply to Combustion Residual Leachate.
We Energies questions how EPA intends to regulate combustion residual leachate based on the following scenarios.

Scena rio #1: A new permitted landfill is constructed and receives combustion residual products (e.g., fly ash, bottom ash, FGD gypsum) from an existing site. How is the leachate characterized? What limits must be met: BAT limits for existing dischargers (wh ich as proposed are the BPT limits) or NSPS?

Scenario #2: A new cell is constructed at an existing company landfill. How is the leachate characterized? What limits must be met: BAT limits for existing dischargers (which as proposed are the BPT limits) or NSPS?
We Energies interprets 40 CFR 122.29 to support the conclusion that under both of the scenarios presented above, the combustion residual leachate would not be treated as a “new source” and BAT limits for existing dischargers (which as proposed are the BPT limits) would govern. We Energies asks EPA to clarify this interpretation.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Instit ute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 65 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

New Landfills and Landfill Cells Needed to Handle CCR Dis placed by the Steam Electric ELGs Should Be Categorized as Existing Sources.
It is possible that the new ELG rule, depending on what limits it sets for bottom ash and fly ash transport water, may cause power plants to close ash impoundments and begin dispo sing of coalEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 376 ash in landfills instead. Existing landfills may have to be enlarged, and new landfills may have to be created either on

- or offsite.
EPA should make clear that such new cells and landfills are not “new sources” subject to “new source” perform ance standards. EPA guidance says that the “new source” is the “facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it”:
[I]t is important to recognize that the “source” of a discharge from an industrial operation is the facility generating the disc harge, not the system treating it. Mahelona v. Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., 418 F. Supp 1328 (Aug. 27, 1976), 49 Fed. Reg. 38044 (Sept. 26, 1984).
L. Boornazian & M. Smith, New Source Dates for Direct and Indirect Dischargers (Sept. 28, 2006), www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/newsource_dates.pdf

. Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Alabama Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4489

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
D. New Landfills on an Existing Site Do Not Constitut e a “New Source” Subject to New Source Performance Standards
Current EPA regulations demonstrate that if an existing steam electric generating station opens a new landfill on an existing facility site, the new structure would not constitute a “new source” to which the new source performance standards apply. New source determinations are made according to the criteria found at 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b). As Section 122.29(b)(1) clarifies, a “new source” emerges when: (1) the source is “constructed at a site at wh ich no other source is located,” or (2) the source totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; and (3) has processes that are “substantially independent” of an existing sou rce at the same site. 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(i)

- (iii) 27 Under these definitions, even an entirely new landfill within the existing footprint of the plant is not

a “new source” since such a landfill would not be “constructed at a site at which no othe r source is located,” 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(i); nor would such a structure “totally replace” either the power generating facility or the existing landfill for the facility. 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)(1)(ii). Further, the new landfill would not have processes “substantially independent” of the existingEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 377 power plant. Because it would not be a new source, the ELG rules do not need to address this issue.

27 EPA guidance also makes clear that the term “source” in the regulatory definition of “new source”, set ou t in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (which is incorporated by reference into 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b)), refers to the “facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it.” Laura Boorznazian, EPA, to Regional Water Division Directors (Sept. 26, 2006).

Comment R esponse:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Cathy S. Woollums Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4495

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 E xternal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The definition of “new source” should not apply to coal combustion residual landfills constructed to manage CCR displaced as a result of newly imposed ELG requirements, or to landfill expansions at an existing facility.
MidAmerican requests EPA clarify that leachate generated from required additional CCR landfill capacity is not included in the ELG requirements for new sources, and, in particular, that the combustion residual leachate from such expansion is not subject to the proposed pretreatment standards for new sources. Landfills constructed to manage CCR displaced as a result of a facility's compliance with a newly imposed ELG requirement do not mee t the regulatory definition of “new source” 9 . Similarly, landfill expansions at existing facilities also do not meet that definition.
Leachate from CCR landfills, whether new or existing, should not be subject to the proposed ELG rule's new source pretreat ment standards for combustion residual leachate. EPA provided clarification regarding this point during a webcast held August 20, 2013, stating that “a new source is a new generating unit at an existing facility” and that “a modification to an existing gen erating unit has not been treated as a new source by the NPDES program.” Clarification of this position is important as an initial applicability determination, because, under EPA's preferred options, certain existing wastewater streams such as fly ash tran sport water and bottom ash transport water could become subject to a zero discharge standard. If any of these options is selected for the final rule, the likely alternative for many facilities will be to convert their units toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 378 dry handling of fly ash and/o r bottom ash. Facilities would then need to construct additional capacity in currently existing landfills to manage this displaced fly ash and bottom ash.
Based on discussion in the ELG proposal, 10 “new source” refers to a new facility, and would not apply to an expansion of an existing landfill. EPA defines “new source,” in part, as a newly constructed “building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants.” 11 Although waste management modifications are like ly to be required under the ELG rule, the source of the waste stream

– i.e. , the steam electric generation facility

– will not be required to undergo changes as a result of the rule. The modifications would solely affect the waste management process. Since there are no changes being made to the source of the combustion residual leachate, the regulated wastewater cannot be considered a “new source.” The combustion residual leachate from any additional landfill capacity is, for all practical purposes, identic al in composition to combustion residual leachate from “existing source” landfills, and if the leachate from an expansion is co

- managed with leachate from “existing source” landfills, the waste stream should not be considered a “new source” and should not be subject to new source pretreatment standards. EPA should clarify the text of the ELG rule to clearly exclude leachate collected from new landfills constructed to manage CCR displaced by the ELGs and landfill expansions from any NSPS requirements.

9 40 CFR §§122.2, 406.6(m) and 78 Fed. Reg. at 34438.

10 Id.

11 40 CFR §§122.2, 406.6(m)
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 36 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
To the extent a facility expands upon an existing landfill, such expansion should not trigger the definition of “new source” in 40 C.F.R. §122.29.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 379 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 37 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Active captive and non

- captive landfills (and inactive landfills that become active) are in a continuous state of expansion and can be expanded horizontally and vertically for many years. These landfill expansions could also include construction on onsite land not contiguous with the existing landfill or at off

- site locations. Often plan s for future stages of expansion are included in the original permitting of the landfill.
Existing solid wastes (e.g., fly ash, bottom ash, gypsum, etc.) from the steam electric industry are routinely added to landfills. When new wastes are generated, disp osal will likely occur in existing landfills and landfill expansions. For example, the waste biosolids from a new biological treatment system or crystallized salts associated with a new spray drier would be considered new wastes requiring disposal.

When a facility merely expands an existing landfill, it is not: (i) constructing a facility at a site where no other source is located; (ii) totally replacing process of production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or (iii) a source whose processes are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. See id. § 122.29 (b)(1) setting forth criteria for new source determinations.
Existing EPA regulations are not sufficiently clear to determine what sources are N ew Sources. It is important to recognize that the source of these waste streams (i.e., the steam electric generation facilities themselves) is not required to undergo any changes as a result of this proposed rule. These modifications solely affect the wast e management process and therefore any changes to the waste treatment process that may include should not be construed as “new sources.” NRG requests that EPA provide clear guidance that the proposed numeric standards for discharges of leachate from New So urces will not apply to existing steam electric generating plants.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 380 Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Doc ument Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Because electric generation facilities may need to create addition landfill capacity for displaced wastestreams under the revised ELG rules, it is important for EPA to clarify in the final rule that new cells at existing landfills and additional landfill capacity whether constructed on or offsite necessary to manage coal ash wastestreams displaced as a result of a revised ELG requirement are not “new sources” subject to “new source” performance standards. Similarly, EPA should clarify that combustion residual leachate from such additional capacity is not subject to the pro posed pretreatment standards for combustion residual leachate from new sources (PSNS), but rather remains subject to the proposed PSES standards for existing sources.
This position is consistent with longstanding EPA policy. EPA guidance says that the term “source” in the definition of new source refers to the “facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it.” Laura Boornazian, EPA, to Regional Water Division Directors (Sept. 26, 2006) (emphasis added), available at www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/newsource_dates.pdf. Thus, “in EPA’s view, where an owner or operator makes changes only to its wastewater treatment systems, and no changes occur in the production or wastewater gen erating processes of the plant, the source should not be reclassified as a new source.” Id.; see also 49 Fed. Reg. 37998, 38044 (Sept. 26, 1984).
Indeed, EPA’s own definition of “new source” does not apply to new cells or additional landfill capacity const ructed to manage wastestreams from the same generating facility, for the reasons given below.
A new cell at an existing landfill does not “totally replace” the source of leachate discharges and is not “substantially independent” of the existing facility. Hence, under no circumstances would a new cell at an existing facility be a “new source.” This is clear from 40 C.F.R. § 122.29(b), though it would be beneficial for EPA to confirm it.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excer pt Number 149.

Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 381 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review In corporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Likewise, if the facility builds additional landfill capacity

– whether onsite or offsite

– to manage wastestreams displaced as a result of revisions to the ELG rule, the additional landfill capacity is not a “new source.” Obviously it is not at a “greenfield” site, as it is not a new generating station. And even if it “totally replaces” an existing landfill, it does not replace the power generating facility, which is the “source.” Finally, the new landfill ca pacity does not have processes “substantially independent” of the existing power plant indeed, in these circumstances, the new capacity has been created solely to manage wastestreams from the existing source that have been prohibited from being managed in a surface impoundment by the revised ELGs.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
that combustion residual leachate generated from additional landfill capacity developed for the sole purpose of managing CCR displaced from impoundments as a result of the final ELG requirements is not leachate from a “new source” and therefore is not subject to the new source pretreatment standards for combustion residual leachate.
Comment Resp onse:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: James R. Roewer Commenter Affiliation: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4652

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 382 Comment Excerpt:
additional landfill capacity constructed solely to manage CCR displaced as a result of a revised ELG requirement is an “existing source."

Commen t Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 179 Externa l Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

D. PSNS Applicability
The new source definition and applicability is a significant consideration for both NSPS and PSNS. If ash ponds are eliminated as a treatment option for fly ash and possibly bottom ash, additional CCR landfills will be required at most plants. These landfills in many cases will be unable to be collocated at the generating facility, thereby necessitating possible treatment and permitt ing offsite. The proposal should make clear, as stated in previous sections of these comments, that new offsite landfills receiving CCRs from existing facilities are not new sources as they are not substantially independent of the generating facility.

Com ment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number : 82 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 383 New Landfill Cells and Additional Landfill Capacity Constructed to Manage Wastes Displaced As a Result of the ELG Revisions Are Not “New Source s”
UWAG’s comments go into great detail on these issues related to waters of the U. S. and new and existing landfill cells. APPA defers to UWAG and offers a few examples to augment UWAG’s comments.
1. New Cells at an Existing Landfill
If a steam electric g enerating station opens a new cell in an existing landfill, the new cell is not a “new source” to which new source performance standards apply. The criteria for new source determinations are at 40 C.F.R. §122.29(b). Section 122.29(b)(1) defines when a “sou rce” (defined in §122.29(a)(2) as any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants) is classified as a “new source.”
First, a source is a new source when it is “constructed at a site at which no oth er source is located.” 40 C.F.R. §122.29(b)(1)(i). An entirely new generating facility (at a “greenfield” site) is a new source. “New sources” also include sources (1) that totally replace the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of po llutants at an existing source, 40 C.F.R. §122.29(b)(1)(ii), and (2) whose processes are “substantially independent” of an existing source at the same site, 40 C.F.R. §122.29(b)(1)(iii).
Obviously a new cell at an existing landfill does not “totally replac e” the source of leachate discharges and is not “substantially independent” of the existing facility. Hence, under no circumstances would a new cell at an existing facility be a “new source.” This is clear from 40 C.F.R. §122.29(b), though it would be bene ficial for EPA to confirm it in the final rule.
2. Additional Landfill Capacity to Manage Displaced Wastestreams
Likewise, if the facility builds additional landfill capacity

– whether onsite or offsite

– to manage wastestreams displaced as a result of rev isions to the ELG rule, the additional landfill capacity is not a “new source.” Obviously it is not at a “greenfield” site, as it is not a new generating station. And even if it “totally replaces” an existing landfill, it does not replace the power generat ing facility, which is the “source.” 28 Finally, the new landfill capacity does not have processes “substantially independent” of the existing power plant

– indeed, in these circumstances, the new capacity has been created solely to manage wastestreams f rom the existing source

– i.e. , the power plant

– that have been prohibited from being managed in a surface impoundment by the revised ELGs.
It is important to recognize that if a power plant does not own the offsite landfill receiving its waste, it should not be responsible for complying with effluent limitations guidelines. The steam electric ELGs do not to apply to offsite landfills for coal

- related waste where the unit is not owned or operated by a utility. Rather, if the offsite landfill is an ordinary landfill unit in the Landfills Point Source Category, then it is regulated by the ELGs in 40 C.F.R. Part 445.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 384 28 This position was reiterated by EPA during the EPA Webcast on the proposed ELG rule where, during the question

- and

- answer session, EPA affirme d that “[w]hat actually has been put into practice is that, generally speaking, a new source is a new generating unit at an existing facility or, of course, it could be a new green field type of facility altogether.” Transcript from EPA Aug. 20, 2013, Webi nar on “Stream Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines

– Proposed Rule,” at 12

- 13.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: Paul Ling Commenter Affiliation: Kansas City Power & Light Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 16 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should also explicitly acknowledge that CWA new source performance standards (NSPS) are not triggered by a new cell or new landfill built to manage Coal Combustion Residues (CCR) waste streams displaced as a result of a facility’s compliance with a new steam electric ELG requirement. Modification of an existin g generating unit and its affiliated disposal facilities is an existing source, not a new source. EPA guidance also says that the “new source” is the “facility generating the discharge, not the system treating it.”
Comment Response:
See response to DCN E PA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.

Commenter Name: S. L. Phillips Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5509

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
New cells in an existing landfill should not be classified as new sources under the Clean Water Act. New sources are typically indicated when new stand

- alone operations are constructed at aEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 38 5 facility, or at a greenfield site. Expansions at existing units are typically not classified as new

sources. Similarly, a new cell at an existing landfill should not be classified as a new source.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 149.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 386 6.g.viii. Pretreatment 10

- yr/24 hr storm

Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

11. Storm Events
The pretreatment definitions for the 10

- year/24

- hour storm refer to a NOAA Technical Paper 40 from 1961. This should be upda ted to include April 2013 release of the NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8: Precipitation

- Frequency Atlas of the United States ( http://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/.)
Comment Response:
EPA notes that the April 2013 release of the NOAA Atlas 14 Volume 8 is an acceptable document to use in defining a 10

- year/24

- hour rainfall event because the current definition allows for using the NOAA Technical Paper 40 from 1961 “or equivalent regional rainfall probability info rmation developed therefrom.” Therefore, EPA decided not to revise the definition of 10

- year/24

- hour rainfall event for the final rule.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Docume nt Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

The definitions for the 10

- year/24

- hour storm refer to a 1961 study. The se should be updated.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 21.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 387 6.g.ix. Bottom ash and boiler slag

Commenter Name: Mark Thoma Commenter Affiliation: Otter Trail Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4446

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Definitions and Regulation of Boiler Slag and Bottom Ash

Otter Tail recommends that EPA includ e a separate definition for boiler slag to recognize the difference between the slag that is produced by a cyclone boiler in comparison to the bottom ash produced by pulverized coal boilers. At a minimum, EPA must amend the proposed definition of bottom as h, which does not make clear whether boiler slag is included, by replacing it with the definition in Appendix A to the proposed rule. Note that the Appendix A bottom ash definition explicitly includes boiler slag.
If EPA does not include a separate defin ition for boiler slag and instead agrees to include it within the definition of bottom ash, Otter Tail stresses that EPA must not impose an option that requires dry handling of boiler slag. Inherent to their design, cyclone boilers develop a molten slag th at flows through the bottom of the boiler into a tank, where the slag is quenched in a water bath. This process cannot be completed without water.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1, Excerpt Number 46.

Commenter Name: Ny sa Hogue Commenter Affiliation: Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4454

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excer pt:
Please clarify if incidental/ de minimis bottom or fly ash wastewater not associated with wet bottom or fly ash handling systems, as defined in the proposed rule, is subject to the proposed BA or Fly Ash BAT limits or will these type of discharges be regulated under the existing LVW BPT limits ( 40 CFR 423.12).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 388 Comment Response:
It is unclear what the commenter means by “incidental/ de minimis bottom or fly ash wastewater not associated with wet bottom or fly ash handling systems.” The final rule limitations and standards are for bottom ash trans port water and fly ash transport water. Therefore, any wastewater that contacts fly ash or bottom ash that meets the definition for “transport water” would be subject to the final fly ash or bottom ash transport water effluent limitations and standards. Co nversely, any wastewater that contacts fly ash or bottom ash that is not within the definition for “transport water,” although not subject to the final fly ash or bottom ash transport water effluent limitations and standards is subject to previously promul gated low volume waste sources BPT standards.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Revi ew External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
One clarification that DP&L suggests is to include boiler slag in the definition of bottom ash. Bottom ash is essentially agglomerated ash particles, formed in coal

- fired furnaces that ar e too large to be carried through the stack with the flue gases. DP&L recommends that USEPA amend the definition of "bottom ash" explicitly to include "boiler slag." Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of furnaces that is quenched wi th water. When the molten slag contacts the quenching water, it fractures, crystallizes, and forms pellets. This boiler slag material is made of hard, black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy appearance and is even more inert than other bottom a sh. By including boiler slag in the ELG revisions, USEPA will be consistent with the proposed Coal Combustion Residuals rulemaking which specifically includes boiler slag within the universe of potentially regulated material and current regulatory practic e.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 389 Comment Excerpt:
We also note that the definition of bottom ash is inconsistent throughout the proposed rulemaking and we urge EPA to amend the definition to provi de clarity. As further explained in Section II, the definition of bottom ash in the final rule should include boiler slag.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 45 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In the preamble of the EPA proposal, it appears that EPA properly categorizes boiler slag as bottom ash. Specifically, EPA makes the following statement:
"Combustion residuals comprise a variety of wastes from the combustion process , including fly ash, bottom ash (which in includes boiler slag) ..."
78 Fed. Reg. 34450 col. 1.
Later in the appendix to the preamble EPA provides a definition of bottom ash that again includes boiler slag when it states:

"Bottom ash

- The ash, including boiler slag, that drops out of the furnace g as stream in the furnace and which settles in the furnace or are dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash."
78 Fed. Reg. 34532 col. 2.
In the proposed rule, however, EPA does not amend the definition of bottom ash to explicitly include boiler slag. Without amendment the definition of bottom ash from the 1982 ELG Rule will control which defines bottom ash as:
"[T]he ash that drops out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and in the economizer sections . Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash."Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 390 40 C.F.R. 423.11
We request that EPA amend the definition of "bottom ash" to explicitly include boiler slag within the definition of bottom ash in the final rule. This clarification will ensure that ash removed by boiler lancing is properly treated as bottom ash. We believe this definition is consistent with current regulatory practices and EPA's recognition i n the Rule's preamble and is warranted given the inert nature of boiler slag.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that the definition of bottom ash was not consistent in the proposal. EPA also agrees with the commenter that boiler slag should be included in the definition of bottom ash. As a result, EPA is promulgating the definition of bottom ash as “the ash, including boiler slag, which settles in the furnace or is dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash” (See preamble Appendix A).
Additionally, EPA agrees with the commenter that “ash removed by boiler lancing is... bottom ash”.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document C ontrol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 46 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Boiler slag is distinct from bottom ash inasmuch as it exists in true, solid form only after exposure to water. Specifically, boiler slag is formed when the molten ash collected at the base of the slag tap in cyclone type furnaces is quenched with water, causing the molten material to fracture and crystallize. Boiler slag is made u p of hard, black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy appearance. It is even more inert than traditional bottom ash. It is typically packaged as

- is and shipped across the country for use in other construction processes and components of products s uch as roofing granules, sandblasting grit and de

- icing of roadways, among other valuable uses.
EPA apparently considers boiler slag synonymous with bottom ash, see 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 (defining bottom ash as “[t]he ash, including boiler slag, that drop s out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and which settles in the furnace or are [sic] dislodged from furnace walls. . . .), meaning quench waste water associated with the slag material could potentially be regulated by one of the two effluent limita tion options proposed for the regulation of bottom ash transport water. PSNH respectfully requests that EPA modify the definition of “bottom ash” to specifically exclude boiler slag. Doing so would clarify that waste waters associated with boiler slagEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 391 form ation are not subject to zero discharge standards, should the agency elect to promulgate that regulatory option. 19 A wet bottom boiler is essential for boiler slag formation. Indeed, PSNH estimates it would cost nearly $4 million to retrofit a dry handling system to address only boiler slag formation at its facilities. The fact that boiler slag is some of the most inert material generated at steam electric generating facilities further supports PSNH’s request that EPA exclude it from the regulatory definit ion of bottom ash. In fact, slag contains only trace amounts of toxic pollutants and does not readily leach elevated concentrations of pollutants in water. Therefore, subjecting it to the effluent limitations in the Proposed Rule would not result in any be nefit to the environment.
For all of these reasons, PSNH respectfully requests that EPA revise the definition of “bottom ash” to specifically exclude boiler slag. Alternatively, PSNH requests that even if boiler slag is subsumed in the definition of bottom ash, the agency either: (1) specifically exempt boiler slag from regulation under any final rule; or, (2) should EPA eliminate all permissible waste water discharges and impose dry handling, enumerate that boiler slag cannot be subject to such additional regulation and waste waters associated with slag
19 Specifically, the Proposed Rule defines a “dry bottom ash handling system” as “[a] system that does not use water to convey bottom ash away from the boiler . It includes systems that collect and convey the ash without any use of water, as well as systems in which bottom ash is mechanically or pneumatically conveyed away from the boiler.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 (emphasis added).
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA should “modify the definition of ‘bottom ash’ to specifically exclude boiler slag.” EPA notes that many other industry commenters stated that boiler slag should be included in the definition of bottom ash, including UWAG, the industry trade association (see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 28). For example, one commenter states, “Bottom ash is essentially agglomerated ash particles, formed in coal

fired furnaces that are too large to be carried through the stack with the flue gases. DP&L recommends that USEPA ame nd the definition of ‘bottom ash’ explicitly to include ‘boiler slag.’ Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of furnaces that is quenched with water.” Other comments have said, “[treating boiler slag as part of bottom ash] is also con sistent with current regulatory practice.”
EPA notes that in response to EPA’s Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines , PSNH provided a water balance diagram for its Merrimack Station that identifies the sluicing of the boiler slag to the impoundment as “BAS,” which signifies “bottom ash sluice.” Additionally, EPA reviewed the April 2014 Revised Draft Permit for the Merrimack Station (NPDES Permit No. NH0001465) and fact sheet states that “[t]he Draft Permit’s technology

- based draft permit limits for TSS and O&G pertain to the low volume and ash transport waste streams entering the slag settling pond.” Therefore, the permitting authority already treats the boiler slag transport water as bottom ash transport water.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 392 Finall y, EPA used data from at least two steam electric power plants with impoundments receiving boiler slag, that is Kyger Creek and Kammer, in its bottom ash baseline loadings analyses. Therefore, the data used in the analysis are representative of both bottom ash and boiler slag. For all these reasons, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to clarify the definition of bottom ash by including boiler slag in the definition.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that subjecting boiler slag “to the effluent li mitations in the Proposed Rule would not result in any benefit to the environment.” As noted previously, EPA used data from at least two steam electric power plants in its bottom ash analysis and found that there are pollutants present in the wastewater. B ecause the final rule establishes a zero discharge standard for bottom ash transport water, the final rule requirements will eliminate discharges of these pollutants to surface waters. As this is a technology

- based rule, see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A 1, Excerpt 3 for the role of cost

- benefit analysis in EPA’s decisions for the final rule.

For comment related to modification of the bottom ash definition, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45.
EPA agrees with the comm enter that “[a] wet bottom boiler is essential for boiler slag formation,” because the slag must be quenched in a water bath. While EPA is promulgating a no pollutant discharge limitation and standard for bottom ash transport water, EPA is not requiring th e use of a dry handling system. In determining BAT and BAD C T, EPA identifies technologies that serve as the bases for its requirements, but dischargers may use any technology to meet the limits. NWF et al. v. EPA , 286 F.3d 554, 558 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Cycl one boilers that generate boiler slag could comply with the final rule by installing and operating a mechanical drag system (MDS) that does not generate transport water. Similarly, the steam electric power plant could install a remote MDS and operate the s ystem closed loop to meet the final rule requirements. EPA notes that there is at least one cyclone boiler generating unit that currently operates a MDS (Kansas City Power & Light’s La Cygne Generating Station).

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hu nton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 28 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. The Definition of Bott om Ash Should Include Boiler Slag
Bottom ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in coal

- fired furnaces, that are too large to be carried into the stack with the flue gases. Instead the particles collect on the furnace walls or fall through open grates to an ash hopper at the bottom of the furnace. Bottom ash is relatively inertEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 393 and generally contains only small amounts of toxic pollutants. In water it does not readily leach elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants. The exact composition of bottom ash varies somewhat according to the type of coal being burned and other factors.
In the 1982 regulations, EPA defines bottom ash as follows:
[T]he ash that drops out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and in the economizer sections. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash.

40 C.F.R. § 423.11.
UWAG recommends that EPA amend the definition of “bottom ash” explicitly to include “boiler slag.” Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone ty pe furnaces that is quenched with water. When the molten slag contacts the quenching water, it fractures, crystallizes, and forms pellets. This boiler slag material is made of hard, black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy appearance.

Boiler slag is even more inert than other bottom ash, as shown by sluice water data from plants like Merrimack, where the water is almost free of toxics, and by the fact that for decades most boiler slag has been sold for use as blasting grit and on roofing shing les. Boiler slag is produced in cyclone boilers which by design use water tanks at the bottom to crystallize the molten ash, so there is no option of dry handling. Boiler slag is produced by few plants and in small volumes compared to other bottom ashes.
EPA indicates in the preamble to the present ELG proposal that it considers boiler slag to be bottom ash:
Combustion residuals comprise a variety of wastes from the combustion process, including fly ash, bottom ash (which includes boiler slag)....

78 Fed. R eg. at 34,450 col. 1. Similar references to boiler slag as bottom ash occur throughout the preamble and the 2013 TDD (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,453 col. 2, 34,458 col. 1, 34,481 n.55; 2013 TDD at 8

- 2). In Appendix A to the proposed rule, EPA provides a definiti on of bottom ash that explicitly includes boiler slag:
The ash, including boiler slag, that drops out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and which settles in the furnace or are [sic] dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included when it i s collected with bottom ash.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 col. 2.
UWAG recommends EPA amend § 423.11 to replace the current definition of “bottom ash” with the definition in Appendix A 3

. This definition will clarify that boiler slag is bottom ash. In additio n, the definition clarifies that ash removed by boiler lancing ( i.e. , “ash dislodged from furnace walls”) is bottom ash. See the discussion of boiler lancing later in these comments.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 394 From the text of the preamble and other sources, UWAG’s recommendation appears to be consistent with EPA’s intent to treat boiler slag as bottom ash. Also, EPA uses boiler slag pond discharge data from the Kyger Creek Station in its bottom ash analytical database, which further demonstrates EPA’s intent to classify boiler sl ag as bottom ash. Finally, UWAG’s recommendation is consistent with current regulatory practice.
However, because of the relatively harmless nature of boiler slag, it should be subject only to TSS and oil and grease limits even if EPA ultimately decides to put more stringent limits on other bottom ash.

3 Appendix A is intended to help readers of the proposed rule by including “[d]efinitions, [a]cronyms, and [a]bbreviations us ed in this notice” ( id. at 34,532 col. 1), but in some cases the Appendix A def initions differ from the definitions in the proposed rule. Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1, Excerpt Number 46. For the reasons EPA selected the options it promulgat ed, see the final rule preamble. EPA notes that the portion of the statute upon which this rule is based is technology driven rather than based on effects on receiving waters. See DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e.

Commenter Name: Raymond L. Evans Commenter Affiliation: FirstEnergy Corp. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4677

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Exc erpt:
B. EPA's definition of bottom ash should include boiler slag and ash removed from the boiler walls.
Boiler slag is the molten ash collected at the base of the furnace that is quenched with water. Boiler slag is even more inert than other bottom as h and as such should be included in the definition of bottom ash. Also, ash removed by boiler lancing, or dislodged from the boiler wall should be defined as bottom ash. Clatification in the definition for bottom ash will avoid confusion in the future.

C omment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 395 Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 48 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Definition of Bottom Ash Should Include Boiler Slag
Bottom ash is agglomerated ash particles, formed in coal

- fired furnaces that are too large to be carried into the stack with the flue gases. Instead the particles collect on the furnace walls or fall through open grates to an ash hopper at the bottom of the furnace. Bottom ash is relatively inert and generally contains only small amoun ts of toxic pollutants. In water, it does not readily leach elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants. The exact composition of bottom ash varies somewhat according to the type of coal being burned and other factors.
In the 1982 regulations, EPA defines bottom ash as “the ash that drops out of the furnace gas stream in the furnace and in the economizer sections. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash.” 15 APPA agrees with UWAG that EPA should amend the definition of “bottom ash” explicitly to include “boiler slag.” Boiler slag is the molten bottom ash collected at the base of slag tap and cyclone type furnaces that is quenched with water. When the molten slag contacts the quenching water, it fractures, crystallizes, and forms pel lets. This boiler slag material is made of hard, black, angular particles that have a smooth, glassy appearance. Boiler slag is even more inert than other bottom ash.
EPA indicates in the preamble to the present ELG proposal that it considers boiler slag t o be bottom ash. “Combustion residuals comprise a variety of wastes from the combustion process, including fly ash, bottom ash (which includes boiler slag).” 16 Similar references to boiler slag as bottom ash occur throughout the preamble and the 2013 Tec hnical Development Documentation (TDD). 17 In Appendix A to the proposed rule, EPA provides a definition of bottom ash, different from the one in the current regulation that explicitly includes boiler slag:
The ash, including boiler slag, that drops out o f the furnace gas stream in the furnace and which settles in the furnace or are [sic] dislodged from furnace walls. Economizer ash is included when it is collected with bottom ash. 18
APPA recommends EPA amend §423.11 to replace the current definition of “ bottom ash” with the definition EPA includes in Appendix A. 19 This definition will clarify that boiler slag is bottom ash. In addition, the definition clarifies that ash removed by boiler lancing ( i.e ., “ash dislodged from furnace walls”) is bottom ash. Based upon the EPA’s proposed rule preamble and other sources, this recommendation appears to be consistent with EPA’s intent to treat boiler slag as bottom ash. It is also consistent with current regulatory practice.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 396 15 40 C.F.R. § 423.11.

16 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,450 col. 1.

17 (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,453 col. 2; at 34,458 col. 1; at 34,481, fn. 55; 2013 TDD at 8

- 2).

18 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,532 col. 2.

19 Appendix A is intended to help readers of the proposed rule by including “[d]efinitions, [a]cronyms, and [a]bb reviations used in this notice”( id. at 34,532 col. 1), but in some cases the Appendix A definitions differ from the definitions in the proposed rule.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1, Excerpt Number 45.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 397 6.g.x. FGD waste water

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: PowerSouth Energy Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 30 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respons e: No
Comment Excerpt:

The Definition of FGD Wastewater.
In the Draft Rule, EPA has proposed FGD wastewater as follows:
The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater means any process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering processes.
By including wastewater from solids separation and dewatering processes, EPA’s proposed definition of FGD wastewater will frustrate and discourage utilities from recycling and/or

reus ing water at their facilities subject to a final rule. Currently, the Lowman Plant and some other facilities reuse water from the gypsum plant extracted from solids during the dewatering process 3 for processes beyond those associated with the FGD system. Gypsum wash water should not be included within the definition of FGD wastewater because to do so will make those reuses infeasible.

3 Specifically, these gypsum plant waters are discharged to the Lowman Plant’s FGD Pond. The waters return as makeup water to scrubber recycle tanks, limestone slurry ball mills, gypsum plant seal water, and to the old gypsum belt, and are often also used to flush pumps.
Comment Response:

EPA has revised the definition of FGD wastewater in the final rule. See 40 CFR 42 3.11(n).
The overflow from the solids separation process (e.g., hydrocyclones) and the filtrate from vacuum filters are the primary sources of FGD wastewater from recirculating forced oxidation systems. The commenter argues that classifying these sources a s FGD wastewater would prevent plant’s from reusing the gypsum wash water (which is captured in the filtrate from the vacuum filters) in other operations. However, the commenter provides no reasonable technical reason as to why the wastewater from this pro cess should not be classified as FGD wastewater. The wastewater from the solids separation process and the solids dewatering process is the very wastewater stream that EPA determined warrants additional limitations and standards. The solids separation proc ess separates the gypsum and other FGD solids from the liquid fraction in theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 398 scrubber blowdown. Depending on factors such as the chloride concentration in the scrubber, this wastewater from the separation process is either returned to the scrubber or purg ed from the system (i.e., FGD purge) and in most cases sent to a surface impoundment or tank

- based treatment system. For that reason, it is included within the definition of FGD wastewater. Similarly, the solids from the solids separation process are the g ypsum solids (or calcium sulfite for an inhibited oxidation scrubber) that were created in the scrubber. Even after the separation step these solids contain substantial amount of liquid (approximately 40

- 50% solids), with the liquid being the wastewater fr om the scrubber. Thus, the water removed from these solids in the solids dewatering process is also FGD wastewater and therefore EPA determined it should be included within the definition of FGD wastewater.

The commenter states that the definition of FGD w astewater would discourage reuse, but EPA does not agree. FGD wastewater generally contains elevated concentrations of chlorides and would corrode most piping and equipment within the plant, thus limiting the opportunities for reuse unless it has been trea ted by an evaporation process. However, the commenter does identify two processes that are ideally suited for reuse of the FGD wastewater and are in no way constrained by the FGD wastewater definition: makeup water to scrubber recycle tanks and limestone s lurry ball mills. The commenter’s reasons for opposing the definition of FGD wastewater are not persuasive.
Regarding the anti

- circumvention provision see preamble section VIII.G.
Regarding the specific reuses identified in the commenter’s footnote, EPA d oes not preclude the plant from reusing FGD wastewater within the FGD process prior to complying with the final rule limitations and standards. Therefore, the plant could continue to reuse the FGD wastewater (as defined in the final rule) as makeup for th e scrubber recycle tanks, limestone slurry ball mills, gypsum plant seal water, and the old gypsum belt, as long as those waters are retained in the FGD system or collected with the rest of the FGD wastewater. However, if the waters are not contained in t he system (e.g., if the reference to the “old gypsum belt” is referring to washing the gypsum belt and the water is then collected in the floor drains and treated as a low

- volume waste source), then that reuse would result in a combined wastestream; see p reamble section XVI.A.4 regarding combined wastestreams.
In regards to the use to flush pumps, EPA cannot comment on that use because it is dependent on which pumps are flushed and how the wastewater is then handled and regulated.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 399 Def inition of "FGD Wastewater"
USEPA intends to apply separate limits to FGD wastewater, which the agency proposes to define as follows:
The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater means any process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurizat ion scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering processes.
Proposed 40 C.F.R. §423.11.
DP&L's FGD facilities utilize, as makeup water, FGD wastewater that has been subject to solids removal. Including wastewater from solids sepa ration and dewatering processes (along with the "anti

- circumvention" proposals about mixing) will eliminate water recycling at these facilities.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 30.

Commenter Name: Vick i Card Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Springs Utilities Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4483

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Our concerns with the proposed rule are mostly due to ambiguities in certain definitions and regulations that lend themselves to varying interpretation, creating uncertainty for the regulated community.

FGD WASTEWATER DEFINITION
The language used in the propos ed rule to describe FGD wastewater in Section VI (A)(2) [Industry Description

- General Description of Industry

– FGD Systems Page 34449] indicates that EPA is primarily concerned with regulating water containing sorbent used to remove pollutants from the flue gas and water associated with the FGD solids:
“In wet FGD systems, the flue gas stream comes in contact with a liquid stream containing a sorbent, typically lime or limestone, which is used to effect the mass transfer of pollutants from the flue gas t o the liquid stream. This process not only transfers the sulfur dioxide from the flue gas to the liquid stream, but other pollutants (e.g., metals) as well”Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 400 “Additionally, both calcium sulfite and gypsum typically require dewatering prior to sale/disposal and this dewatering process also generates a wastewater stream that may be reused or discharged”
However, the language contained in § 423.11(n) Specialized Definitions of the proposed rule is very broad and could be construed to include all process water a ssociated with FGD systems

– not just the water associated with pollutant removal:
§ 423.11 Specialized Definitions.
“(n) The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater means any process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering processes (emphasis added).”
Some FGD systems use water for ancillary purposes other than pollutant/solids removal

– such as seal water used in vacuum pumps or liquid ring blowers. This water, w hich does not contact unscrubbed flue gas or remove solids, is often re

- used. Requiring FGD water such as seal water to demonstrate compliance with the ELG standards before being reused would significantly deter the re

- use of this water. Re

- use of water is desired by Colorado Springs Utilities as our power plants are located in a semi

- arid state that is currently under drought

- related water restrictions.
The definition of FGD wastewater should be amended to clarify that the EPA only intends to regulate proc ess water in direct contact with unscrubbed flue gas and dewatering process wastestreams under the proposed rule, and not FGD system water used for ancillary purposes. The following language is suggested:
“(n) The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastew ater mean process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system that is in direct contact with removed pollutants and/or solids. (emphasis added).”
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Numb er 30.
Wastewater used for the operation of the FGD system that does not come into contact with the flue gas or FGD solids (e.g., ancillary process water such as seal water used in vacuum pumps) is not included within the definition of FGD wastewater.

Co mmenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 401 Comme nt Excerpt:
Briefly, it appears that the proposed rule contains a broad definition of FGD wastewater which may discourage the reuse of FGD effluent in processes such as the production of gypsum board.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2 009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 30.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28 External Review Flag: No External Review External R eview Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The EPA proposal defines FGD wastewater as:
"any process wastewater generated specifically from the wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering process."
78 Fed. Reg. 34532, col. 2
We believe that the inclusion of the language ''solids separation or solids dewatering process " discourages water reuse and recycling at facilities that reuse scrubber water in the process of making gypsum board. In the se gypsum production systems, solids dewatering of gypsum produces a process wastewater that is then reused in other plant processes. The proposed EPA definition would require treatment of the process water from gypsum dewatering. This added treatment co st is likely to upset the economic viability of gypsum production and end the recycling of gypsum process waters. We request EPA to develop a definition of FGD wastewater that preserves the beneficial reuse of gypsum wash water.
Comment Response:

See re sponse to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 30.

Commenter Name: Tom DeLawrence Commenter Affiliation: Public Service Company of New Hampshire(PSNH) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4633

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 402 Comment Excerpt Number: 22 Externa l Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In conjunction with its proposed limitations on FGD waste water, EPA proposes to define that term as follows:
The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater means any process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering processes.
By including waste water from solid separation and dewatering processes, EPA’s proposed d efinition of FGD waste water will frustrate and discourage utilities from recycling and/or reusing water at their facilities. Currently, some facilities reuse gypsum wash water beyond the scrubber for processes other than those associated with the FGD syst em. Gypsum wash water should not be included within the definition of FGD waste water because to do so will make those reuses unavailable and result in increased water consumption.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerp t Number 30.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 80 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A. Definition of “FGD Wastewater”
In the 1982 regulations, EPA decided to regulate wastewater from FGD scrubbers as a low volume waste. Now EPA intends to apply separate limits to FGD wastewater, which EPA proposes to defi ne as follows:
The term flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater means any process wastewater generated from a wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber system, including any solids separation or solids dewatering processes.
Proposed 40 C.F.R. § 423.11.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 403 Inclu ding wastewater from solids separation and dewatering processes (along with the “anti

circumvention” proposals about mixing) would discourage water recycling. Some plants reuse scrubber wash water ( i.e. , process wastewater generated during dewatering of s crubber solids) for processes beyond the scrubber. Scrubber wash water should not be included in the definition of FGD wastewater because it would make those reuses infeasible.
Comment Response:
EPA acknowledges that “[i]n the 1982 regulations, EPA deci ded to regulate wastewater from FGD scrubbers as a low volume waste;” however, for that rulemaking, EPA evaluated FGD wastewater and determined that “data sufficient to characterize waste loadings resulting from flue gas cleaning processes are not availabl e. No net discharge data, i.e., influent and effluent data, are currently available for those systems. Additional studies will be needed to provide this data and to confirm the current discharge practices in the industry.” Development Document for Final E ffluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Steam Electric Point Source Category. U.S. EPA. 1982. p.248.
As such, EPA has collected additional data and is promulgating limitations and standards for F GD wastewater in the final rule.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 30.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 404 6.g.xi. FGD gypsum

Commenter Name: Jessica Wicha Commenter Affiliation: Gypsum Association Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4456

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

I. FGD GYPSUM IS A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT AND SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER RCRA
In the preamble to the Proposed ELG Rule, EPA describes FGD gypsum as a "marketable product" and "saleable product" in its overview of FGD systems, but in its discussion of surface impoundments, the same material is described as a type of waste. Compare 78 Fed. Reg. at 34449 with 78 Fed. Reg. at 34450. The Gypsum Association would like to clarify this inconsistency and incorrect characterization of FGD gypsum. As discussed in detail in our November 2010 comments on the Proposed CCR Rule, which included an overview of FGD gypsum and the wallboard manufacturing process, FGD gypsum is a product manufactured by electric utilities in a multistage process to meet precise specifications contractually identified by gypsum wallboard companies. As such, FGD gypsum and the resulting wallboard are products

a nd not a waste.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that “FGD gypsum is a product manufactured by electric utilities in a multistage process to meet precise specifications contractually identified by gypsum wallboard companies.” EPA unders tands that this may be the case at some steam electric power plants; however, there are many plants that generate gypsum that does not meet specific requirements and is not sold to wallboard manufacturers. This gypsum is usually disposed of in an impoundme nt or landfill and would be classified as a waste. In any case, the ELG final rule does not set any requirements for FGD gypsum, only discharges of pollutants in FGD wastewater. Thus, the issues raised by the commenter are outside the scope this rulemaking

. EPA notes that comments submitted on the proposed CCR rule were addressed in the context of that rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Lauren P. Alterman Commenter Affiliation: CertainTeed Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4660

- A2 Comme nt Excerpt Number: 5Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 405 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

V. WALLBOARD GYPSUM IS A MANUFACTURED PRODUCT AND THEREFORE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF CCRS
In the preamble to the Proposed ELG Rule, EPA describes Wallboard Gypsum as a "marketable product" and "saleable product" in its overview of FGD systems, but its discussion of surface impoundments, the same material is described as a type of waste. Compare 78 Fed. Reg. a t 34449 with 78 Fed. Reg. at 34450. As discussed in detail in our November 2010 comments on the Proposed CCR Rule, which included an overview of Wallboard Gypsum and the wallboard manufacturing process, CertainTeed commented that Wallboard Gypsum is a pro duct manufactured by electric utilities in a multistage process to meet precise specifications contractually identified by gypsum wallboard companies. The process is done to create a product and the material is not destined for disposal at any time in the process. As such, Wallboard Gypsum is a product, not a waste that is destined for disposal, and therefore Wallboard Gypsum does not fall within the Agency’s proposed definition of CCRs.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4456

- A1, E xcerpt Number 5.
The ELG final rule does not include a definition for CCRs because the final regulations do not refer to coal combustion residuals or establish any requirements related specifically to “coal combustion residuals.” See the final CCR rule fo r the definition of “coal combustion residuals” specific to that rule.

Commenter Name: Lauren P. Alterman Commenter Affiliation: CertainTeed Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4660

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Fl ag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Since Wallboard Gypsum is a manufactured product , not a waste and it is never destined for disposal, it is clear that Wallboard Gypsum does not fall within the definit ion of CCRs. CertainTeed requests that the Agency make a formal determination that Wallboard Gypsum does not fall within its proposed definition of CCRs.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 406 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4456

- A1, Excerpt Number 5.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A2, Excerpt Number 5.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 407 6.g.xii. Primary particulate collection system

Commenter Name: Chad Miller Commenter Affiliation: Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Primary Particulate Collection System.
The term "primary particulate collection system" is used frequently throughout the proposed ELG rule. Montana

- Dakota would like EPA to define this term . It is important for the industry to fully understand this term as it will affect a facility's applicability to the proposed rule, specifically to FGMC wastewater and Fly Ash transport water standards.

Com ment Response:
The primary particulate collection system refers to the first air pollution control device in the flue gas pathway where the bulk of the fly ash is collected, such as collection at an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or baghouse. For examp le, the flue gas pathway may consist of the following steps: SCR, ESP, activated carbon injection, baghouse, FGD system, and stack. In this case, the ESP would be considered the primary particulate collection system and the baghouse would be considered th e secondary particulate collection system. EPA used the term in the preamble for the rule and Appendix A of the preamble defines the term. The term is not used in the text of the regulations; therefore, EPA determined that a definition of the term in 40 C FR Part 423 is not warranted.

Commenter Name: Chad Miller Commenter Affiliation: Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Clarification is necessary for industry to determine a unit's name plate capacity and also what constitutes a primary particulate removal system.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 408 Regarding primary particulate removal sy stem, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1, Excerpt Number 6.
Regarding name plate capacity, EPA uses the definition defined by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which is as follows:
Generator nameplate capacity (installed): The maximum rated output of a generator, prime mover, or other electric power production equipment under specific conditions designated by the manufacturer. Installed generator nameplate capacity is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW) and is usually indicated on a nameplate physically attached to the generator.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 409 6.g.xiii. Flue gas mercury control water (FGMC)

Commenter Name: Chad Miller Commenter Affiliation: Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Flue Gas Mercury Control Wastewater.
In the proposed ELG regulation, EPA defines Flue Gas Mercury Control Water (FGMC) in §423.11(o) as any process wastewater generated from an air pollution control system installed or operated for the purpose of removing mercury from flue gas. This includes fly ash collection systems when the particulate control system follows the injection of sorbents or implementation of other controls to remove mercury from flue gas. Flue gas desulfurization systems are not included in this definition.
In the preamble to the proposed ELG Rule, EPA discusses two (2) main types of FGMC systems that remove mercury from flue gas. One is the addition of oxidizers to the coal prior to combustion, whereby the oxidized mercury is removed in the wet FGD system. The second is the injection of activated carbon into the flue gas which adsorbs the mercury and is captured in a down stream particulate removal system.
In the preamble and Technical Development Document EPA states that the first type of FGMC system, the use of oxidizers prior to combustion, does not produce a new wastewater stream as it is handled with FGD wastewater.

EP A also discusses in the Technical Development Document and preamble how FGMC wastewater can be created from the second type of FGMC system, the use of activated carbon. However, this discussion is less clear. EPA states "If the injection [of activated car bon] occurs upstream of the primary particulate removal system, then the mercury

- containing carbon is collected and handled the same way as the fly ash. Therefore, if the fly ash is wet sluiced, then the FGMC wastes are also wet sluiced and likely sent to the same surface impoundment." However, EPA does not clarify what the wet sluiced wastewater is defined as. Is the resulting wastewater fly ash transport water, FGMC wastewater, or both?

Montana

- Dakota would like EPA to clarify, what wastewater stream wo uld be created if the injection of activated carbon is prior to the primary particulate system and is subsequently wet

sluiced.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 410 EPA confirms that FGMC systems that spray oxidizers onto the coal prior to combustion are not covered by the FGMC wastewater limitations and standards in the final rule. EPA reviewed the FGMC proposed definition and for the final rule, as described in preamble Appendix A, includes the following definition:
“Any wastewater generated from an air pollution control system installed or operated for the purpose of removing mercury from flue gas. This includes fly ash collection systems when the particulate control system follows sorbent injection or other controls to remove mercury from flue gas. FGD wastewater generat ed at plants using oxidizing agents to remove mercury in the FGD system and not in a separate FGMC system is not included in this definition.”
FGMC systems that inject activated carbon into the flue gas, which adsorbs mercury and is captured in a downstrea m particulate removal system could generate FGMC wastewater and would be subject to the final rule limitations and standards for that wastewater. In the example provided by the commenter, where injection of activated carbon occurs upstream of the primary p articulate removal system and the mercury

- containing carbon is collected and handled with the fly ash, the resulting commingled waste is considered fly ash because that is the predominant waste present. EPA is promulgating the same limitations and standard s for FGMC wastewater and fly ash transport water. Therefore, the same effluent limitations and standards will apply to the wastewater, regardless of whether it is classified as FGMC wastewater or fly ash transport water.

Commenter Name: Chad Miller Co mmenter Affiliation: Montana

- Dakota Utilities Co. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The preamble and technical development document to the proposed rule clarified that FGMC wastewater is not created by the use of oxidizers; however, EPA did not clearly describe if FGMC wastewater is created by the injection of activated carbon. Specifically, Montana

- Da kota requests the EPA clarify what wastewater stream would be created if the injection of activated carbon is prior to the primary particulate system and is subsequently wet

- sluiced.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1, Exc erpt Number 7.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 411 Commenter Name: John W. Myers Commenter Affiliation: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4607

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 39 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The definition of FGMC needs to be clarified to exclude oxidizers applied directly to coal. The definition should specifically exclude oxidizers sprayed directly onto coal as they may or may not go to a wet scrubber th at would then have a discharge.
Comment Response:
Comment Response:
EPA notes that the final rule does not include a definition for flue gas mercury control (FGMC). Instead, the final rule provides a definition for FGMC system and FGMC wastewater. It i s unclear from the comment, which definition the commenter believes should be revised.
Also, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the FGMC system definition should be revised to exclude oxidizing agents because the use of oxidizing agents in combination with a FGD system is a mechanism for the removal of mercury from the flue gas. Therefore, oxidizing agents need to be included in the FGMC system definition.
In addition, EPA agrees with the commenter that FGD wastewater generated in combination with the u se of oxidizing agents should not be included in the definition for FGMC wastewater. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4457

- A1, Excerpt Number 7 for further information.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 412 6.g.xiv. Low volume waste

Commenter Name: Gary A. Dawson Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4452

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We support UWAG’s clarificat ion of the nonchemical metal cleaning wastewater definition, and encourage EPA to restrict its definition to those wastewaters generated on the fire side of the boiler, including air preheater cleaning. UWAG’s comments further clarify those wash waters tha t are to be excluded from this definition to exclude those wash waters that this rule is not intended to regulate. We also agree with UWAG’s definition of a low volume waste and its position on the criteria under which a nonchemical metal cleaning waste is deemed a low volume waste.
Comment Response:

Related to the definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii.

EPA was unable to find a revised definition of “low volume waste” in UWAG’s comments (DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655). Therefore, limiting EPA’s ability to address the comment related to the low volume waste definition.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Hol dings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should revise the proposed definition of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes to which Section 423.13(f) would apply to specifically exclude wastes already defined as low volume waste sources that are regulated at Section 423.12(b)(3).
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 413 Related to the definition of non

- chemical metal cleanin g waste, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii.

Commenter Name: Michael G. Cashin Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Power (MP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4484

- A1 Comment Excer pt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
MP also requests that EPA identify those waste sources it proposes to regulate as non

- chemical metal cleaning waste sources and in doi ng so, provide clarification for the term “low volume wastes”.
Comment Response:

Related to the definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii.

Commenter Name: Dean Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Dynegy Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4491

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 24 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA Should C larify the Treatment of Different “Washing” Activities
EPA should clarify what washing is “low volume” wastewater and what washing is “nonchemical metal cleaning wastewater” subject to the regulation. Floor drainage wash waters are normally considered “low volume” wastewaters (not addressed in this proposed rule), but many routine and frequent nonchemical equipment wash waters are discharged to floor drains and sumps.
Comment Response:

Related to the definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 414 Commenter Name: Michael G. Cashin Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Power (ALLETE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4768

- A2 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
MP also requests that EPA identify those waste sources it proposes to regulate as non

- chemical metal cleaning waste sources and in doing so , provide clarification for the term “low volume wastes”.
Comment Response:

Related to the definition of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, please see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, Excerpt Number 15 in Comment Code 6.g.ii.

Commenter Name : Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

FGD wastewater an d landfill leachate should continue to fall within the definition of “low volume waste” and the associated proposed ELGs for these specific waste streams should be eliminated from the final rule.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that t he proposed limitations and standards for FGD wastewater and combustion residual leachate “should be eliminated from the final rule.” As described in preamble, EPA’s detailed study of the steam electric power industry found that the rise of new processes for generating electric power (for example coal gasification) and the widespread implementation of air pollution controls (such as flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and flue gas mercury controls (FGMC)) have altered existing wastestreams and created new types of wastewater at many steam electric power plants. Thus, the processes employed and pollutants discharged by the industry look very different today than they did over 30 years ago. SuchEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 415 wastestreams include FGD wastewater, FGMC wastewater, carbon capture wastewater, and gasification wastewaters.
Controlling these wastestreams, as well as other combustion

- related wastestreams at steam electric power plants (for example, fly ash and bottom ash transport water, and combustion residual leachate) is technically available and economically achievable for the point source category as a whole. See preamble for more information. While not determinative for Agency decision making, EPA notes that these wastestreams contain pollutants in concentrations and mass loadings that are causing documented environmental impacts. Therefore, the final rule establishes separate definitions for FGD wastewater, FGMC wastewater, gasification wastewater, and combustion residual leachate, making clear that these four wastestreams are no longer considered low volume waste sources. As well, the final rule establishes effluent limitations and standards for these wastestreams. See preamble section VIII for EPA’s rationale for promulgating the final effluent limitations and standards.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 416 6.g.xv . Impoundment (CCR impoundment, surface impoundment)

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Revi ew Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed rule uses the term “surface impoundment” or simply “impoundment” which as defined includes settling ponds and basins. We note that the use of the term impoundment in this rulemaking may be confusing since regulation of impoundments that are used for managing and disposing large volumes of coal combustion residuals (e.g., ash ponds) is being considered in other EPA proposed rules.
Comment Response:

The final rule does not establish a definition of “surface impoundments” because the final rule does not establish BMP requirements related to surface impoundments, and the final regulations do not otherwise use the term "surface impoundments." See preamble section VIII.J.

Commenter Name : Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Re sponse: No
Comment Excerpt:
many states manage CCRs through waste management programs. Many states manage CCR impoundments differently depending on whether the impoundment will serve as the final repository for the CCRs. EPA should clearly define in the final rule what constitutes a “CCR Impoundment,” to avoid confusion for states in determining which facilities are regulated under which programs.
Comment Response:

see DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

See also EPA’s final CCR rule regarding the definition of "CCR surface impoundment," related definitions, and applicable requirements of that rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 417 6.g.xvi. Zero discharge and no discharge

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Admini strators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The use of terms such as “no discharge” or “zero di scharge” should be carefully clarified in the final rule to avoid any possible loopholes or encouragement for direct dischargers to switch to indirect discharge processes to lessen compliance requirements. There is a difference between “no discharge of pol lutants” and “zero discharge” (implies no discharge of any kind). ACWA suggests the language in the final rule be more understandable, especially if there is a difference in language between direct discharge and pretreatment standards. For example, the fin al rule could state, “there shall be no measurable pollutants in any wastewater discharged from the transport of fly ash.” Such clarification of zero discharge of pollutants and/or no process discharge should also describe the appropriate level of detectio n.
Comment Response:

The final rule establishes the same BAT limitations and PSES standards for the wastestreams for which EPA is establishing a “no discharge of pollutants” requirement. Therefore, there are no potential loopholes for a plant to begin di scharging to a POTW to avoid the requirements.
Additionally, the final rules establishes an anti

- circumvention provision that applies only to those wastestreams with zero discharge limitations or standards. See the preamble section VIII.G and the TDD for a description of the anti

- circumvention provision.
EPA does not see, for purposes of this rule, a difference between describing a requirement as a "no discharge" or a "zero discharge" requirement. For the “no discharge of pollutants” requirement, there is no level of detection that is appropriate. EPA notes that a “no discharge of pollutants” requirement was established for NSPS for fly ash transport water in the 1982 final rule, which has been implemented in the industry for the last 30

- plus years.

Comme nter Name: Zak Covar Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4985

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respo nse: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 418 Comment Excerpt:
Define the terms "no discharge" and "zero discharge"
The TCEQ recommends that the EPA include a definition of both terms in the specialized definitions subpart §123.11.
The terms "no discharge" and "zero discharge" as used in the proposed rule are not clearly defined. If the intent is to not discharge any pollutants in measurable amounts, then that clarification should be made and include a level of detection. If the intent is to not discharge any regulated wastestream (e.g., no f low), then that should be clearly stated.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2, Excerpt Number 15.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 419 6.g.xvii. Blowdown

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposal also contains new language regarding cooling tower blowdown discharge wh ich may present compliance issues.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 213 in Comment Code 5.d and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4658

- A2, Excerpt Number 2, in Comment Code 5.d.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 420 6.g.xviii. Changing definitions

Comm enter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA also introduces unnecessary vagueries into the applicability of the ELGs through unjustified modifications of long

- standing definitions.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA has introduced “unnecessary vagueries into the applicability of the ELGs through unjustified modifications of long

- standing definitions.” EPA has defined new terms and clarified existing terms as appropriate in the final rule. For further information please see the final preamble.

Commenter Name: Pamela F. Fagg ert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

In addition , w e believe the proposed rulemaking may expand the historic ELG definitions of FGD wastewater, bottom ash, leachate, and non

- chemical metal cleaning waste which may create some unintentional ELG implementation issues.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees wit h the commenter that the “rulemaking may expand the historic ELG definitions” for certain terms because, for example, for FGD wastewater and combustion residual leachate, the previously established ELGs never defined these terms. The final rule promulgates definitions for these terms, as it also establishes limitations and standards for these particular wastestreams. Since these terms were not defined previously defined by the regulations, EPA could not be "expanding" previous definition.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 421 In addition, the f

inal rule does not promulgate a definition for non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes, nor does EPA describe a definition in the preamble; therefore, there is no expansion of the definition in the final rule. In addition, for bottom ash, the final rule promulg ates a revised definition, which is a clarification of the existing definition. Therefore, the definition modification serves as a clarification, rather than an expansion of the term.
For more information on the definition of FGD wastewater, please see res ponses to Comment Code 6.g.x. For information on the definitions related to bottom ash, combustion residual leachate and non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes, see responses to Comment Code 6.g.ix, Comment Code 6.g.i, and Comment Code 6.g.ii, respectively.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 422 6.h. Cost Effectiveness

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 102 External Review Flag: No External Review External Revie w Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We have three preliminary conclusions from the analysis we've done. One is that the ash pollution removals have been vastly overestimated by EPA, and that's a key consideration when you're developing how to do your Final Rule.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that its ash transport water pollutant reduction estimates are vastly overestimated in the final rule. In response to comments, EPA revised its estimates for the final rule. See chapter 10 of the final TDD for the final estimates and see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
See responses to comment codes 13.d and 15.d for detailed responses to ash loading comments.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 149, regarding the requirement in the Clean Water Act to “identify . . . the degree of effluent reduction attainable.”

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Con trol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 106 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Now, the major problem in the rulemaking that we saw is EPA overestimating the toxic weight pollutant removals. This is a fancy way of estimating how much pollution is in there and how to weight them.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 102 regarding EPA’s calculation of pollutant loa dings.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 423 Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
If EPA nonetheless decides to finalize the rule based on the existing record, any further regulation of fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water is unjustified and unwarranted because dry handling is not cost effective for either wastewater. The same is true for combustion residual leachate.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best av ailable technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that dry handling for control of fly ash transport water disc harges and dry handling or closed

- loop systems for control of bottom ash transport water discharges represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

fired generating units) and Best Available Demonstrat e Control Technology. For controlling discharges of combustion residual leachate, EPA determined that surface impoundments represent BAT and chemical precipitation represents BADCT. These technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affor dable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable

non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADC T/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Opt ion D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the

s ame level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rul e, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 424 Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

As we examined EPA’s cost

- effectiveness analysis, we found many flaws, beginning with its chosen characterization data and running through its technology cost ing methodologies. EPA’s cost

- effectiveness analysis is not valid for bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, and FGD wastewater. Its analysis overstates the pollutants attributable to the industry and underestimates costs.
Comment Response:
In response to comments, EPA revised its estimates of loadings, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule. EPA disagrees with the commenter that these analyses are flawed or that its analyses overstate the pollutants attributable to the industry a nd underestimates costs of the final rule. See the TDD for final estimates of costs and loads and the RIA for final estimates of cost

effectiveness.
The commenter’s statements regarding “flaws” in EPA’s characterization data and costing methodologies are too generalized to permit specific response. For responses to specific comments regarding bottom ash transport water characterization and loadings, see responses to comment codes 15.c, 15.d, and 16.c. For responses to specific comments regarding bottom a sh transport water costs, see responses to comment code 16.b.
For responses to comments regarding fly ash transport water characterization and loadings, see responses to comment codes 13.c, 13.d, and 14.c. For responses to comments regarding fly ash trans port water costs, see responses to comment code 14.b.
For responses to comments regarding FGD wastewater characterization and loadings, see responses to comment codes 8.c, 8.d, and 10.c. For responses to comments regarding FGD wastewater costs, see respons es to comment code 10.b.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Comp anyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 425 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 149 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Description of the Electric Utility Industry Should Be M ore Objective
Steam Electric Pollutant Loading Contributions Are Flawed
In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA emphasizes the environmental harm supposedly done by electric power plants, particularly those burning coal. Thus EPA starts by reporti ng “there are numerous documented instances of environmental impact associated with these power plant discharges, such as harm to human health, harm to aquatic life, contamination of sediment, and detrimental impacts to wildlife.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,435 co l. 2; see also, id . 34,439

- 40, 34,504. Similarly, EPA says discharges from steam electric power plants contribute 50 to 60% of the reported toxic

- weighted pollutant loadings of the combined discharges of all industrial categories. 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,505 co l. 2. EPA’s contractor, ERG, provides a short explanation of how it compared steam electric loadings to those of other industries in a memorandum on the record. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232. See also page 3 of the transcript of EPA’s August 20, 2013 webcast, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam

electric/upload/webcast_8202013.pdf (“more than half of all toxic pollutants . . . linked to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological d amages”).
Not surprisingly, advocacy groups have picked up this theme and emphasized the amount of pollution allegedly created by the coal industry. See Waterkeeper Alliance et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry is Poisoning Our Water and H ow We Can Stop It (2013). 65 Early comments by environmental groups have taken advantage of EPA’s description. See Comments of Environmental Council of Rhode Island, EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034 (Sept. 11, 2013) at 1.
As explained earlier in these comments, UWAG’s analyses show that EPA has vastly overstated the amount of pollutants being discharged. As UWAG’s comments have shown based on additional sampling and analysis by URS ( see Attachment 5 to the UWAG comments), sulfides are generally not present in ash pond discharges, so the huge amount of TWPEs that EPA figures into industry loadings should be removed. That adjustment alone would dramatically reduce the steam electric percentage range by EPA’s own reckoning. See EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232.

Also, the loadings attributable to use of the old, unreliable 1970s data from the 1982 Development Document should be removed and replaced with better quality data that actually reflects wastewater discharges at today’s plants. Based on the industry’s suggested corr ections and use of better data, we have calculated a revised total baseline loading of 1.97 million TWPEs. Based on this corrected value and EPA’s formulas, 66 the percentage of the total TWPEs attributed to the steam electric category is 27%.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 426 We have not been able to assess all the data underlying EPA’s industry loadings calculations. We suspect that EPA has used erroneous flow rates for ash pond discharges in many cases, but the relatively short comment period (particularly as to the loadings data which b ecame available only about a week before the comments were due) has not allowed us to develop full evidence of that discrepancy. Therefore, while use of industry present loadings numbers indicate that the steam electric industry produces no more than 27% o f total TWPEs, it is very likely that the percentage is lower than that.
There are additional factors which also affect the loadings calculations and assessment of their impact. Those factors include the following.

 When a pollutant is not detected, EPA assumes it is present at the highest possible level, given the detection limit.

 EPA assumes that exceeding a water quality criterion means that fish in the waterbody are harmed.

 EPA mischaracterizes scientific literature as proving harm to the environment when there was no evidence of damage.

 EPA relies heavily on old data, including data from before Clean Water Act requirements took effect.

 EPA used a faulty means of calculating pollutant loadings, making its estimate of loadings from ash ponds six times t oo high.
In light of these shortcomings, EPA would do well, with the final rule, to describe the industry more objectively and avoid alarming descriptions of pollutant loadings. Since it appears EPA has overstated the percentage of TWPEs attributable to th e steam electric industry by at least a factor of two, and likely understated the contributions of other industries not currently undergoing an ELG rulemaking, Southern requests that EPA make every effort to correct the record on this point.

65 http://earthjustice.org/documents/report/pdf/closing

- the

- floodgates.

66 The formulas are presented in ERG’s memo of April 19, 2013 titled “Comparison of Steam Electric Indus try Toxic Loadings to Other Industrial Dischargers.” EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2232.
Comment Response:
Environmental Impacts: As discussed in the preamble, steam electric pollutant discharges present a serious public

- health concern and cause severe ecological damage, as demonstrated by numerous documented impacts, scientific modeling, and other studies. See preamble section XIII, as well as responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Numbers 71 and 76 in Comment Code 25.b for a discussion of EPA’s ev aluation of documented environmental impacts. In addition, see Sections 3 and 6 of the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point SourceEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 427 Category ( EA Report ) (DCN SE04527) fo r EPA’s assessment of the environmental impacts from steam electric power plant wastewater; Section 7 of the final EA Report for EPA’s assessment of the environmental improvements under the final rule; and Section 3.2 of the final EA Report for EPAs’ revis ed comparison of steam electric power plant loadings to other industries and to POTWs.
EPA disagrees that it “assumes that exceeding a water quality criterion means that fish in the waterbody are harmed.” As described in the EA Report, EPA calculates immed iate receiving water specific pollutant concentrations in the water column and sediment and evaluates the potential impacts that receiving water concentrations pose to aquatic life and human health. In addition, EPA calculates the pollutant concentrations in exposed fish populations. EPA does not equate a water quality exceedance with a specific harmful effect to fish. EPA uses the calculated exceedances to indicate that aquatic organisms inhabiting these waters are under a greater threat than those in wate rs that do not have water quality exceedances.
EPA also disagrees with the commenter that the Agency “mischaracterizes scientific literature as proving harm to the environment when there was no evidence of damage.” Because the commenter’s statements are s o generalized, and do not indicate what “scientific literature” the commenter thinks the Agency “mischaracterized,” or how so, EPA cannot offer a specific response to this particular comment.
Sulfides : In response to comments, EPA no longer identifies sul fide as a POC or includes it in its loadings calculations.
Use of 1982 TDD Data: See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
Ash Pond Discharge Flow Rates: EPA disagrees that it used “erroneous flow rates for as h pond discharges in many cases.” See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 134 for a discussion of how EPA determined ash discharge flow rates, including accounting for recycle streams, for the final rule. In addition, where EPA received plant

- specific comments about flow rates, it evaluated the comments and made changes to the flow rates used as appropriate.

Pollutants that are Not Detected: See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
Pollutant Loadings: EPA disagrees with the commenter that it “used a faulty means of calculating pollutant loadings.” This comment is too generalized to allow for a specific response. Nonetheless, EPA notes that, based on public comments, EPA revised its pollutant loadings estimates for the final rule, including its estimate of the contribution steam electric power plants have on combined discharges of all industrial categories. See the final preamble. Also, EPA assumes that “particularly as to the loadi ngs data which became available only about a week before the comments were due” is referring to a version of the costs and loads report that was produced in response to a Freedom and Information Act (FOIA) request. EPA notes that it is statutorily obligat ed to protect information that has been claimed as confidential businessEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 428 information (CBI). See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4688 Excerpt Number 224 in Comment Code 1.c for more discussion on CBI information related to ash and FGD pollutant loadings

. Section 304(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Water Act requires that the Administrator publish regulations providing guidelines for effluent limitations which “identify, in terms of the amounts of constituents and chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best control measures and practices achievable including treatment techniques, process and procedure innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives for classe s and categories of point sources . . . .” At least one court has held that EPA satisfies the statutory requirement to identify of the degree of effluent reduction attainable simply by (1) identifying the types of pollutants whose discharge must be limite d, and (2) establishing in the regulations the amounts of these pollutants which may be discharged by the industry. Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 F.2d 328, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1976). The court rejected the contention that “EPA is also required to furnish data as to the pollution reduction which can be expected from the [model] technologies.” The court said that the language of the Act does not “dictate[]” that EPA “must also estimate how much reduction in pollution will be achieved as a result of the enunciat ed standard.” Id

. For this final rule, EPA has identified the types of pollutants whose discharge must be limited (e.g., depending on the wastestream to which the final rule applies, the rule specifies that TSS, arsenic, mercury, selenium, nitrate/nitrit e as N, TDS, or all pollutants must be limited), and it has established in the regulations the amount of these pollutants which may be discharged by the steam electric industry (e.g., numeric limitations in mg/L or ug/L or ng/L for certain pollutants or “z ero discharge” limitations for other pollutants).

Moreover, because estimate of effluent reduction is not a decision factor for BAT, estimates of such reductions are not a basis for remanding BAT limits, even where the estimates are alleged to have “seriou s flaws” or be “grossly mischaracterized.” Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA , 161 F.3d 923, 936 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Whatever value such benefit estimates may have, they are not a required part of the BAT determination. . . . As such, even serious flaws in the ef fluent reduction estimates could not provide grounds for remanding the zero discharge limit.”).

Commenter Name: Ron Shipman Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 Ex ternal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Best Available Technology ("BAT") economically achievable should be adopted for only those technologies that cost less than $404 (in 1981 dollar) per t oxic

- weighted pounds

- equivalent ("TWPE") as a high

- end limit and closer to the more typical $200 $/TWPE.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 429 Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that BAT should be based on cost

- effectiveness or pollutant reductions (measured in TWPE). The fin al rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technolo gy,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act. EPA determined that the suite of technology described as Option D and Option F represent BAT and BADCT, respectively, for the final rule because the technologies are availa ble and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

water quality environmental impacts (see preamble Section VIII).
EPA revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for th e selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is cr itical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Ron Shipman Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1 Com ment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
BAT Requirements Should Be Adopted For Only Those Technologies That Cost Less Than $404 (in 1981 dollars) Per TWPE.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 430 EPA calc ulates "cost

- effectiveness" of proposed BAT requirements in terms of TWPEs of pollutants removed. This approach allows EPA to evaluate the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from effluent discharges. EPA ha s established a high

- end limit of $404 in 1981 dollars as the highest cost per TWPE for BAT:
A review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised BAT limitations shows BAT cost

- effectiveness ranging from less than $1/lb

- eq (Inorganic Ch emicals) to $404/lb

eq (Electrical and Electronic Components), in 1981 dollars.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504 col. 1

- 2. However, EPA has typically used a cost of less than $200 per TWPE. 68 Fed. Reg. 25,686, 25,701 (May 13, 2003). In several past ELG rulemaking s, EPA published a table of cost

- effectiveness estimates by industry category. In four cost

- effectiveness analyses from 1996

- 2000, the highest cost per equivalent pound was listed as $404 in 1981 dollars. EPA subsequently determined that a technology was not BAT "economically achievable" when it exceeded the $404 per TWPE.
Consistent with EPA's previous analyses and typical practice, EPA should adopt in this rulemaking only those technologies that are closer to the more typical $200 per TWPE range, but

ce rtainly less than the $400 per TWPE criterion, which were assessed through appropriate, rigorous cost

- effectiveness analyses. Based on industry cost

- effectiveness analysis, which relies on the $404 per TWPE as the high end of cost effectiveness and less t han $200 per TWPE as typical, only the use of impoundment (settlement) as a technology basis is justifiable as cost effective for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, leachate, and flue gas mercury control wastewater. Furthermore, no addi tional treatment can be justified on a cost

- effectiveness basis for plants with flue gas desulfurization wastewater with a flow rate of 200 GPM or less.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
See preamble Section VIII for a description of the technology basis for the final rule, as well as an explanation for EPA’s decisions.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Cost Effectiveness AnalysesEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 431 As required, EPA assessed the compliance costs and pollutant reduction ass ociated with each of the proposed regulatory options. The agency’s TDD provides an in

- depth discussion of these analyses and offers insight on how they were accomplished. EPA estimated costs and pollutant loads on a per plant basis. To confirm these esti mates, AEP conducted a similar analysis. However, it was found that, without exception, EPA under

- estimated the costs and

over

- estimated the benefits of the proposed treatment options for each of the wastewaters that were analyzed by AEP (FGD wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash transport water, leachate, and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes). There are many reasons for this discrepancy, but AEP emphasizes the more important ones in the following comments. Please note that each of the following concepts wer e applied to AEP’s cost analysis of the proposed revisions.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 149, regarding the requirement in the Clean Water Act to “identify . . . the degree of effluent reduction attain able.”
In response to comments, EPA revised its estimates of pollutant loadings and reductions, compliance costs, and benefits for the final rule. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the final costs are underestimated and that the final benefits or poll utant reductions are overestimated. See the TDD for information on pollutant loads and the approach EPA used to estimate compliance costs. See the BCA for final costs and benefits.
This Excerpt Number is general in nature, as the commenter offered no spe cific examples of where or how EPA “under

- estimated the costs” or “over

- estimated the benefits” of the final rule. EPA’s responses to more specific comments on each of these topics can be found throughout this comment response document.

Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 13 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Exc erpt:

4. AEP’s Cost Effectiveness Analysis

AEP used the same methods as EPA to determine $/TWPE removed for each assessed wastewater; however, to simplify the analysis, only direct capital costs were used. Capital costs were determined based on act ual installations, engineering studies, or best professional judgment. In all cases, the costs were converted to 2010$ and then to 1981$ using Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI) as follows: 7Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 432 Adjustment factor

– CCI 1981 /CCI 2010 = 3535/8802 = 0.042
Like the agency, AEP used a 7% interest value and assumed a 20

- year service life when annualizing costs estimates, but notes that use of a 15

- year service life would be more appropriate.
In most cases, AEP’s $/T WPE estimates were higher than those estimated by EPA, sometimes much higher, despite the fact that EPA also included O&M expenses in its estimates. As a result, the cost differences highlighted in these comments will actually be much larger should the pro posed ELG revisions be adopted by the agency. To fully assess the impact of the additional O&M expenses, AEP encourages the agency to refer to the comments of UWAG 8 and EPRI. 9

7 EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis, Appendix D: Cost Effectiveness, April 19, 2013.

8 UWAG ELG Comments, September 20, 2013.

9 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Comments on Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines Rule [hereinafter EPRI ELG Comments], September 20, 2 013.
Comment Response:
EPA revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final ru le, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the fin al BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than est imated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. In regard to the commenter’s statements about service life, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 12 in Comment Code 6.f.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 433 Commenter Name: John McManus Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power System (AEP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

1. EPA should independently present all treatment technologies for each individual wastewater stream and dispense with the “bundling” of the proposed treatment options.
EPA is proposing to revise or establish BAT 10 , BADCT (NSPS) 11 , PSES 12 , and PSNS 13 standards that may apply to discharges of seven waste streams: FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate, nonchemical metal cleaning wastes and wastewater from FGMC systems and gasification systems. In this proposal, EPA is presenting eight main regulatory options ( Option 1, Option 3a, Option 2, Option 3b, Option 3, Option 4a, Option 4, and Option 5). Four of these options (Options 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a) are preferred by the agency and one (Option 4a) is the basis of the proposed rule; however, it is very difficult to a ssess the impact of multiple option proposals. As a result, AEP believes that it must assess and comment on all of the options, but must also make numerous assumptions regarding which option or combination of options may affect the company. It is recommen ded that in future proposals, EPA evaluate the various options and select a single option upon which to base its proposal. Doing so would allow for the submittal of comments that are more directed and specific to the proposed changes.
Within each option, EPA proposes various technology options for each of the seven waste streams. Each option varies from the other based on which technologies are proposed for each waste stream. Often, this difference varies by only one technology proposal across the seven

w aste streams. For example, Options 4 and 5 are identical except that EPA proposes ZLD (vapor compression evaporation) for FGD wastewaters under Option 5 in lieu of biological treatment under Option 4. The problem with this proposal format is that the agen cy has “bundled” the technologies, limiting their application to power plants. Many, if not most, power plants generate at least five of the seven waste streams that are the focus of this rulemaking. The application of any given technology to a specific wa ste stream should not be limited by the technology that is proposed for another waste stream at that same facility. By “bundling” the technology options, the agency has limited the flexibility of the technology applications. For example, depending on the wastewater generated by a given facility, it may be better to consider chemical precipitation followed by biological treatment for FGD wastewater and to propose impoundments for the remaining facility wastewaters. This particular combination of technolog ies has not been proposed by the agency due to its unconventional presentation of the technology options. AEP encourages EPA to independently present all treatment technologies for each wastewater stream and to dispense with the “bundling” of the proposed treatment options.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 434 EPA performed a cost

- effectiveness analysis of the regulatory options for existing plants and presented the results in the Federal Register notice. However, while the agency conducted the same analysis for each individual wastewater, it only presented the results for those technologies proposed under Option 3a, one of the least stringent options (78 FR at 34474). To allow for a more comprehensive comparison of the cost

- effectiveness of the proposed treatment technologies, EPA needs to pr esent the $/TWPE for each option on a wastewater

- specific basis. For example, when assessing the $/TWPE for FGD wastewater, the agency should present the cost effectiveness information for chemical precipitation only, for chemical precipitation plus biolog ical treatment, for chemical precipitation plus zero liquid discharge, for biological treatment only, and for zero liquid discharge only. This would allow for a better comparison of the cost effectiveness of the proposed treatment options.
While the agenc y proposal focuses on seven waste streams, AEP has submitted comments that address five of the seven. AEP does not generate wastewater from FGMC or gasification systems; therefore, our comments are limited to FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes.

10 BAT

- Best available technology economically achievable, as defined by Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.

11 BADCT (NSPS)

- Best Available Demons trated Control Technology (New Source Performance Standards)

12 PSES

- Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources.

13 PSNS

- Pretreatment Standards for New Sources.
Comment Response:
For the steam electric rule, given the number of wastestreams and tech nology options under consideration, EPA chose to propose various regulatory options that contained different combinations of regulation by wastestream and technology option. This approach facilitated EPA’s ability to determine that the final rule, overall , met the statutory requirements of technological availability, economic achievability, and acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts (see preamble Section VIII). EPA’s decision to bundle technology options for various wastestreams for the steam electric rule is consistent with EPA’s approach in developing regulatory options for other point source categories regulated under the Clean Water Act. Furthermore, EPA’s approach here is consistent with how the industry handles such wastewaters. For exam ple, where plants have chemical precipitation, biological treatment, or evaporation in place, they typically treat a single wastestream with these technologies. EPA notes that the final rule does not require industry to use a specified technology or waste water management practice. Rather, they must meet the final limitations and standards that apply to the discharge of pollutants from steam electric power generating units.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 435 The commenter correctly states that EPA presented the cost

- effectiveness ratio of the BAT and PSES requirements for the rule. As explained in Section XV of the final preamble, although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for descr ibing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is highe r than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended ince ntive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.
EPA is not required, and with the exception of bottom ash transport water chose not, to present the $/TWPE for each option on a wastestre am

- specific basis. EPA did, however, provide $/TWPE for zero pollutant discharge requirements for bottom ash transport water in the final rule. See Section XV in the final preamble and the RIA. Further, EPA assessed many factors for the rule at the “regu latory option” level rather than at the “wastestream” level. For example, EPA presented information on the non

- water quality environmental impacts and economic impacts to the industry as a whole at the regulatory option level, rather than at the wastestre am level. EPA chose this approach for cost

- effectiveness because, as previously explained, while cost

- effectiveness is not required by the Clean Water Act, it can be useful in describing regulatory options and comparing them to requirements across other i ndustries. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. This role is the same whether one is referring to the cost

- effectiveness of the rule, cost

- effectiveness for a particular wastestream, incremental cost

- effectiveness, or cost

- effectiveness of BAT or PSES.

Commenter Name: Lisa Carty Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4458

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The cost effectiveness analysis overstates the benefits to be gained by the revised guidelines. In the case of bottom ash transport water , EPA’s limited dataset mentioned above was used to determine industry

- wide pollutant loading which was then used to assess cost

- effectiveness of pollution control technologies. The result grossly underestimates the costs of pollutant removal. EPA estimate d $107/TWPE for bottom ash handling system retrofits. UWAG conducted a similar analysis correcting the flaws in EPA’s analysis and calculated costs to be between $1,730Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 436 to $17,446/TWPE. This type of flawed cost effectiveness analysis is present throughout the proposal. Since BAT limits are established based in part on a cost

- benefit type test, it is essential that the analysis and underlying data be correct for the analysis to justify the proposed effluent limitation guidelines.
Comment Response:

EPA dis agrees with the commenter that EPA has “overstate[d] the benefits” or “grossly underestimate[d] the costs of the final rule. The commenter offers no specific examples of where or how EPA overstated benefits or underestimated costs, and thus EPA cannot off er a direct response here.
Nonetheless, EPA notes that it revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule

For the f inal rule, EPA used a larger set of data upon which it based bottom ash transport wastewater loadings. See the TDD and responses to comments in Comment Code 15.d.
EPA disagrees that BAT limits are based on “a cost

- benefit type test.” For the role of cost

effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. For the role of benefit

- cost in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in C omment C ode 6

. e.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.

Commenter Name: Paul Bailey Commenter Affiliation: American Coalition for Clean Coal E lectricity (ACCCE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA has understated the rule’s economic impact an d has failed to perform an analysis of the cumulative impact of this rule and other rules affecting the power sector. UWAG’s and ACCCE’s analyses demonstrate that the rule will cost roughly twice as much as EPA’s estimates, with a total compliance cost of up to $4.8 billion per year. EPA’s proposal could alsoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 437 cause 10.9 GW of additional coal shutdowns. EPA must analyze the cumulative impact of this rule along with other rules affecting the power sector.
Comment Response:
In response to public comments, EP A revised its estimates of costs for the final rule. See the final preamble, TDD, and RIA.
EPA’s final analyses account for the cumulative impact of this rule and other rules affecting the power sector. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4183

- A2, E xcerpt Number 22, and the RIA.
As required by the Clean Water Act, EPA determined that the final rule is economically achievable (i.e., affordable), with minimal projected impact on the steam electric power generating industry as a whole. See preamble sec tions VIII.C.9 and IX.C, Chapter 5 of the RIA, and responses to comments in comment codes 28.b and 28.c.

Commenter Name: Paul Bailey Commenter Affiliation: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0 819

- 4466

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EPA’s preferred options, all of which require dry fly ash handling, and one of which requires dry bottom ash handling for large units, are not cost effective.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees the final rule is not cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis ca n be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ( $1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’sEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 438 decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Paul Bailey Commenter Affiliation: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA estimates the annual cost of the rule to industry will be between $168 million and $2.3 billion. NERA Economic Consulting used UWAG’s cost information to determ ine the total cost of EPA’s proposal for the industry, as well as the impact on coal retirements. The NERA study (attached as Appendix 2) shows EPA’s proposal could have a compliance cost roughly twice EPA’s estimates (up to $4.8 billion annually), and cou ld result in the retirement of an additional 10.9 GW of coal

- fired capacity.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 3.

Commenter Name: Winslow Sargeant Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4477

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 12 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

B. Best Available Technology His torically Was Established by EPA at Under $100/PE
Industry estimates that the cost effectiveness of the rule as proposed is thousands of dollars/lb

equivalent (PE) for regulation of bottom ash, not the under $40 to $60/PE estimated by EPA. 23 For fly ash p lants, the cost effectiveness is somewhat better. 24 The February 2012 UWAG comments on the draft Merrimack Station permit offer a good summary of the history of cost effectiveness in ELGs. For example, in the 2003 promulgation of the Metals Products and Machinery (MP&M) ELG, EPA found that $1000/PE was too high; less than $200/PE was typical for BAT; $420/PE was “quite expensive;” and $455/PE was “very expensive.” The cost effectiveness for this rule, including removal of fly ash and bottom ash wastewater , cannot beEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 439 justified, since the figure, as in MP&M, is in the neighborhood of thousands of dollars/PE. In the past, EPA has declined to regulate such de minimis amounts of pollution. This means that the agency should seek more cost effective solutions, su ch as using chemical precipitation technology, instead of the current proposal of eliminating all ash wastewater discharges. In sum, EPA should seek a regulation with a cost/PE that is $100/PE or lower. In that manner, it would be complying with both the RFA and the Clean Water Act and minimizing small firm costs.

23 The industry estimate varied by size of plant, varying from several thousand dollars/PE to over ten thousand dollars/PE.

24 See industry comments for more detail on fly ash and bottom ash d ischarges, and correction of TWPE estimates.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the final rule is not cost

- effective, or that EPA should seek a regulation with a cost/PE that is $100/PE or lower. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. For the role of cost

- effecti veness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.

E PA notes this rule will not a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See preamble section XVII.C and RIA Chapter 8. EPA notes that, like the Clean Water Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require that EPA select for the final rule “a regulation with a cost/PE that is $100/PE or lower.”
EPA disagrees that the final rule regulates only de minimis pollutant discharges. See preamble section X and TDD chapter 10 for EPA’s estimates of pollutant loadings and reduction s under the final rule. The steam electric industry is the single largest source of toxic pollutant discharges to the nation’s waters of all industrial categories regulatory under the Clean Water Act. See Section III of the final preamble.

The commenter s tates that chemical precipitation technology is more cost effective than a zero discharge standard for controlling discharges of ash transport water. EPA is not aware of any steam electric power plant that is using chemical precipitation to treat fly ash transport water or bottom ash transport water prior to discharge. Furthermore, EPA estimated the costs of treating fly ash transport water or bottom ash transport water using chemical precipitation and found thatEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 440 they would be comparable to or higher than the costs associated with dry

- handling, with fewer resulting pollutant reductions. See Evaluation of Chemical Precipitation Costs for Ash Transport Water (DCN SE05654). For this reason, EPA neither proposed nor finalized limitations or standards for fly a sh transport water or bottom ash transport water based on chemical precipitation.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Proposed Rule is Not Cost

- Effective.
As a result of using unrepresentative data and conducting flawed analyses, EPA has proposed a rule that is not cost

- effective. EPA itself estimates that the cost of its proposal is between $185 million and $954 million per year and the benefit is between $139 million and $483 million per year, and in our view these numbers significantly underestimate the c osts and overestimate the benefits of the rule. Further, in all other ELGs, EPA has established a benchmark that the cost of removing one pound of toxic

- weighted pounds

- equivalent should not exceed $404 in 1981 dollars. Yet as demonstrated below, the cost of many portions of the proposed rule would far exceed that benchmark. Our analysis of the proposed rule also belies EPA’s claim that its proposal will have little impact on the cost of compliance, plant closures, or electricity rates.

It would be ill

- ad vised from an environmental and policy perspective for EPA to require the utility industry to invest billions of dollars for little environmental benefit, especially in this case when the electric utility fleet is already undergoing a transformation and ot her investments must be made to meet other environmental and energy regulatory obligations and goals
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the final rule is based on unrepresentative data and flawed analyses. The commenter’s statements are too generalize d to offer a specific response. Nonetheless, see responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 22 and DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
In response to public comments, EPA revised its estimates of poll utant loadings and reductions, compliance costs, and benefits for the final rule. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the final costs are underestimated and that the final benefits are overestimated. See TDD Sections 9 and 10 for information on polluta nt loads and the approach EPA used to estimate compliance costs. See the BCA for final costs and benefits. Based on the analysis done of pollutantEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 441 discharge reductions and benefits, EPA disagrees that the final rule will have “little environmental benefi t.” Also, EPA notes that the final rule does not cost “billions of dollars.”
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiven ess ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. As required by the Clean Water Act, EPA determined that the final rule is economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the steam electric power generating industry as whole, as it is projected to have minimal impact in terms of changes in steam el ectric generating unit capacity (i.e., unit or plant closures). EPA also determined that the final rule will have minimal impact on electricity rates. See preamble sections VIII.C.12 and IX, as well as RIA Sections 5 and 7.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 22 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

EP A should rely on more current and reliable data for target wastestreams, and should revise its analyses to reflect such data, in order to avoid biases in assumptions that make its best available technology (BAT) determinations inappropriately conservative. Analyses by UWAG and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) of more current data demonstrate that almost all of EPA’s preferred options and certain non

- preferred options for FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and fly ash transport water, a nd EPA’s non

- preferred options that differ from its preferred options for combustion residual leachate, are not cost effective. Rather, the current record supports limits consistent with current Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) (i.e., existing effluent limits for TSS and oil and grease) for bottom ash transport water and fly ash transport water.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 442 The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam elect ric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
Regarding the statement t hat EPA should rely on more current data, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d.
EPA determined that dry handling for control of fly ash transport water discharges and dry handling or closed

- loop systems fo r control of bottom ash transport water discharges represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for such discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units) and Best Available Demonstrate Control Technology. For controlling disch arges of combustion residual leachate, EPA determined that surface impoundments represent BAT and chemical precipitation represents BADCT. These technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).
In response to comments, EPA revised its estimates of pollutant loadings and reductions and compliance costs for the final rule. See the TDD and the RIA.
EPA disagrees that the rule is not cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options tha t address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectivenes s of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start se nding their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Co mmenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 112 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 443 Also, as further detailed in UWAG’s comments and the associated NERA report, NERA analyzed the cost

- effectiveness on an industry

- wide basis (whereas UWAG assessed cost

effectiveness on a model plant basis) for treatment tech nologies proposed in various options for bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, and FGD wastewater. NERA calculated incremental cost

- effectiveness, that is, the additional costs per TWPE to go from one level of stringency to the next higher level. NERA compared these estimates to EPA’s estimates of cost

effectiveness and to the levels of cost

- effectiveness that EPA has found acceptable in rulemakings for other industries.
For all the proposed steam electric technologies, NERA calculated that the cost per TWPE would be far higher than the mean ($47/TWPE) and median ($15/TWPE) from past rulemakings. In every case but one, the cost per TWPE for the steam electric proposed technologies would be higher than the highest amount ($404 for Electrical and Electronic Components) that EPA has ever found acceptable. The one option with a cost

- effectiveness less than that highest

- ever amount is chemical precipitation for FGD wastewater, which is still a very high $311 per TWPE in 1981 dollars. Thus, as U WAG’s other analyses show, dry handling of fly ash and bottom ash cannot be justified on a cost

- effectiveness basis. Furthermore, biological treatment and zero liquid discharge cannot be justified as a cost

- effective BAT for FGD wastewater.
Comment Respo nse:

EPA notes that the commenter refers to incremental cost

- effectiveness but then compares that to the cost

- effective ratios for other ELGs. EPA disagrees that it has sent a cost

- effective ratio benchmark above which the costs of removing one toxic

- wei ghted pound

- equivalent of pollutants would not be “acceptable.” Rather, consistent with other ELGs, for the steam electric rule, EPA presents the range of cost effectiveness of ELGs for other industries. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determin ing factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirem ents for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requireme nts for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreove r, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effect iveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.
For a description of the technologies that EPA selected as the basis for the final rule, and why, see preamble Section VIII.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 444 Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea III Commenter Affiliation: Edison Electric Institute (EEI) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 118 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Almost all of EPA’s preferred and certain non

- preferred options for FGD wastewater, bottom ash transpo rt water, and fly ash transport water, and all of EPA’s non

- preferred options that differ from its preferred options for combustion residual leachate, are not cost effective. EPA should not adopt new ELG requirements for bottom ash transport water, should not require dry handling for fly ash transport water, and should not require biological treatment of FGD wastewater.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4487

- A1, Excerpt Number 22.
For a description of the technologies that EPA sel ected as the basis for the final rule, and why, see preamble Section VIII.

Commenter Name: Dean Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Dynegy Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4491

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA is required to consider the cost of compliance (see Clean Water Act § 304(b)(2)(B)) and has a longstanding practice of considering cost

- effectiveness in establishing effluent limitations guidelines. As UWAG demonstrates, some of EPA’s proposals cannot be justified as cost

effective in terms of toxic

- weighted pound

- equivalents (TWPEs) of pollutants removed. Most importantly, Dynegy does not believe that EPA has justified any it of its proposed regulatory options that would prohibit the discharge of bottom ash transport waters or prohibit the discharge of fly ash transport waters.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 445 EPA considered the cost of compliance in developing the final rule. See preamble Section IX, as well as the TDD and RIA.
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and t he “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that the Option D technologies represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these techn ologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The f inal PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Dean Ellis Commenter Affiliation: Dynegy Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4491

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 36 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
As explained in UWAG’s comments on the Proposed ELG Rule, the rulemaking record shows that EP A has overstated the impact of electric power plants by a series of questionable assumptions and practices that overstate the amount of pollutants and their impact on the environment.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 446 In response to public comments, EPA revised its esti mates of pollutant loadings and reductions for the final rule, as well as its environmental assessment analyses. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the final rule overstates the amount of pollutants discharged by steam electric power plants and their i mpact on the environment. See chapter 10 of the TDD and the EA for the final rule.
This comment is very general in nature. See other comment codes for responses to specific comments related to loadings and the EA.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 149, regarding the requirement in the Clean Water Act to “identify . . . the degree of effluent reduction attainable.”

Commenter Name: Daniel K. Plath Commenter Affiliation: Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) Docu ment Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4508

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
NIPSCO prefaces these comments by noting that our review of the proposed ELG has largely focused on the four USEPA preferred options (3, 3a, 3b, and 4a) identified in the preamble to the proposed rule and designated in the Technical Development Document (TDD) as being, in USEPA’s opinion, economically achievable. However, NIP SCO emphasizes that we concur with USEPA’s assessment that Option 5 (one of the non

- preferred rule options) “zero liquid discharge” requirement for Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Wastewater is not economically achievable. NIPSCO offers no comments to the remaining non

- preferred options (1, 2, and 4), because they do not reflect any new or modified treatment technologies beyond those represented by the preferred options.
Comment Response:
EPA’s proposed Option 5 (substantially similar to Option F for the final rule) is not based on a “zero liquid discharge” requirement for FGD wastewater, but rather is based on evaporation technology, with numeric limitations for arsenic, selenium, mercury, and total dissolved solids. Regardless, for the final rule, EPA di d not select evaporation as the BAT basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges from all existing steam electric power generating units,, for the reasons explained in preamble section VIII.C.1.
Although EPA did not select evaporation as the BAT basis fo r control of FGD wastewater discharges from all existing steam electric power generating units, as part of BAT for existing sources, the final rule also establishes a voluntary incentives program for plants that adopt process changes and controls that achi eve limitations based on evaporation for FGD wastewaterEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 447 discharges. See Section VIII.C.13 of the final preamble. Also, the new source standards (NSPS and PSNS) in the final rule are based on the Option F technologies (which includes zero discharge standa rds for control of discharges of fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wastewater, as well as standards based on evaporation for control of FGD wastewater discharges).

Commenter Name: Dorothy Kellogg and Michael Leitman Commenter Affiliation: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4565 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
NRECA urges EPA to:
Reconsider the cost effectiveness of this rule, and to revise the final rule to promulgate standards based on $/TWPE comparable to those promulgated for other sectors.
Comment Response:
Although not required by the CWA, and not a dete rmining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requ irements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requi rements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Mor eover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- ef

fectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Dorothy Kellogg and Michael Leitman Commenter Affiliation: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4565

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 448 Comment Excerpt:

NRECA urges EPA to reconsider the cost effective ness of this rule, and to revise the final rule to promulgate standards based on $/TWPE comparable to those promulgated for other sectors . NRECA is concerned that EPA’s proposal is not cost

- effective and that the incremental costs will weigh disproportiona lly on smaller entities.
NRECA has worked closely with our utility sector partners in the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) and Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) and endorses the extensive comments submitted by these organizations. Both organizatio ns identified significant and compounding errors in EPA’s regulatory impact analysis that led the Agency to drastically inflate the benefits of the proposal and underestimate the costs.
UWAG developed a detailed critique of the errors in EPA’s cost effect iveness analysis which demonstrates that the cost

- effectiveness of the proposal as measured in dollars per toxic

weighted pound

- equivalents 2 ($/TWPE), are orders of magnitude higher than previous effluent guidelines (see Figure 1. Histogram of Cost

- Effect iveness Values for Previous EPA BAT Regulations)
Figure 1: Histogram of Cost

- Effectiveness Values for Previous EPA BAT Regulations 3

Note: Analysis excludes regulations with “BAT = BPT”.
Source: NERA analysis of EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 2 013b), Table D

- 5 (pp. D

- 7 to D

- 8)

2 EPA establishes toxic weighting factors (TWF) for each pollutant and the TWPE is the pounds of a pollutant in a wastewater multiplied by the TWF.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 449 3 UWAG comments, attachment c, Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of EPA’s Prop osed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Steam electric Power Plants , NERA Economic Consulting, September 2013.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4477

- A1 , Excerpt Number 12.

EPA notes that the final rule establishes differentiated requirements for generating units that are less than or equal 50 MW. See Section VIII.C.12 of the final preamble. These differentiated requirements are expected to alleviate any impacts to small entities. See preamble Section XVII.C and RIA Section 8.

Commenter Name: Floyd Gilzow Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4576

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Finally, it is not clear that EPA has followed conventional Clean Water Act cost

‐ benefit analysis in its Best Available Technology (BAT) determinations in many of the eight options offered. We urge the EPA to review their analysis of pollutants and about the capital costs and impacts from some of these proposed technologies. If BAT is reviewed in light of the exaggerated pollutants discharged that the EPA would select Option 1.
Comment Respon se:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated con trol technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA disagrees that proposed Option 1 represents BAT. EPA determined that the Option D technologies represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII).
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s statement that the Clean Water Act contains a “convention” of cost

‐ benefit analysis for BAT. For the role of cost

- benefit analysis in establishing BAT, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in comment code 6a.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 450 EPA notes that it revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.

Commenter Name: Floyd Gilzow Commenter Af

filiation: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission (MJMEUC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4576

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excerpt:
3. One primary comment, based on the present rulemaking record, is that EPA has not been able to justify, on a cost

‐ effectiveness basis, any wastewater treatment technology beyond what is already required by the 1982 steam electric guidelines. I t appears, from calculations performed by the Utility Water Act Group, the Electric Power Research Institute, and others that the cost of, for example, dry handling of bottom ash would be considerably more costly than technologies EPA has required of other industries in past rulemakings.
We believe that this oversight is substantial enough that the rulemaking should be withdrawn, reviewed, and resubmitted with new costs or the rule should be restructured
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that this rule “should be withdrawn, reviewed, and resubmitted with new costs or the rule should be restructured.”
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating indus try based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that the Option D technologies repre sent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water At (see preamble Section VIII).
EPA revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated wit h the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDDEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 451 Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.

EPA determined the fina l rule is cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presente d in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiv eness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industr ies. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an

a ttempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Our prim ary comment, based on the present rulemaking record, is that EPA has not been able to justify, on a cost

- effectiveness basis, any wastewater treatment technology beyond what is already required by the 1982 steam electric guidelines. It appears, from calcul ations performed by the Utility Water Act Group, the Electric Power Research Institute, and others that the cost of, for example, dry handling of bottom ash would be considerably more than technologies EPA has required of other industries in past rulemakin gs. The burden of the higher cost will be even greater on community

- owned electric utilities like ours.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4576

- A1, Excerpt Number 9.
Regarding the burden on community

- owned electric utilities, EPA conducted analyses to look at the impacts of the regulatory requirements on various types of entities, including small entities and government entities who own or operate community

- owned electric utilities. These analyses, which are described in Chapter 9 of the RIA document show that the final rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. EPA also looked at the impacts onEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 452 households based on other comments which suggested that community

- owned utilities and cooperatives may be more lik ely to pass through costs to their consumers. For example, see response to comments EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4565

- A1, Excerpt Number 19 (in comment code 29.e) and EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4460

- A1, Excerpt Number 1 (in comment code 28.f).

Commenter Name: Elizabet h E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 22 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

In the e nd, several of EPA’s proposed options are reasonable for an industry that is already regulated extensively. The “cost

- effectiveness” analyses, especially as corrected by UWAG’s own work, show that for most wastestreams little additional regulation can be justified as cost

effective. EPA’s description of the steam electric industry as contributing 50 to 60% of toxic

weighted pollutant loadings has little relevance to the basic facts of technology cost and effectiveness. And, in any event, that description should be revised because EPA has overestimated pollutant loadings and overstated the environmental impacts of those loadings.

IV. EPA’s Cost

- Effectiveness Analyses Do Not Support Zero Discharge for Bottom Ash or Fly Ash Transport Water or Chemical Precip itation for FGD Wastewater at Plants with under 200 gpm Design Flow
As is standard practice, EPA has calculated the “cost

- effectiveness” of the proposed BAT requirements in terms of dollars per toxic

- weighted pound

- equivalents (TWPEs) of pollutants removed :

EPA often uses cost

- effectiveness analysis in the development/revision of effluent limitations guidelines and standards to evaluate the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from the effluent discharges to the nation’s waters. Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost

- effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options that address toxic pollutants.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,503 col. 2.
Whether or not EPA is “required” to consider cost

- effectiveness, it is clearly required to take account of “cost.” See Clean Water Act § 304(b)(2)(B). And EPA has a longstanding practice of considering cost

- effectiveness. As we show below, some of EPA’s proposals cannot be justified as cost

- effective.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 453 The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available de monstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that the Option D technologies represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the statute (see preamble Section VIII). As required by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EP A also took into account the “cost of achieving such effluent reduction . . . .” See preamble section IX and TDD Section 10.
In response to comments, EPA revised its pollutant loadings and reduction estimates for the final rule, including its estimate of the contribution steam electric power plants have on combined discharges from all industrial categories. In addition, based o n public comments, EPA revised its compliance cost estimates, as well as its resulting cost

- effectiveness for the final rule. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final rule, see preamble se ctions V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirement s for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule. For the role of cost

- effective ness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. In response to comments, EPA revised its environmental assessment analyses. EPA disagrees with the commenter that the final rule overstates the amount of pollutants discharged by steam electric power plants and their impact on the environment. See the TDD and EA for the final rule.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Documen t Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 24Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 454 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

D. EPA’s Estimates of Dollars per TWPE Are Too Low
Because of various inappro priate methods, assumptions, and choices of data, EPA’s calculations of $/TWPE for the steam electric industry are underestimated. For individual wastestreams, EPA finds costs of only $27 to $107:

The cost

- effectiveness for zero discharge of fly ash trans port and FGMC wastewater, as in Option 3a, is $27 per TWPE removed. The cost effectiveness of chemical precipitation alone is $70 per TWPE removed, while the cost effectiveness of chemical precipitation plus anaerobic biological treatment, which is include d in all options except Option 3a, is $60 per TWPE removed. The cost effectiveness of zero discharge of bottom ash transport water for all units more than 50 MW is $107 per TWPE. In comparison, when this requirement is applied only to units more than 400 M W, as in Option 4a, the cost effectiveness value is $99 per TWPE removed.
EPA, “Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category,” EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 002 ( April 2013), EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2257 (2013 TDD) at 8

- 34; see also 78 Fed Reg. at 34,474 col. 1 and 34,504 (Table XII

- 1).
Correctly calculated, the costs per TWPE are much higher,
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Nu mber 22 and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 27 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A. By Longstanding Precedent, No BAT Requirement Should Cost More than $404 (in 1981 Dollars) per TWPEEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 455 EPA cites the highest cost per TWPE as $404 in 1981 dollars:
A review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised BAT limitations shows BAT cost

- effectiveness ranging from less than $1/lb

- eq (Inorganic Chemicals) to $404/lb

eq (Electrical and Electronic Components), in 1981 dollars.
78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504 col. 1

- 2. Typically the cost has been less than $200. 68 Fed. Reg. 25,686, 25,701 col. 3 (May 13, 2003).
In several past ELG rulemakings, EPA published a table of cost

- effectiveness estimates by industry category. In four cost

- effectiveness an alyses, dated 1996

- 2000, the highest cost per equivalent pound (that is, pound of pollutant adjusted for toxicity) was listed as $404 in 1981 dollars 2

. In the rulemaking for Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M), EPA determined that a technology was not BAT when it had a cost of $1000/PE because this was “substantially greater” than what EPA had typically imposed for BAT technology in other industries, generally less than $200/PE. 68 Fed. Reg. at 25,701 col. 3; see also id. at 25,702 col. 2. In the same rul emaking, EPA said that $455/PE was “very expensive per pound removed.” EPA’s “Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry,” EPA

- 821

- B

- 03

- 001 (Feb. 2003) (MP&M Development D ocument) at 9

- 21 to

- 22. A cost of $420/PE was “quite expensive.” Id. at 9

- 13.
Thus far, then, UWAG agrees with EPA: cost

- effectiveness analysis is (at least) a “useful tool,” and in other rulemakings EPA has typically imposed costs of less than $200/TWP E and no more than $404 (in 1981 dollars). Indeed, as the attached NERA report observes, the mean is $47/TWPE, and the median is $15/TWPE. UWAG has several recommendations, however, as to how the cost

- effectiveness analysis should be conducted, as explai ned below.

2 See “Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category,” 821

- R

- 96

- 021 (October 1996), Table 5

- 1 at 5

- 2 to 5

- 3, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=200035QV.txt ; “Economic Analysis and Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors” [for proposed rule], EPA

- 821

- B

- 97

- 010 (January 1998) at C

- E 4

- 2 and
4

- 3, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20002HH8.txt ; EPA Office of Water, “Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry” (EPA

- 821

- B

- 00

- 007 December 2000), page 10 (page 13 of the electronic version), [for proposed rule], http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/upload/2001_01_10_guide_mpm_proposal_mpm_ce.pdf ; EPA, “Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis
of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for t he Centralized Waster Treatment Industry” (undated but listed in support of final rule of December 2000) at 4

- 3, http://water.epa.gov/sci tech/wastetech/guide/treatment/upload/2006_12_28_guide_cwt_final_effective.pdf ; see also
“Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations and Standards for the Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Industry,” PB93158970 (August 1985) at 3

- 15 Tabl e 3.7.

Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 456 EPA explained the bases for the options it selected in the preamble to the final rule. In particular, sections 301(b) and 304(b) of the Clean Water Act specify that Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (“BAT”) represents effluent limitations that are technologically available and economically achievable after a consideration of the following factors: the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non

- water quality environmental impacts (including energy requirements), and such other factors the Administrator deems appropriate.

Several commenters s tated that EPA’s final rule should be “cost

- effective” or that EPA should choose only “cost

- effective” options. EPA interprets these statements about cost

- effectiveness as using the term in the casual sense, similar to the notion of “bang for your buck.” T hese commenters, however, do not identify what they view as constituting “cost

- effective.” Thus, considering “cost

- effectiveness” in this general respect is not especially useful. Nonetheless, EPA notes that, in some cases, for the final rule, EPA did reje ct certain technology options for controlling specific wastestreams because there was another technology option that better controlled that wastestream and at a lower cost. See discussion of chemical precipitation for control of ash transport water in the TDD.
Other commenters stated that EPA should have selected different options for the final rule based on EPA’s or their own “cost

- effectiveness” analysis of those options. EPA interprets these statements about cost

- effectiveness to refer to the kind o f cost

- effectiveness analysis that EPA traditionally performs for ELGs. In its effluent guidelines rulemakings, EPA uses the term “cost effectiveness” as a measure of the cost 5 per pound of pollutant discharge reduction (for BAT, these pollutant discharge reductions are normalized to account for the different toxicity among pollutants 6 ). Indeed, this commenter uses the term cost

- effectiveness to mean a measure of cost per pound of toxic

- weighted pound of pollutant discharge reduction. This commenter further states that “ No BAT Requirement Should Cost More than $404 (in 1981 Dollars) per TWPE.” While EPA often calculates and presents cost

- effectiveness values when conducting ELG rulemakings (see section XV of the preamble), it generally does not use cost

- effe ctiveness as a decision criterion in establishing BAT, and it did not use the results of its “cost

effectiveness” analysis as the basis for its decisions on the steam electric ELGs. EPA’s decision is consistent with the statute in a number of ways.

5 Here, the costs are the estimated annualized incremental pre

- tax costs to comply with alternative regulatory options, stated in 1981 constant dollars. The annual costs include the annualized capital outlays for equipment and recurring expenses for opera t ing and maintaining compliance equipment and meeting monitoring requirements.

6 EPA adjusts the estimated reductions in discharges, or pollutant discharge reductions, associated with a regulatory option by multiplying the estimated reduction quantity for each pollutant by a normalizing toxic weight (toxic

- weighting factor, or “TWF”). The use of TWFs allows the reductions of different pollutants to be expressed on a constant toxicity basis. In the case of indirect dischargers, the reduction also accounts f or the effectiveness of treatment at Publicly Operated Treatment Works (“POTWs”). See the Regulatory Impact Assessment for more details about how EPA accounts for differences in toxicity of pollutants of concern through the use of TWFs.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 457 The 1 972 amendments to the modern Clean Water Act adopted a technology

- forcing approach to pollutant reductions, meaning it is intended to reflect what technology can achieve. 7 Congress adopted this approach in response to the failure of the prior approach unde r the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, in which regulation was predicated on having to demonstrate the environmental effects of control on receiving waters:
“The earliest version of the federal Water Pollution Control Act was passed in 1948 and amended five times before 1972. Throughout that 24 year period, Congress attempted to use receiving water quality as a basis for setting pollution control standards. At the end of that period, Congress realized not only that its water pollution control efforts un til then had failed, but also that reliance on receiving water capacity as a crucial test for permissible pollution levels had contributed greatly to that failure.
Based on this experience, Congress adopted a new approach in 1972. Under the Act, ‘a discha rger’s performance is . . . measured against strict technology

- based effluent limitations specified levels of treatment to which it must conform, rather than against limitations derived from water quality standards to which it and other polluters must col lectively conform.’
This new approach reflected developing views on practicality and rights. Congress concluded that water pollution seriously harmed the environment, and that although the cost of control would be heavy, the nation would benefit from cont rolling the pollution. Yet the scientific uncertainties made it difficult to assess the benefits to particular bodies of receiving water. Even if the federal government eventually could succeed at the task at which [it] had failed for 24 years and thus cou ld determine benefits and devise water quality standards, Congress concluded that the requisite further delay was too long for the nation to wait.” 8

Thus, under the technology

- based approach, section 301(b) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to set e ffluent limitations for categories of point sources in two increasingly stringent steps. 9 The first step, which applies to all pollutants, requires point sources to meet

7 Technology

- based provisions differ from other major types of environmental statutory provisions that are health or water quality

- based or based on cost

- benefit. For example, health

- based provisions are based solely on what is necessary to protect against a particular risk. Cf

. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’n , 531 U.S. 457, 465 (2001) (“Section 109(b)(1) [of the Clean Air Act] instructs the EPA to set primary ambient air quality standards ‘the attainment and maintenance of which . . . are requisite t o protect the public health ’ with ‘an adequate margin of safety.’ . . . The EPA, ‘based on’ the information about health effects contained in the technical ‘criteria’ documents compiled under section 108(a)(2), is to identify the maximum airborne concentration of a pollutant that th e public health can tolerate, decrease the concentration to provide an ‘adequate’ margin of safety, and set the standard at that level. Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that calculation. ”) (citations omitted). Cost

- benefit pr ovisions direct the Agency to weigh the costs and benefits of regulation. For example, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires all pesticide products sold or distributed in the United States to be registered with EPA, and EPA is d irected to approve the registration if the pesticide will perform its intended function without “unreasonable adverse effects.” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(a). “Unreasonable adverse effects” includes “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into accou nt the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” Id . § 136(bb). The Toxics Substances Control Act is another cost

- benefit statute, authorizing regulation of a chemical substance or mixture where it will present an unreasonable risk of injury or health or the environment. See 15 U.S.C. § 2605 ; Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA , 947 F.2d 1201, 1217 (5th Cir. 1991).

8 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (citations and footnote omitted).

9 EPA v. Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. 64, 68 (1980); BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 789

- 90 (6th Cir. 1996).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 458 limitations based on application of the “best practicable control technology currentl y available,” or “BPT,” by 1977. Section 304(b)(1)(B) of the Act states:
“Factors relating to the assessment of [BPT] . . . shall include consideration of the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application , and shall also take into account the age of equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, non

- water quality envir onmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate” (emphasis added).
In general, BPT is to reflect the average of the best existing performances by industrial plants. 10 Recognizing the technology

- forcing aspect of the Clean Water Act and the difficulties of the prior water

- quality based approach to controlling water pollution, the Supreme Court has interpreted the BPT cost

- benefit factor as a “limited” cost

- benefit balancing test, meaning that EPA is to limit the application of technology only where the costs are wholly disproportionate to the effluent reductions achieved. 11

The second step of technology

- based effluent limitations requires point sources to meet limitations based on application of th e “best conventional technology,” or “BCT,” for conventional pollutants, 12 and the “best available technology economically achievable,” or “BAT,” for toxic and non

- conventional pollutants. In describing BAT, which was originally to be achieved by 1983, but which Congress later extended to 1989, section 301(b)(2)(A) of the Act states:
“In order to carry out the objectives of this Act there shall be achieved

– . . . Effluent limitations which (i) shall require application of the best available technology econ omically achievable for such category or class, which shall result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants . . . , which such effluent limitations shall require

10 BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 66 F.3d at 789; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA , 612 F.2d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir. 1979); Weyerhaeus er Co. , 590 F.2d at 1060; Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 540 F.2d 1023, 1034 (10th Cir. 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train , 539 F.2d 107, 117 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Meat Inst. v. EPA , 526 F.2d 442, 462 (7th Cir. 1975); Tanners’ Council of Am., Inc. v. Train , 540 F.2d 1188, 1191 (4th Cir. 1976).

11 Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. at 71 n.10 (“Senator Muskie, the principal Senate sponsor of the Act, described the ‘limited cost

- benefit analysis’ employed in setting BPT standards as being intended to ‘limit the application of technology only where the additional degree of effluent reduction is wholly out of proportion to the costs of achieving such marginal level o f reduction. . . .”) (citation omitted); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train , 430 U.S. 112, 1 29

- 30 (1977) (quoting same statement by Senator Muskie as in Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , as well as statement that the language in section 304(b) of the Act is intended “‘to avoid imposing on the Administrator any requirement to . . . ascertain water qualit y impact of effluent controls.’”) (citation omitted).

12 In describing BCT, CWA section 304(b)(4)(B) specifies the same factors as for BPT, except with respect to the way that costs and benefits are to be considered: “Factors relating to the assessment of [BCT] shall include consideration of the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived, and the comparison of the cost and l evel of reduction of such pollutants from t he discharge from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources , and shall take into account . . . such other factors the Administrator deems appropriate” (emphasis added ). EPA established a two

- part cost test for BCT. 51 Fed. Reg. 24,974 (July 9, 1986). The final steam electric ELGs do not establish BCT limitations.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 459 elimination of discharges of all pollutants if the Administrator finds . . . that such elimination is technologically and economically achievable.”
The Supreme Court has said that the focus of BAT on “elimination” of discharges (section 301(b)(2)(A) mentions “eliminating” or “elimination ” three separate times over the course of one sentence) indicates Congressional intent to “mandate the greatest feasible reduction in water pollution,” which can be contrasted, for example, with the “less ambitious” goal in section 316(b) of “minimizing ad verse impact.” 13 Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act specifies factors for BAT that are the same as those for BPT, except with regard to costs versus effluent reduction benefits:
“Factors relating to the assessment of [BAT] shall take into account the age of eq uipment and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction , non

water quality environmental impact (including ener gy requirements), and such other factors the Administrator deems appropriate” (emphasis added).
BAT is to reflect the performance of “the single best performing plant,” and it can rely on pilot projects, foreign plants, or technology transfer. 14 Senator Mus kie, the principal Senate sponsor of the Act, explained the distinction between BPT and BAT this way:
“The distinction between ‘best practicable’ and ‘best available’ is intended to reflect the need to press toward increasingly higher levels of control in six

- year stages. Through the research and development of new processes, modifications, replacement of obsolete plans and processes, and other improvements in technology, it is anticipated that it should be possible, taking into account the cost of controls , to achieve by 1983 levels of control which approach and achieve the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
As to the cost of ‘best available’ technology, the Conferees agreed upon the language of the Senate bill in section 304(b)(2). While cost shou ld be a factor in the Administrator’s judgment, no balancing test will be required. The Administrator will be bound by a test of reasonableness. In this case, the reasonableness of what is ‘economically achievable’ should reflect an evaluation

13 Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper , 556 U.S. 208, 219 (2009).

14 Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA , 870 F.2d 177, 226 , 235 (5th Cir. 1989) (“Congress intended [BAT] limitations to be based on the performance of the single best performing plant in an industrial field.”); Am. Meat Inst. , 526 F.2d at 462

- 463 (“[BAT is] to be based on a broader range of technological alterna tives, including techniques which exist in operation or which can be applied as a result of public and private research efforts. . . . [R]ather than establishing the range of levels in reference to the avera ge of the best performers in an industrial catego ry . . . the range should, at a minimum, be established with reference to the best performer in any industrial category.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Kennecott Copper v. EPA , 780 F.2d 445, 447 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In setting BAT, EPA uses no t the average plant, but the optimally operating plant, the pilot plant which acts as a beacon to show what is possible.”) (citation omitted); Am. Frozen Food Inst. , 539 F.2d at 140 (upholding EPA’s use of data from two foreign plants); Weyerhaeuser Co. , 5 90 F.2d at 1054 n.70 (upholding EPA’s use of data from pilot plants); Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA , 760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985) (upholding EPA’s use of data from technology employed in another industry); Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA , 553 F.2d 280, 287 (2d Cir. 1977) (same).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 460 of what need s to be done to move toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and what is achievable through application of available technology

– without regard to cost.” 15

EPA’s decision not to use the results of its cost

- effectiveness analysis to establish BAT for the final steam electric ELGs is consistent with the statutory text, structure, and history of the Clean Water Act, and it achieves the goals of the Act. As is clear from the text of the statute, the Act does not direct BAT to reflect a considerat ion of a weighing of costs in relation to pounds of pollutant discharge reductions, but rather simply requires BAT to reflect what is technologically and economically achievable after a consideration of, among other things, “the cost of achieving such effl uent reduction.” Thus, for BAT, instead of comparing costs to pounds of pollutant discharge reductions, EPA typically estimates the costs of compliance and determines whether they are affordable to the industry as a whole, or whether the costs can be “reas onably borne” by the industry. 16 EPA has generally looked at the affordability of the costs on the industry as a whole (or for a subcategory of the industry, as appropriate) by analyzing the effect of the regulation on plant closures and, to a more limited degree, firm failures. 17 In a few past instances, EPA has also considered total industry costs, rather than impacts on plant closures or firms, in establishing BAT. 18 Once EPA has identified technologically available and economically achievable options, some courts have stated that the Agency is allowed to consider whether increasingly more stringent requirements would impose significant costs while achieving only de minimis incremental pollutant reductions. 19 EPA also considers non

- water quality environmental impacts and has on previous occasion based a decision not to select a technology option due to such impacts. 20
Moreover, the Act’s structure and history clearly contemplate a two

- step, phased

- in approach to technology

- based effluent limitations, where the first step represents what is “practicable,” and the second step is directed toward the complete elimination of discharges if such elimination is “technologically and economically achievable.” Thus, EPA views cost

- effectiveness as more

15 Congressional Research Service, a Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 170 (Comm. Print 1973).

16 Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n , 870 F.2d at 262; BP Exploration & Oil , 66 F.3d at 799

- 800. See also Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA , 286 F.3d 554, 570 (D.C. Cir. 2002); CPC Int’l Inc. v. Train , 540 F.2d 1329, 1341

- 42 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966 (1977).

17 See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n , 286 F.3d at 562

- 65; Nat’l Ass’n of Metal Finishers v. EPA , 719 F.2d 660, 666 (3d Cir. 1983); Am. Iron & Steel Inst. , 526 F.2d at 1054; Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries , 615 F.2d at 808.

18 See 48 Fed. Reg. 32462, 32468 (July 15, 1983) (Final Rule establishing ELGs for the Electroplating and Metal Finishing Point Source Categor ies); 74 Fed. Reg. 62996, 63026 (Dec. 1, 2009) (Final Rule establishing ELGs for the Construction and Development Point Source Category); BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 66 F.3d at 796

- 97.

19 Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries , 615 F.2d at 818 (“So long as the required te chnology reduces the discharge of pollutants, our inquiry will be limited to whether the Agency considered the cost of the technology, along with the other statutory factors, and whet her its conclusion is reasonable. Of course, at some point extremely cos tly more refined treatment will have a de minimis effect on the receiving waters.”); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 787 F.2d 965, 972 (5th Cir. 1986) (“EPA would disserve its mandate were it to tilt at windmills by imposing BAT limitations which removed de mi nimis amounts of pollutant agents from our nation’s waters, while imposing possibly disabling costs upon the regulated industry.”); Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA , 858 F.2d 261, 265

- 66 (5th Cir. 1988), amended by 864 F.2d 1156, 1156

- 57 (5th Cir. 1989) (“BAT li mitations properly may require industry, regardless of a discharge’s effect on water quality, to employ defined levels of technology to meet effluent limitations; a direct cost/ benefit correlation is not required, so even minimal environmental impact can b e regulated, so long as the prescribed alternative is ‘technologically and economically achievable.’ We are mindful, however, that this approach has its limits, as explained by Judge (now Justice) Kennedy in Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries .”) (citations omitted).

20 See Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the Commercial Hazardous Waste Combustor Subcategory of the Waste Combustors Point Source Category; Final Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 4360, 4368 (Jan. 27, 2000) ; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. , 66 F.3d at 796

- 97.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 461 closely relevant to establishing the first step of technology

- based limitations, BPT. Indeed, unlike section 304(b)(2)(B), section 304(b)(1)(B) of the Act expressly directs that BPT reflect a consideration of “the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application.” Interpreting that provision, EPA has traditionally considered cost per pound of pollutant discharge reduction when establishing BPT. Due to the difference in the language used in section 30 4(b)(1)(B) compared to the language used in section 304(b)(2)(B), EPA does not view as determinative cost per pound (or toxic

- weighted) pound of pollutant discharge reduction for establishing controls reflecting BAT. 21 This is consistent with numerous judic ial interpretations. 22 EPA’s view is that the Act’s stated goal in section 101 of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, 23 as well as its specific goal in section 301 that BAT result in the elimination of discharges where technologically and economical ly achievable, 24 are achieved if EPA does not base BAT on a weighing of costs against pounds of pollutant discharge reductions, but rather focuses most importantly on the Act’s requirement that BAT limitations reflect what is technologically available and e conomically achievable for the industry as a whole (while taking into account the express factors in section 304(b)).
EPA’s approach for the final steam electric ELGs is consistent with the approach described above. EPA determined that the final rule is b ased on available and demonstrated treatment technologies. EPA analyzed the effect of the final rule on steam electric generating unit and plant closures and determined that the rule is affordable to the industry as a whole (see preamble Section VIII.C.9). EPA also considered the total industry costs and concluded it would not be appropriate to establish BAT limitations based on certain regulatory options due in part to total industry cost (see Section VIII of preamble). The final steam electric ELGs do not impose

21 See Keene Corp. v. United States , 508 U.S. 200, 208 (1993) (“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another . . . , it is generally presumed that Congress a cts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); See also Dep’t of Homeland Security v. MacLean , 135 S. Ct. 913, 919 (2015) (“Congress generally acts intentionally when it uses particula r language in one section of a statute but omits it in another.”) (citation omitted). The same can be said in contrasting section 304(b)(2)(B)’s silence regarding costs versus benefits with the BCT provision, section 304(b)(4)(B), which directs EPA to con sider “the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs . . . and the effluent reduction benefits derived.”

22 See Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. at 70

- 71 (“[I]n assessing BAT[,] total cost is no longer to be considered in comparison to efflue nt reduction benefits.”); Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794, 818 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The conspicuous absence of the comparative language contained in section 304(b)(1)(B) leads us to the conclusion that Congress di d not intend the Agency or this c ourt to engage in marginal cost

- benefit comparison.”); Am. Iron & Steel v. EPA , 526 F.2d 1027, 1051

- 52, 1053 n.54 (3d Cir. 1975) (“there should be no cost

- benefit analysis” for BAT); CPC Int’l, Inc. v. Train , 540 F.3d 1329, 1341

- 42 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. d enied , 430 U.S. 966 (1977) (BAT is “governed by standard of reasonableness without the necessity of a thorough cost

- benefit analysis.”) (citations omitted); Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA , 760 F.2d 549, 565 (4th Cir. 1985) (“For BPT there must be a ‘limited ba lancing’ of costs against benefits, but as regards BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS no balancing is required . . . .”) (citations omitted); Rybachek v. EPA , 904 F.2d 1276, 1290

- 91 (10th Cir. 1990) (“In determining the economic achievability of a technology, the EP A must consider the ‘cost’ of meeting BAT limitations, but need not compare such cost with the benefits of effluent reduction.”) (citations omitted); Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA , 161 F.3d 923, 936 (5th Cir. 1998) (“In applying the BAT standard, the EPA i s not obligated to evaluate the reasonableness of the relationship between costs and benefits. . . . Indeed, the EPA may prescribe ELGs whose costs are significantly disproportionate to their benefits , just as long as the BAT determination remains economic ally feasible for the industry as a whole.”) (citations omitted); Am. Paper Inst. v. Train , 543 F.2d 328, 338, 354 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (“Section 304(b)(2)(B) mandates no such [cost

- benefit] balancing for the 1983 [BAT] limitations, nor does Section 306 requir e it for the new source performance standards.”); Nat’l Ass’n of Metal Finishers v. EPA , 719 F.2d 624, 659 (3d Cir. 1983) (“BPT is designed to eliminate inefficient discharges, i.e., where the benefits of pollutant reduction exceed the costs. . . . BAT ass umes that inefficient discharges have been eliminated . . . [and] requir[es] the remaining dischargers to eliminate ‘efficient’ discharges, [including] where the costs outweigh the benefits of pollutant reduction.”).

23 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).

24 Id. 1311

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 462 exorbitant costs in exchange for only de minimis pollutant reductions

– indeed the annual social cost of the final rule is $479.5 million and the estimated reductions attributable to the rule are 1.4 billion toxic

- weighted pounds per year (see prea mble Section X), which is a significant figure given the Act’s goal of pollutant discharge elimination. 25 Finally, EPA concluded that the final rule contains acceptable non

- water quality impacts (see preamble Section VIII.C.10).

In addition to the fact that EPA’s decision not to use as determinative the results of its cost

effectiveness analysis in establishing BAT is consistent with and implements the Act, EPA notes several limitations with its cost

- effectiveness analysis that make the Agency cautious of it s value as a decision tool. First, the toxic

- weighting factors (“TWFs”) used to calculate toxic

- weighted pollutant discharge reductions are derived from chronic aquatic life criteria and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established solely for the consumption of fish, where available. In cases where only one of these two criteria is available, TWFs account for only one particular type of harm. In this sense, they could be incomplete.
Second, this analysis does not account for all pollutants. N ot all pollutants have TWFs, either because data are not available to set a TWF or toxicity is not the pollutants’ primary environmental impact (e.g., ecological impacts of Se). It ignores some of the greatest remaining pollutants impairing the nation’s wa ters, such as nutrients and conventional pollutants. Nutrient pollution is caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in the water, which causes algae to grow faster than ecosystems can handle. Significant increases in algae harm water quality, food

resourc es and habitats, and decrease the oxygen that fish and other aquatic life need to survive. Algal blooms can severely reduce or eliminate oxygen in the water, leading to illnesses and death in fish. Some algal blooms are harmful to humans because of the to xins and bacteria they produce. Nutrient pollution in groundwater

– including drinking water

– can be harmful even in low levels. 26

In addition, the TWF measurement is not a measure of impacts on the environment or human health because it does not account for the fate and effect of a pollutant. Risk is a function of toxicity and exposure. Only detailed exposure assessment data, based on an analysis of the fate and transport of pollutant discharge, exposure pathways, and uptake, would provide the information necessary to evaluate the extent to which regulatory options reduce environmental impacts and enhance human and ecological health. Site

- specific conditions in the receiving waterbody, such as hydrodynamics and exposed fauna and biota, can result in differ ent environmental effects beyond those that may be suggested by comparing pollutant mass only, even when adjusted for toxicity. Additionally, the TWF measurement does not address potential routes of potential environmental damage and human exposure other t han via surface waters.

25 EPA notes that it did make certain decisions on the final steam electric ELGs that have the effect of avoiding the imposition of significant incremental costs in exchange for de minimis incremental loadings reductions. For example, EPA ultimately chose not to establish more stringent BAT limitations than exist under previously established BPT regulations governing the dischar ge of pollutants in combustion residual leachate from existing sources. This would have increased the cost of the rule by approxima tely $56 million annually, while yielding only an estimated 3 percent reduction in total pollutant loadings from the industry.

26 EPA may calculate separate nutrient cost

- effectiveness values for options that achieve nutrient reductions. EPA may similarly calculate separate cost

- reasonableness ratios for the reduction of conventional pollutants (BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 463 Thus, the cost

- effectiveness analysis only represents half of what the Agency would need to truly assess “bang for the buck.”
Lastly, cost per pound or toxic

- weighted pound of pollutant discharge reductions is not a measure of ec onomic achievability and can be in tension with economic achievability. An option may be economically achievable because it is affordable to the industry as a whole, yet have a higher cost per pound or toxic

- weighted pound of pollutant discharge reduction value than another. Conversely, the aggregate costs of a regulatory option and its associated burden on industry and the economy can cause a regulatory option to not be economic achievable, regardless of its cost per pound or toxic

- weighted pound of pollut ant discharge reduction. For these reasons, cost effectiveness is not determinative for establishing BAT. 27

See also response to comment DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3, in C omment C ode 6.e.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 136 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

X. UWAG’s Industrywide Cos t Estimates Show High Costs per TWPE for Bottom Ash, Fly Ash, and FGD Wastewater
In addition to UWAG’s analysis of costs using model plants, UWAG asked NERA Economic Consulting to develop calculations of cost

- effectiveness for all three wastestreams using detailed UWAG cost and effluent information. NERA’s analysis is Attachment 14 to these comments.
NERA analyzed the treatment technologies proposed in various options for bottom ash transport water, fly ash transport water, and FGD wastewater. NERA calcul ated incremental cost

effectiveness, that is, the additional costs per TWPE to go from one level of stringency to the next higher level. NERA compared these estimates to EPA’s estimates of cost

- effectiveness and to the levels of cost

- effectiveness that EP A has estimated in rulemakings for other industries.

For all the proposed steam electric technologies, NERA calculated that the cost per TWPE would be far higher than the mean ($47/TWPE) and median ($15/TWPE) from past rulemakings.

27 Thus, to the extent that commenters on the proposed ELGs raised issues challenging EPA’s data or methodology fo r estimating the “cost

- effectiveness” of the rule, even assuming that EPA were to recalculate the cost

- effectiveness values and get different results, these different results would not affect EPA’s decisions on the final rule since.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 464 NERA Cost

- Effectiveness Estimates by Effluent Control Technology (1981$/TWPE)

Bottom Ash $1,959 Fly Ash $599 Chemical Precipitation $311 Incremental Biological $1,346 Incremental ZLD $1,369

In every case but one, the cost for TWPE for the steam electric proposals would be higher than the highest amount ($404 for Electrical and Electronic Components) EPA has specified.
The one option with a cost

- effectiveness less than that highest

- ever amount is chemical precipitation for F GD wastewater, which is still a very high $311 per TWPE in 1981 dollars.
Thus, as UWAG’s other analyses show, dry handling of fly ash, let alone bottom ash, cannot be justified on a cost

- effectiveness basis. 69 Biological treatment, let alone zero liquid d ischarge, cannot be justified for FGD wastewater.

69 NERA used flow rates from Part C of the ICR for the bottom ash and fly ash transport water analysis, and did not attempt to correct these flow rates to account for recycling of ash transport water. It is a fairly common practice to recycle a portion of the ash transport water to other plant functions, such as for use as makeup water to the scrubber. Therefore, both the UWAG pollutant loadings and costs per TWPE for these wastestreams are conservative estimates.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees with the commenter. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1, Excerpt Number 13 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4466

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final r ule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 26 External Review Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 465 Comment Excerpt:

 Cost

‐ effectiveness: EPA presents “cost

‐ effectiveness” for direct and indirect dischargers (although the vast majority of discharges are direct); this measure is the ratio of compliance costs to toxic

‐ weighted pollutants. Options 4 and 5 receive $70 and $111 per lb

‐ eq cost

‐ ef

fectiveness estimates, respectively. EPA’s comparison to cost

‐ effectiveness in other ELG categories showed a range of dollar to lb

‐ eq measures from less than $1 for inorganic chemicals to $404 electrical and electronic components. 158 Like cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratios, cost

‐ effectiveness depends on EPA measure of compliance costs, and suffers from the same biases. EPA uses compliance costs to industry

— and not total costs to society

— to measure cost

‐ effectiveness; cost pass

‐ through assumptions are, therefore, criti cal in estimating values for these regulatory options. An assumption of greater pass

‐ through of costs to ratepayers would have the effect of lowering cost

‐ effectiveness ratios. Again, EPA’s own assessment that the zero pass

‐ through assumption is not usef ul in determining profitability, effects to cash flow, or risk of financial distress would tend to preclude the use of cost

‐ effectiveness in assessing economic achievability for BAT.

158 Regulatory Impact Analysis, p.D

‐ 8.
Comment Response:
EPA agrees with the commenter that cost

- effectiveness values are based on compliance costs and not on the total costs to society to address toxic pollutant discharges. This definition is a matter of convention. Specifically, as described in Appendix F of the RIA for the final rule, the cost

effectiveness calculation is based on the annualized pre

- tax costs to comply with regulatory options. They include the annualized capital outlays for equipment and recurring expenses for operating and maintaining compliance equipm ent, meeting monitoring requirements, etc. In the case of the final ELGs, the pre

- tax compliance costs represent the major component of social costs (incremental government costs associated with the rule implementation are minimal). EPA states the cost eff

ectiveness in 1981 constant dollars to allow comparison of promulgated ELGs. Whereas EPA agrees that cost pass

- through assumptions will affect the presentation of the impacts of a rule on the plant owner in the cost

- to

- revenue analysis

– since that is the perspective from which the analysis is being conducted, EPA disagrees that cost pass

- through is relevant when looking at cost

- effectiveness. EPA maintains that it is appropriate to use total compliance costs in the calculation of cost

- effectiveness since t he analysis is performed from the perspective of total expenditures incurred on behalf of society to remove the pollutants from discharges, irrespective of who (the plant owner or the consumer) incurs these costs. That said, EPA further recognizes the limi tations of cost

- effectiveness as a metric and tool for decision making. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 466 Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Excerpt:
APPA does not oppose the revisions of ELG that are periodically reviewed. The ELG revisions are based upon new data on Toxic Weighted Pounds Equivalent (TWPE) and the effectiveness of technology. The steam electric sector’s ELG were last revised in the 1980s and are now being reviewed as required under the Clean Water Act (CWA). APPA recognizes that it is time to consider revising the guidelines based on new information on the possible byproducts from Fluidized Gas Desulfurization (FGD) air poll ution technologies (wet scrubbers) and because of concerns about selenium and other metals in wastewater. However, APPA does not believe that EPA has followed conventional CWA cost

- benefit analysis in its Best Available Technology (BAT) determinations in m any of the eight options offered. APPA urges EPA to review its analysis of pollutants and the capital costs and impacts from some of the proposed technologies. APPA believes if BAT is reviewed in light of the exaggerated pollutants discharged that EPA wou ld select Option 1.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4576

- A1, Excerpt Number 3.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ELG revisions are based on TWPE. EPA determined that the Option D technologies represent Best Available T echnology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts (see preamble Section VIII) as required by th e statute.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Associ ation (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 33 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 467 The CWA is clear regarding the need to take cost into account. EPA’s decision regarding the best regulatory option in a final rule must be based upon cost

- effectiveness.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the final rule must be based on cost

- effectiveness. EPA determined that the Option D technologies rep resent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts (see preamble Section VIII) as required by the Clean Water Act.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation : American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 42 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
By Longstanding Precede nt, No BAT Requirement Should Cost More than $404 (in 1981 Dollars) per TWPE
As is standard practice, EPA has calculated the “cost

- effectiveness” of the proposed BAT requirements in terms of toxic

- weighted pound

- equivalents (TWPEs) of pollutants removed:

E PA often uses cost

- effectiveness analysis in the development/revision of effluent limitations guidelines and standards to evaluate the relative efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from the effluent discharges to the na tion’s waters. Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost

- effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. 7
Whether or not EPA is “required” to consider cost

- effectiveness, it is clearly required to take cost into account. See Clean Water Act §304(b)(2)(B). EPA has a longstanding practice of considering cost

- effectiveness. As we show below, some of EPA’s propo sals cannot be justified as cost

- effective.
EPA says the highest cost per TWPE it has accepted in the past is $404 in 1981 dollars: 8Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 468 A review of approximately 25 of the most recently promulgated or revised BAT limitations shows BAT cost

- effectiveness rangi ng from less than $1/pounds

- equivalent (Inorganic Chemicals) to $404/pounds

- equivalent (Electrical and Electronic Components), in 1981 dollars.
EPA is correct that it customarily uses cost

- effectiveness analysis to judge technologies in ELG rulemakings. EP A is also correct that $404 per TWPE is close to the highest EPA has ever approved

. In several past ELG rulemakings, EPA published a table of cost

- effectiveness estimates by industry category. In four cost

- effectiveness analyses, dated 1996

- 2000, the highe st cost per equivalent pound (that is, pound of pollutant adjusted for toxicity) was listed as $404 in 1981 dollars. 9

In the rulemaking for Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M), EPA determined that a technology was not BAT when it had a cost of $1,000/PE be cause this was “substantially greater” than what EPA had typically imposed for BAT technology in other industries, generally less than $200/PE. 10

APPA (and UWAG) agree with EPA

— cost

- effectiveness analysis is (at least) a “useful tool,” and $404 (in 1981 do llars) is at the high end of what should be considered “acceptable.” APPA endorses UWAG’s recommendations on cost

- effectiveness and how the cost effectiveness analysis should be conducted. The UWAG comments cover EPA’s statistical methods for estimating po llutant loadings from ash impoundments and point out many errors in the EPA’s AKRF report.

7 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,503 col. 2.

8 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504 col. 1

- 2. Typically the cost has been less than $200. 68 Fed. Reg. 25,686, 25,701 col. 3 (May 13, 2003).

9 See Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category , 821

- R

- 96

- 021 (October 1996), Table 5

- 1 at 5

- 2 to 5

- 3, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=200035QV.txt; Economic Analysis and Cost

Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Waste Combustors [for proposed ru le], EPA

- 821

- B

- 97

- 010 (January 1998) at C

- E 4

- 2 and 4

- 3, http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=20002HH8.txt; EPA Office of Water, Cost

Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Efflue nt Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products and Machinery Industry (EPA

- 821

- B

- 00

- 007 December 2000), page 10 (page 13 of the electronic version), [for proposed rule], http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/mpm/upload/2001_01_10_guide_mpm_proposal_m pm_ce.pdf; EPA, Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waster Tr eatment Industry (undated but listed in support of final rule of December 2000) at 4

- 3, http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/t reatment/upload/2006_12_28_guide_cwt_final_eff ective.pdf; see also Cost

- Effectiveness Analysis of Effluent Limitations and Standards for theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 469 Nonferrous Metals Forming and Metal Powders Industry , PB93158970 (August 1985) at 3

- 15 Table 3.7.

10 68 Fed. Reg. 2 5,686, 25,701 col. 3, see also id. 25,702 col. 2 (May 13, 2003). In the same rulemaking, EPA said that $455/PE was “very expensive per pound removed.” MP&M Development Document at 9

- 21. A cost of $420/PE was “quite expensive.” Id . at 9

- 13.
Comment Response :
See response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 44 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Estimates of Dollars per TWPE Are Too Low
Because of various inappropriate methods, assumptions, and choices of data, EPA’s calculations of $/TWPE for the steam electric industry are underestimated. For individual wastestreams, EPA finds costs of only $27 to $107.

The cost

- effectiveness for zero discharge of fly ash transport and FGMC wastewater, as in Option 3a, is $27 per TWPE removed. The cost effecti veness of chemical precipitation alone is $70 per TWPE removed, while the cost

- effectiveness of chemical precipitation plus anaerobic biological treatment, which is included in all options except Option 3a, is $60 per TWPE removed. The cost effectiveness o f zero discharge of bottom ash transport water for all units more than 50 MW is $107 per TWPE. In comparison, when this requirement is applied only to units more than 400 MW, as in Option 4a, the cost effectiveness value is $99 per TWPE removed. 11

Correctl y calculated, the costs per TWPE are much higher.

11 EPA, Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category , EPA

- 821

- R

- 13

- 002 (April 2013), EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2257 (2013 TDD) at 8

- 34; see also 78 Fed Reg. at 34,474 col. 1; 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 470 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27

Commenter Name: Paul Ling Commenter Affiliation: Kansas City Power & Light Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Regulations such as the proposed steam electric ELG ru le need to be crafted carefully so utilities are not forced to make changes such that costs exceed benefits and there is insufficient lead time to avoid or minimize adverse consequences to electricity customers, supply, and reliability. To avoid such adver se consequences, any final steam electric ELG rule should meet three objectives: (1) it should be based on accurate, representative data and sound analyses; (2) it should include only cost

- effective requirements; and (3) it should provide for flexible impl ementation and reasonable compliance deadlines.
Comment Response:
EPA has based the final rule on accurate and representative data and sound analyses. See the TDD and RIA regarding data used for the cost and loading analyses and EPA’s evaluation of cost

- effectiveness.
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in pr eamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness r atios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other industries. A s explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. The final rule allows for flexible implementation a nd has reasonable applicability deadlines. See Sections VIII.C.7 and XVI.A.1 of the preamble.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 471 For the role of benefit

- cost in establishing BAT under the Clean Water Act, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in comment code 6

. a.
EPA determined the rule will have minimal impacts on electricity prices, supply, and reliability. See RIA Sections 5, 7, and 10.

Commenter Name: Paul Ling Commenter Affiliation: Kansas City Power & Light Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5406

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA has adopted very conservative assumptions and extrapolated from very limited data to propose a rule that will have limited environmental benefits and significant costs. The proposed rule is not based on accurate, representative data and sound analyses. This affects EPA’s estimate of baseline pollutant loadings, technology choices, cost estimates, and qu antification of benefits. For example, with respect to baseline pollutant loadings, over half of the pollutants (measured as toxic

- weighted pollutant equivalents (TWPE) that EPA credits to its proposal are, at best, theoretical, and likely nonexistent. As a result of the use of these unrepresentative data and flawed analyses, EPA has proposed a rule that is not cost

- effective.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the final rule “is not based on accurate, representative data and sound analyses” and that th e final rule “is not cost

- effective.” EPA maintains that it used the best available data to estimate baseline pollutant loads, select BAT, calculate compliance costs, and quantify benefits, as documented in the docket supporting the final rule. Following p roposal, EPA expanded its datasets, reevaluated costs and loads, reevaluated environmental impacts and benefits, and determined that, collectively, the final BAT effluent limitations and standards meet the statutory requirements of the Clean Water Act. See the final preamble, the TDD, and the RIA
EPA revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 regarding pollutant loadings/reductions associated w ith the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effectiveness of the final rule.
EPA disagrees the fin al rule is not cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As pre sented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 472 selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- eff ectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other in dustries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. EPA disagrees the final rule will have limited environmental benefits. See the final EA and BCA.

Commenter Name: F. Gilzow Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5517

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
One primary comment, based on the present rulemaking record, is that EPA has not been able to justify, on a cost

‐ effectiveness basis, any wastewater treatment technology beyond what is already required by the 1982 steam electric guidelines. It appears, from calculations performed by the Utility Water Act Group, the Electric Power Research Institute, and others that the cost of, for example, dry handling of bott om ash would be considerably more costly than technologies EPA has required of other industries in past rulemakings.
We believe that this oversight is substantial enough that the rulemaking should be withdrawn, reviewed, and resubmitted with new costs or t he rule should be restructured.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees the final rule is not cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful too l for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($ 1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSESEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 473 requirements in other industries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an u nintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Exc erpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.
The commenter states that the requirements in the final rule specific to bottom ash transport wat er are “considerably more costly than technologies EPA has required of other industries in past rulemakings.” In determining BAT, EPA does not compare the cost of a rule to another. The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the d ischarge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act. EPA determined that the Option D technologies represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable because these technologies are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have accep table non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the statute (see preamble Section VIII).

Commenter Name: William Matthews Commenter Affiliation: Cleco Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5550

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numbe r: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Comment

– I

– Dry handling/closed loop (zero discharge ) is not adequately supported as a compliance option for bottom ash transport water

The Clean Water Act indicates at Section 304(b)(2)(B) that one of the factors to be taken into account in the assessment of best available technology is the cost of achieving such effluent reduction. EPA has complied with this by routinely considering the cost

- effectiveness of compliance with ELG regulations for at least the past forty years. EPA’s current cost

effectiveness bench

- mark arrived at through all this cost

- consideration activity over time for toxic pollutants is $404 per toxicity

- weighted pound

- equ ivalent (TWPE). The cost effectiveness of the BAT zero

- discharge option for bottom ash transport water as arrived at by UWAG significantly exceeds the current $404/TWPE bench

- mark.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 474 EPA’s cost effectiveness determinations, in dollars per TWPE, for a number of the waste streams of interest in the proposed rule are found in a document from the docket, Cost Effectiveness Calculation for Direct Dischargers at the Wastestream/Technology Level (EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 2255). EPA’s cost effectiveness determination for the conversion of wet bottom ash handling systems to a zero discharge system is significantly understated at around $100/TWPE, for 400 mw, when compared to UWAG’s cost effectiveness determination of $1,954/TWPE. This appears to be due to a number of reason s:

- The number of good

- quality samples taken by EPA for analyses was lacking. That is, an inadequate number of recent bottom ash water samples was taken to determine the pollutant concentrations. That one recent sample was taken at the Homer City plant. Older analytical data was included which came from sample events as far back as the 1980’s. In addition, some of the analytical data that was relied upon was taken from sample events at impoundments with contents made up of combined fly ash and bottom ash wastewater.

- The plant intake water contribution of the various chemical species of interest to the waste stream was not taken into account. When considering concentration values in the part per billion range, the intake water contribution can be signific ant.

- EPA’s calculations of pollutant loading in the bottom ash water was conducted using a flawed calculation method, based on the product of averages which biased the loading results high.

- Equipment cost estimates were too low. The costs of installing equipment for conversion from wet to dry ash handling were too low for a number of reasons which included failure to include all balance

- of

- plant costs in the total capital requirement.
The cost effectiveness determinations made by UWAG were much larger a nd were accomplished by:

- Using data from recent analyses of bottom ash water samples from numerous plants.

- Including costs ignored by EPA in the capital costs determinations for the treatment equipment.

- Applying an unbiased method for calculating loa ding in the waste water.
As EPA has documented in the past, its acceptable BAT cost

- effectiveness range is $1/TWPE

- $404/TWPE. (78 Fed. Reg. at 34,504, col. 1

- 2). Because UWAG’s cost effectiveness value for the zero discharge bottom ash option was found t o be well above this range maximum, it can be concluded that the zero discharge option for bottom ash water is not cost effective and therefore should be rejected as required treatment for compliance with the proposed rule.
Comment Response:
See preamble Section VIII for a description of the technologies selected as BAT for the final rule, as well as EPA’s explanation for choosing the options that it did.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 475 EPA disagrees the final rule is not cost

- effective. Although not required by the CWA, and not a dete rmining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presented in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requ irements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

- effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effectiveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries.
Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4448

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding wastestream specific cost

- effectiveness.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that it has “routinely” complied with Clean Water Act Section 304(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to take into account “cost” whe n establishing Best Available Technology Economically Achievable by considering the “cost

- effectiveness.” EPA also disagrees that it has a “benchmark” value for cost

- effectiveness in establishing BAT. EPA did take into account cost in the final rule, in de termining that the final rule is affordable for the industry as a whole. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

. See responses to commen t codes 6.f and 15.d, specifically DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4499

- A1, Excerpt Number 72 in Comment Code 15.d regarding the issues raised by this commenter related to ash loadings. EPA revised its cost estimates in response to comments. See the final TDD. F or responses to comments regarding bottom ash costs, see responses to comment code 16.b.
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 75 in Comment Code 4.b and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 71 in Comment Code 13.d regard ing bottom ash and combined fly ash and bottom ash wastewater characterization data and its use.
See the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 53 in Comment Code 16.b for updates made to the bottom ash cost methodology.

Commenter Name: David Y. Chung Commenter Affiliation: Homer City Generation, L.P Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5552

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerp t:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 476 EPA’s industry

- wide cost effectiveness analysis is also flawed, as its calculations of cost per toxic

- weighted pound

- equivalent (TWPE) for FGD wastewater are orders of magnitude below those calculated by the Utility Water Act Group (“UWAG”).

Comment R esponse:
EPA disagrees that its cost

- effectiveness analysis for the final rule is flawed. EPA revised pollutant loadings/reductions, costs, and cost

- effectiveness for the final rule, based on public comments. See preamble section X and TDD Section 10 re garding pollutant loadings/reductions associated with the final rule, see preamble sections V.D and IX (and TDD Section 9) regarding compliance costs associated with the final rule, and see preamble section XV (and the RIA) for information on the cost

- effe ctiveness of the final rule.
Although not required by the CWA, and not a determining factor for establishing BAT/PSES or BADCT/PSNS, cost

- effectiveness analysis can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. As presen ted in preamble section XV.B and in Appendix F of the RIA, the final BAT requirements for the selected regulatory option (Option D) have a cost

effectiveness ratio of $ 134 /lb

- eq ($1981). This cost

- effectiveness ratio is well within the range of cost

- effect iveness ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. The final PSES requirements for the selected regulatory option have a cost effectiveness of $1, 228 /lb

- eq ($1981). This ratio is higher than the cost

- effectiveness of PSES requirements in other indus tries. As explained in the preamble, the CE may be lower than estimated. Moreover, it is critical to establish PSES at the same level as BAT in this rule to avoid creating an unintended incentive for plants to start sending their wastewater to POTWs in an attempt to avoid the requirements of the final rule.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 477 6.i.i. Support/oppose Zero Discharge

Commenter Name: Lena Moffitt Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3037 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

A long with the Sierra Club and many other groups here today, I encourage the EPA to set zero discharge standards, and include rigorous treatment of toxic heavy metals in any remaining waste.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes zero discharge limi tations and standards, as well as numeric limitations and standards for toxic pollutants, based on available and demonstrated treatment technologies, as described in preamble section VIII. For existing sources that discharge directly to surface water (exce pt discharges from generating units that are 50 MW or less or that are oil

- fired, see preamble section VIII.C.12), the final rule establishes a zero discharge limitation for all pollutants in fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and FGMC wa stewater. As well, it establishes numeric effluent limitations on mercury, arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite as N in FGD wastewater (except for those dischargers who choose

– as part of the voluntary incentives program in this rule

– to be subject to the BAT limitations on mercury, arsenic, selenium, and total dissolved solids (TDS) in FGD wastewater); numeric effluent limitations on mercury, arsenic, selenium and TDS in gasification wastewater, and a numeric effluent limitation on total suspended soli ds (TSS) in combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments (equal to the previously established Best Practicable Technology (BPT) limitation on TSS in low volume waste sources).

Commenter Name: T. Edwards Commenter Affiliation: P rivate Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3676

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I am writing to urge EPA to finalize strong Effluent Limitation Guidelines for Steam Electric Power Generating plants requiring zero discharge.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 478 Electric utilities claim controlling their pollution is too costly. But failing to control pollution isn’t free; the public pays for this pollution. Technology to co ntrol power plant water pollution is currently available and widely used by other industries. All power plants, no matter their size, should be held to the same standard that protects the waters we all depend on for drinking, fishing, agriculture and recre ation.
Please pass strong standards to limit all power plant water pollution to improve the health of rivers and streams, making the water we drink and the fish we eat safer.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3037, Excerpt Number 3.

Commenter Name: Kara Montaivo Commenter Affiliation: Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4179

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review Exter nal Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
However, SRP would like to make EPA aware that SRP successfully operates a power plant that employs a "zero liquid discharge " system for management of power plant wastewaters and coal combustion residuals. SRP's Navajo Generating Station (NGS) was designed at its inception to be a "zero discharge " facility, meaning that no water that is brought onto plant site would leave other than in the form of evaporation. To accomplish this,NGS employs a w ide array of wastewater management technologies, including evaporation ponds, three brine concentrators and a crystallizer.
In addition, NGS conducts dry disposal of unused coal combustion residuals (fly ash, bottom ash, and flue gas desulfurization

- gypsum byproduct). The use of dry disposal in conjunction with the dry climate and geology of the region reduces the mobility and leachability of any of the combustion residual constituents . Furthermore, SRP has instituted measures to prevent stormwater runoff (control dust, and monitor groundwater that further contain combustion residual constituents.
SRP recognizes that there are unique conditions at NGS that are not present at most other steam electric generating facilities. Much of SRP's success in using ze ro discharge technologies can be attributed to a favorable arid climate and suitable land area for installation and operation of the equipment supporting wastewater and combustion residual management. Although these technologies have been successfully d eployed at NGS,SRP does not endorse a regulatory path where EPA would mandate widespread of use of zero liquid discharge technology at all of the country's steam

- electric generating stations.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 479 Comment Response:
EPA congratulates SRP in its efforts design ing and implementing a “zero discharge” facility.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3037, Excerpt Number 3.
Also, EPA agrees that the zero discharge process described by the commenter with respect to FGD waste is not available to the steam electric p ower generating industry as a whole and as such did not select it as BAT. See preamble Section VIII. As described in other comment responses, the evaporation technology basis for control of FGD wastewater is not equivalent to a zero liquid discharge proces s.

Commenter Name: Paul Nazaryk Commenter Affiliation: BHP Navajo Coal Company (BNCC) and San Juan Coal Company (SJCC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4380

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External R eview Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
1. It is encouraging that EPA Is considering the combined implications of its ELG proposed rule with its CCR proposal in the risk assessment for the CCR rule. Since the primary risk associated with CCR material Is risk of a catastrophic release from a dam failure. BNCC and SJCC support the adoption of "dry handling " requirements under the ELG rule for certain CCR materials Including flv ash and flue gas mercurv con tr ol waste.
Comment Response:

See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3037, Excerpt Number 3.
Comments related to the risk assessment for the CCR rule are outside the scope of this rulemaking (see Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2009

- 0640

- 11970).

Commenter Name: Pamela Ritger Commenter Affiliation : Clean Wisconsin Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4632

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 17 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 480 Comment Excerpt:
Clean Wisconsin urges the EPA to adopt Option 4a , the preferred alternative that will most reduce the amount of toxic pollution released by the steam electric power industry into our environment, and consequently, into our bodies through the ingestion of water and fish. However, as the EPA is well aware , these toxic pollutants do not enter our environment solely through direct discharge into surface waters or through indirect discharge through POTWs. They also leach into the soil and groundwater from coal combustion surface impoundments and landfills, a s many coal combustion residual waste sites in Wisconsin and nationwide are unlined. The toxic pollutants to seep into the land and, often times, contaminate ground and surface waters years or decades after their disposal. For this reason, Clean Wisconsin urges the EPA to make dewatering of coal combustion residual processing mandatory for all coal

- fired power plants, requiring dry handling of such wastes. Much coal water pollution results from using water to clean out bottom ash and fly ash from coal powe r plant systems. Rather than using, and wasting, clean water to remove ash from coal power plant systems, such removal can be done mechanically, eliminating the main source of water pollution from the process and saving increasingly scarce water resources. Sixty

- six percent of coal and petroleum coke power plants already utilize these dry ash

- handling methods for fly ash, and 22 percent use dry management systems for their bottom ash. 49 The EPA should require the remaining power plants to follow suit.

49 Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry Is Poisoning Our Water and How We Can Stop It, p. 10

- 11 (July 2013). Available at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_07_23_ClosingTheFlood gates

- Final.pdf
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants to

wa ters of the United States from the steam electric power generating industry, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The final rule does not specifically address groundwater contamination or management of surface impoundments. See response to comments in comment code 27.e for more information.
Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3037, Excerpt Number 3 regarding zero discharge of pollutants in ash transport water to surface waters. See also preamble Section VIII regarding dry handling as the basis for cer tain final limitations and standards, including a description of the availability of dry handling or closed

- loop technologies in the industry.
EPA did not select proposed option 4a (or the particular suite of technologies that form the basis for that opti on) for the final rule, for the reasons explained in preamble section VIII and responses to comments in comment code 6.i.vii.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 481 Commenter Name: David M. Fraley Commenter Affiliation: City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri (CU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4382

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Zero

- Discharge (ZD) limits should not apply to incidental or emergency operation

. The proposal calls for ZD restrictions for wastewater streams associated with handling flyash, mercury emissions control systems, and, for larger units, bottom ash as well. As delineated in the preamble, power stations may choose a number of technologies to comply wit h a no

- discharge limit. However, the rule should recognize that these are technologies, and are therefore subject to the mechanical vagaries and upsets inherent to technological devices. Presumably, the cost

effectiveness imputed by the Agency is based o n installing single systems appropriate to the plant, rather than multiple redundant technology systems. It is therefore reasonable to expect that a limit couched as zero

- discharge will likely be exceeded during short

- term emergency upsets. Accordingly, the expressed ZD limits should make provision for inevitable upsets by including the phrase, “except during short

- term malfunctions.”
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the rule “should make provision for inevitable upsets by including the phrase, ‘except during short

- term malfunctions.’” If an exceedance is caused by an upset condition, the plant would have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action if the requirements of 40 CFR § 122.41(n) are met. Exceedances caused by a design or operationa l deficiency, however, are an indication that the plant’s performance does not represent the appropriate level of control. For these final limitations and standards, EPA determined that such exceedances can be controlled by diligent process and wastewater treatment system operational practices, such as appropriate inspection and repair of equipment and operator training and performance evaluations.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 138 in Comment Code 14.a for a discussion of the cost basis for dry ash handling systems, including costs for an appropriate level of redundancy to ensure the ash handling operations can proceed while still meeting the zero discharge of fly ash transport water and bottom ash transport water requirements.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h.

Commenter Name: Jay Hudson Commenter Affiliation: Santee CooperEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 482 Document Control Number: EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4476

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Temporary or Emergency Wet Sluicing
A number of the options in the proposed standards require zero discharge of ash transport water which will require installation of new ash handling systems. As noted by EPA, some facilities have converted from wet ash sluicing to dry ash handling, but have retained the wet system as a "backup" system. Operating p roblems can occur more easily with a retrofitted system than with an originally designed system, which can result in un

- scheduled outages and additional costs. Therefore, we request that EPA provide an exemption that would allow the use of wet systems for limited periods of time at facilit ies that have or will retrofit to a no discharge handling system.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that “operating problems can occur more easily with a retrofitted system than with an originally designed system,” and th e commenter provides no data to support its assertion. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4382

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 for further information.

Commenter Name: Doris Cooksey Commenter Affiliation: City Public Service of San Antonio (CPS Energy) Docum ent Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
CPS Energy believes zero liquid discharge (ZLD) options overall are too costly based on the various cost benefit analysis studied (EPA, EPRI, etc.) and we believe that more reasonable options are viable. In addition, water conservation is important especially in many parts of the country where return flows are vital due to wat er shortages. ZLD should not be required as BAT or as new source performance standards (NSPS) as long as return flows do not degrade the receiving water body or pose undue health threats. In drier regions of the country, it is important that water resourc es be conserved instead of being evaporated off. In our case, wastewater discharge is re

- circulated in the cooling system so over 99% of the wastewater is reused. Consequently, it is inherently more important in dry parts of the US that the ZLD option not beEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 483 implemented so long as reasonable water quality discharge standards can be met by some other

means.
Comment Response:
EPA supports water conservation and, by establishing zero discharge limitations and standards as discussed in preamble section VIII, promotes this practice. The zero discharge limitations and standards will either lead steam electric power plants to implement processes that do not use water (for example, dry ash handling) or processes that incorporate recycle of the water that is used (for example, closed

- loop bottom ash handling). Because of this, the plants will reduce the amount of fresh make

- up that they need to withdraw from surface water or groundwater sources.
EPA has quantified the extent to which water use will be reduced as a result of the final rule (see the TDD and EPA’s memorandum evaluating non

- water quality environmental impacts). Encouraging the use of dry ash handling and closed

- loop processes that do not rely on surface impoundments will also conserve water by eliminati ng losses due to evaporation or infiltration. The commenter wrongly suggests that the receiving water would somehow suffer because the amount of return flow will be lessened; however, since these dry and closed

- loop systems eliminate or substantially reduc e the amount of water used, there will be a reduction in water withdrawn from the receiving water and the receiving water will actually experience an increase, rather than a decrease, in its water flows.
The commenter states that “it is inherently more imp ortant in dry parts of the US that the ZLD option not be implemented so long as reasonable water quality discharge standards can be met by some other means.” If the commenter is referring to the BAT/NSPS technology based on evaporation, they are mistaken i n suggesting that the FGD evaporation process results in the water vapor being lost to atmosphere. The evaporation technology that is the basis for the NSPS (and voluntary incentives program BAT limitations) FGD effluent limitations, as well as the gasific ation wastewater effluent limitations, results in the water vapor being condensed. Plants are then able to reuse that condensate as makeup water for plant processes, or discharge it should they choose to do so. See preamble Section VIII for a discussion of the final NSPS applicable to FGD wastewater and the final BAT limitations in the voluntary incentives program, which are based on the use of evaporation technology.
With respect to the commenter’s assertion that zero pollutant discharge requirements for a ny wastestream is too costly, EPA disagrees. As explained in Section VIII of the preamble and the RIA, EPA determined the final rule is affordable for the industry as a whole.
As the statute requires, EPA establishes BAT limitations based on the statutory factors of technological availability and economic achievability, after considering the factors specified in the Clean Water Act, including non

- water quality environmental impacts.
Regarding the role of cost benefit in EPA’s decisions on the final steam e lectric ELGs, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 (in comment code 6.e).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 484 Regarding the role of the receiving water quality in establishing limitations based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable, see response to DC N EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1, Excerpt Number 27.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 152 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Based on the many flaws identified during our review, we do not believe the current data and methodology utilized by EPA in determining pollutant loadings, cost

- effectiveness, or available t echnologies are based on sound policy or science. For example, FGD wastewater technology limits based on biological treatment or ZLD are not consistently achievable and would cause

numerous non

- compliance issues and forced plant outages while providing min imal added benefit over chemical precipitation treatment. Similarly, analysis by Southern, UWAG and industry suggest that almost all of EPA’s preferred options for FGD wastewater, bottom ash transport water and fly ash transport water, and all EPA’s prefer red options for combustion residual leachate, are not cost effective.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the data and methodology used to establish the final rule are not based on sound policy or science. The commenter does not offer any specific comm ents or information regarding methodologies or data it believes are “flawed” and why. The data and analyses used in developing the final rule requirements are available and described in the final rule record. See responses to specific comments about the d ata or methodologies used through this comment response document.
Regarding the availability of chemical precipitation and biological treatment for control of pollutants in FGD wastewater discharges, see preamble section VIII and responses to comments in c omment codes 9 and 10, respectively. The final rule does not establish limitations or standards based on “ZLD” technology. However, see preamble section VIII and responses to comments in comment code 11 regarding the availability of evaporation for contro l of pollutants in FGD wastewater discharges.
See Section 13 of the TDD regarding achievability of the final rule limitations and standards applicable to FGD wastewater discharges.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the final rule will cause forced pla nt outages and notes that the commenter provided no data to support its assertion. See preamble sections VIII and IXEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 485 and the RIA for more information about projected impacts on the steam electric industry. Also, see discussion in the preamble on upset and bypass provisions.
See preamble section VIII for a discussion of the technology bases for the limitations and standards in the final rule applicable to FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and combustion residual leachate. E PA notes that it is establishing NSPS (and BAT limitations in the voluntary incentives program) for FGD wastewater discharges based on the use of evaporation. See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 108 in Comment Code 11.a.
EPA disagr ees with the commenter’s statement that “almost all of EPA’s preferred options ... are not cost

- effective.” As described in preamble section XV, collectively, the final BAT requirements have a cost

- effectiveness ratio well within the range of cost

- effectiven ess ratios for BAT requirements in other industries. In addition, EPA does not use cost

- effectiveness as the sole basis for regulatory decisions. EPA often uses cost

- effectiveness analysis in the development and revision of ELGs to evaluate the relative ef ficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants from effluent discharges to the nation's waters. However, cost

- effectiveness analysis is not required by the CWA and not a determining factor for establishing BAT and PSES, although it can be a useful tool for describing regulatory options that address toxic pollutants. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule , see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h.

Comment er Name: David M. Fraley Commenter Affiliation: City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri (CU) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4382

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respo nse: No
Comment Excerpt:
City Utilities can support some, but not all aspects of the proposed rule. We do take issue with EPA’s economic analysis on the efficacy of zero

- discharge limits for ash handling stream, especially if there is no allowances for inevitable mechanical upsets.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4382

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 regarding upset conditions.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1, Excerpt Number 14 regarding the claim that zero discharge techn ologies are too costly and not cost effective.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 486 Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert Commenter Affiliation: Dominion Resources, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4631

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review E xternal Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Specifically, we have concerns regarding the practicality of retrofitting advanced FGD treatment technologies and closed loop bottom ash systems at existing facilities.
Comment Response:

T he technologies used as the basis for the final BAT requirements for ash transport water (dry handling or closed

- loop systems), as applied to existing sources that are not oil

- fired generating units or those generating units greater than 50 MW, have been i n operation at power plants for more than 20 years and are amply demonstrated by the record supporting the final rule. Recent advancements related to bottom ash handling technologies have focused on providing more flexible retrofit solutions and improving the thermal efficiency of the boiler operation. These advancements result in additional savings related to electricity use, operation and maintenance, water costs, and thermal energy recovery. See preamble section VIII for additional discussion regarding t he requirements of the final rule and availability of control technologies upon which the final rule is based. Additionally, since the time of the Steam Electric Industry Survey, companies have continued to upgrade, or announce their plans to upgrade, thei r fly ash and bottom ash handling systems at generating units (see TDD Section 4.5).
Both chemical precipitation and biological treatment are well

- demonstrated technologies that are available to steam electric power plants for use in treating FGD wastewa ter. EPA disagrees that application of these technologies to this sector is impractical. See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 107 in Comment Code 10.a, and Excerpt Numbers 108 and 119, both located in Comment Code 11.a.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Flag: Legal External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 487 Some of EPA’s options would require “no discharge” or “zero liquid discharge” for certain wastestreams, including fly ash, bottom ash, and even FGD wastewater. In no case has an adequate record been compiled to support such options. “No discharge” requirement s must be carefully considered and fully supported by data. Although the Clean Water Act contains references to eliminating the discharge of pollutants, including a “goal” and a “policy” to that effect, Congress never directed that pollutants be eliminate d without considering cost, as EPA recognizes in the preamble to the proposal. BP Exploration & Oil v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 796

– 97 (6 th Cir. 1996) (upholding EPA’s decision not to require zero discharge of produced waters based on reinjection for the Offshor e subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category based in part on total industry cost), cited at 78 Fed. Reg. 34,473 col. 2. As with any other technology

- based requirement, EPA must weigh factors, including cost and energy needs, and impo se a requirement only if it reasonably takes these factors into account. Because of the high cost of no

- discharge options and the relatively small incremental amounts of pollutants they remove, EPA cannot require them on the record as it now stands.

Comme nt Response:
EPA did not consider at proposal, nor is EPA establishing for the final rule, a “no discharge” or “zero liquid discharge” requirement for FGD wastewater. The technology basis discussed at length in the preamble for the proposed and final rul es for controlling discharges of FGD wastewater is evaporation.
Second, EPA disagrees that the requirements in the final rule lack adequate record support. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, the technologies selected as BAT for the regulated

w astestreams are technologically available, economically achievable (i.e., affordable for the industry as a whole), and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts, as required by the Clean Water Act. In determining that the final rule is afford able for the steam electric industry as a whole, EPA fully considered “cost” in its decisions on the final rule. See preamble sections VIII and IX, the TDD, and the RIA.
EPA disagrees that the final rule will remove only “small incremental amounts of pol lutants.” See preamble section X and the TDD for an estimate of pollutant loadings reductions attributable to the final rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt N umber 27 in Comment Code 6.h.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 488 6.i.ii. Support Option 1

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
APPA endorses Option 1 (shaded in blue in Table 1) as the best regulatory option in consideration of FDG wastewater, fly ash, bottom ash and nonchemical metal cleaning was tes. However APPA believes Option 1 can be improved and offers several suggestions for doing so.
APPA’s Preferred Option
Based on the potential effects this rulemaking could have on member public power or community

- owned utilities, APPA concludes that the most preferred and best

- fitting option for public power utilities is Option 1 . We believe that it is the best option to effectively clean waste

- stream pollutants, while maintaining a fair cost burden for utilities of different sizes. Most impacted APPA me mbers prefer having the certainty provided by Option 1 even though it is projected to have a slightly higher cost to implement than the other options proposed by EPA in this rulemaking. Certainty is important for municipalities that are faced with costly b usiness decisions. Option 1 provides more certainty on effluent controls than other options and therefore lowers the long

- run cost for public power utilities

. Comment Response:
The final rule is not based on proposed Option 1 (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that option). See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for selecting Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources, and the associated technology bases for those options by wastestream, as well as EPA’s rationale for rejecting other proposed options. In particular, of possible interest to the commenter based on the commenter’s statements about the importance of “certainty,” EPA did not select certain regulatory options that would have requi red BAT for discharges of FGD wastewater to be established on a “best professional judgment,” or “BPJ” basis.
In general, the final rule provides great certainty to the industry because it establishes nationally applicable, technology

- based effluent limitations and standards for six wastestreams that are discharged from steam electric power plants. While it is true that proposed Option 1 would have established limitations and standards for the discharge of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste, which the final rule does not, EPA decided not to establish final limitations and standards for the discharge of non

- chemical metal cleaning waste for the reasons described in preamble Section VIII.I.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 489 Commenter Name: Joe L. Citta Commenter Affiliation: Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4310

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Although there are important areas in w hich the proposed ELGs and standards can be improved, NPPD supports the generaL structure of the proposed rule. After closely analyzing the proposed effluent guidelines, NPP D has concluded that the most preferred and best

- fitting option is EPA' s Option 1.
With our suggested changes as noted below, the proposed standards can provide the basis for a regulatory program that protects the enviromnent while recogni zing the economic, engineering, and environmental constraints that apply to individual electric generating facilities.
The proposed rule would apply to wastewater discharges from steam generating electric facilities through incorporation into National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits issued by EPA or authorized states. The proposal considered a number of regulatory options for each of seven wastewater streams that may occur at steam electric generating units (EGUs): flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, combustio n residual leachate, flue gas mercury control (FGMC) wastewater, gasification wastewater, and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes. It is likely that EGUs will be subject to several different standards based on which waste streams they possess , leading to si gnificant increases in costs.
EPA has proposed four preferred options and one "lead option," which is used for the regulatory text. Presenting a range of options is helpful for examining the regulatory alternatives for the waste stream s in question. Howe ver, some of the regulatory options proposed by EPA are more appropriate and reasonable for EGUs with different configurations. In addition, while some waste streams may require additional control, others remain well

- controlled with current practices and s hould not be subject to additional regulation. EPA should focus the ELG revisions solely on waste streams that are new or significantly changed and waste streams that are not well controlled by the current ELG standards.
Comment Response:

The final rule is not based on proposed Option 1 (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that option). See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for selecting Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources, and the assoc iated technology bases for those options by wastestream, as well as EPA’s rationale for rejecting other proposed options.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 490 With respect to the commenter’s statement that “some of the regulatory options proposed by EPA are more appropriate and reasonable fo r EGUs with different configurations,” the commenter offers no explanation of what it means by “some . . . options” or “different configurations.” EPA determined that the final rule is based on technologies that are available and demonstrated, and that ar e affordable to the industry as a whole (see preamble Section VIII).
EPA cannot respond to the commenter’s statement that “while some waste streams may require additional control, others remain well

- controlled with current practices” because it is too gene ralized and the commenter does not explain which wastestreams or practices it is referring to. Nonetheless, the final rule does focus

– as the commenter states

– on wastestreams at steam electric power plants that are new or have changed, as well as those that were not well

- controlled by the previously established steam electric ELGs. As explained in preamble Section III, the previously established ELGs for the steam electric power generating industry, last updated in 1982, do not adequately address the arr ay of pollutants (toxic metals and others) discharged by this industry, nor have they kept pace with process changes and wastewater treatment technology developments that have occurred over the last three decades. The rise of new processes for generating e lectric power (e.g., coal gasification) and the widespread implementation of air

pollution controls (e.g., flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and flue gas mercury controls (FGMC)) have altered existing wastestreams and created new sources of wastewater at many steam electric power plants, particularly coal

- fired plants. As well, significant improvements in wastewater treatment and ash handling operations have occurred in the last 30 years. See Section VIII of the preamble for details about the wastestreams regu lated as part of the final rule.

Commenter Name: Jay Hudson Commenter Affiliation: Santee Cooper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4476

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Santee Cooper endorses Option 1as the best option consideri ng FGD Wastewater,Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Nonchemical Cleaning Waste . However, this Option cannot be wholly adopted as some variations are needed on particular w aste streams. Of particular importance is consideration of the size of the various facilities, their age, the complexities involved in some particular cases, and the availability of land. While certainty is desired, the permitting authorities sho uld be allowed some flexibility in adapting new standards to existing facilities.
Due to cost and other considerations, we do not believe that Options 4 and 5 could be cost effective for existing facilities. Therefore,we do not believe they should be given any additional consideration.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 491 Comment Response:
The final rule is not based on proposed Option 1 (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that option). See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for selecting Regulatory Op tion D for existing sources and Option F for new sources, and the associated technology bases for those options by wastestream, as well as EPA’s rationale for rejecting other proposed options.
During the rulemaking process, EPA considered the size, age o f plant or generating unit, geographic location, fuel type, and processes employed at steam electric power plants in developing the final rule requirements (see Section 5 of the TDD). EPA ultimately determined that it would be appropriate to establish cert ain differentiated requirements for select generating units

– those that are existing oil

- fired generating units or those that are existing small generating units (i.e., with a nameplate capacity of 50MW or less) (see Section VIII.C.12 of the preamble for more details on these differentiated requirements). EPA concluded that no other differentiated requirements would be appropriate for the final rule.
EPA notes that while it based the final rule’s requirements on specific technologies identified as represe nting Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology, steam electric power plants are not required to use such technologies and they have considerable flexibility in developing the approaches for compli ance with the limitations and standards that are best suited for their particular operations.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h.

Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into R esponse: No
Comment Excerpt:
TMPA appreciates EPA’s willingness to consider multiple options in this rulemaking. TMPA's preferred option is Option 1. We believe that it is the best option to effectively clean waste

stream pollutants, while maintaining a fair cost burden for utilities of different sizes. TMPA prefers having the certainty provided by Option 1 even though it is estimated to have a slightly higher cost than other options proposed by EPA in their proposed rule. Certainty is important for muni cipalities that are faced with costly business decisions. Option 1 provides more certainty on effluent controls than other options and therefore lowers long

- run cost for public power utilities.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 492 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2, Excerpt Number 20.

Commenter Name: Kevin D. Frizzell Commenter Affiliation: Owensboro Municipal Utilities (OMU) Elmer Smith Station (ESS) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4683

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 Exte rnal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

2. In the final rule EPA should adopt an approach under Option 1 to enhance regulatory certainty and cost

- effectiveness.
EPA has considered 8 option s in the proposed rule. Of these eight options, OMU endorses Option 1 as the best regulatory option considering FGD wastewater, fly ash, bottom ash, and nonchemical metal cleaning wastes. Nonetheless, OMU ESS has recommendations for slight variations of th is option.
Option 1 will effectively clean waste

- stream pollutants while maintaining a fair cost burden for utilities, small or large. Although Option 1 is not the cheapest option offered by the EPA in the proposed rule, it has the most certainty which is a very important facet while budgeting and planning for future compliance at municipally owned power plants like OMU ESS.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2, Excerpt Number 20.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
APPA prefers Option 1 of EPA’s list of eight options, with very important caveats as described below and in our comment details, and does not oppose revisions to the existing ELG that were last revised in 1982.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 493 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 08 19

- 5140

- A2, Excerpt Number 20.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 95 External Review Flag: No External Review Exte rnal Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
APPA prefers Option 1 of EPA’s list of eight options, with very important caveats as described below and in our comment details, and does not oppose revisions to the existing ELG that were last revised in 1982.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2, Excerpt Number 20.

Commenter Name: F. Gilzow Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5517

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Finally, it is not clear that EPA has followed conventional Clean Water Act cost

‐ benefit analy sis in its Best Available Technology (BAT) determinations in many of the eight options offered. We urge the EPA to review their analysis of pollutants and about the capital costs and impacts from some of these proposed technologies. If BAT is reviewed in l ight of the exaggerated pollutants discharged that the EPA would select Option 1.
Comment Response:
It is not clear what the commenter means when it says that EPA has not followed “conventional Clean Water Act cost

- benefit analysis.” Section 301(b) of t he Clean Water Act requires that BAT reflect what is “technologically and economically achievable” for the elimination of discharges of pollutants, after a consideration of certain factors specified in section 304(b) of the Act. EPA determined that the fin al rule is based on technologies that are available and the final rule is affordable to the industry as a whole, after considering the factors specified in the Act,Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 494 including cost (see preamble Section VIII). The Act does not require EPA to conduct a cost

benefit analysis for BAT, and EPA has traditionally not used cost

- benefit analysis as a factor in establishing BAT. EPA’s decision is reasonable and consistent with the text, structure and history of the statute. See Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n v. EPA , 449 U.S. 64, 70

- 71 (1980); Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794, 818 (9th Cir. 1980); Am. Iron & Steel v. EPA , 526 F.2d 1027, 1051

- 52 (3d Cir. 1975). See also Weyerhaeuser v. Costle , 590 F.2d 1011, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1978). EPA did, however, assess and p resent the results of costs and benefits pursuant to Executive Order. See preamble sections IX.B and XIV and BCA.
The final rule is not based on proposed Option 1 (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that option). See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for selecting Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources, and the associated technology bases for those options by wastestream, as well as EPA’s rationale for rejecting other proposed options.

Commenter Name: F. Gilzow Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5517

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated i nto Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
While we appreciate EPA’s willingness to consider a number of alternatives including 8 options with four being ‘preferred’, we do not believe that the agency is complying with either the letter or the spirit of the feder al administrative procedures act when it does not issue a single draft rule. It is difficult at best, and practically meaningless to offer comments on what amounts to a restaurant style menu of public policy options (take one from column one and two from c olumn three). Given this approach however, we continue to believe that Option 1 may provide the most reasoned approach given the limited resources.
Comment Response:
With respect to the commenter’s statement about Option 1, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2, Excerpt Number 20.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that it did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act because it “[did] not issue a single draft rule.” Nothing in the APA requires EPA to identify a single regulatory option, and in fact EPA very often includes several alternatives under consideration in its Notices of Proposed Rulemaking. The APA requires a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects a nd issues involved.” 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3). EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the steam electric ELGs included both a description of subjects and issues involved, as well as proposed regulatory text. EPA described in great detail in the preamble to t he proposal theEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 495 wastestreams it was considering regulating, and the technologies it was considering basing such regulations on, along with possible limitations and standards. EPA’s draft regulatory text was based on one of its preferred options. Moreover, the Notice fairly apprised interested persons of all the main issues in the rulemaking such that they could meaningfully participate in the public

comment process. For example, EPA described a voluntary incentives program and an anti

circumvention provisi on in the preamble, which after considering public comments, EPA decided to finalize with particular changes for the final rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 496 6.i.iii. Support Option 5

Commenter Name: L. Goldberg Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In April 2013, the EPA’s “Power Plant Pollution Standard” addresses only 468 million pounds of pollution a year!
We demand a stronger and more aggressive action of 53 Billion pounds of pollution per year !!
I support the proposed option that would require power plants to “dry handle” waste from fly and bottom ash ponds

– and to use evapora tion treatment for FGD scrubber sludge waste.
Please! Our government must step up and take a strong step/action to limit power plant water pollution now !!
Comment Response:
The commenter supports Proposed Option 5 (which is the same as Option F described in the final rule preamble with respect to the wastestreams listed by the commenter). For the reasons explained in Sections VIII.C and E of the final preamble, EPA selected Option D as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES in the final rule. For the vast majority of steam electric power plants, the final rule establishes zero discharge limitations and standards based on dry handling applicable to discharges of fly ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater, and it establishes zero dischar ge limitations and standards based on dry handling or closed

- loop technologies applicable to discharges of bottom ash transport water. With respect to discharges of FGD wastewater, for the vast majority of steam electric power plants, the final rule establ ishes BAT limitations based on chemical precipitation plus biological treatment. See preamble section VIII.C.1 for an explanation of the basis for the final BAT limitations for FGD wastewater discharges, including why EPA did not select evaporation as the BAT basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges from all existing steam electric power generating units.
Although EPA did not select evaporation as the BAT basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges from all existing steam electric power generating units, as part of BAT for existing sources, the final rule also establishes a voluntary incentives program for plants that adopt process changes and controls that achieve limitations based on evaporation for FGD wastewater discharges. See Section VIII.C.1 3 of the final preamble. Also, the new source standards (NSPS and PSNS) in the final rule are based on the Option F technologies (which includes zero discharge standards for control of discharges of fly ash transport water, bottom ash transportEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 497 water, and FGMC wastewater, as well as standards based on evaporation for control of FGD wastewater discharges).
Finally, EPA revised its estimates of pollutant loadings reductions in response to comments. See the preamble section X and the TDD for EPA’s estimates re ductions of pollutant discharges associated with the final rule.

Commenter Name: W. Byrd Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3720

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review Ex ternal Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I am writing to urge the EPA to issue strong standards that will keep billions of pounds of arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium from toxic power plant wastewater out of our rivers, lakes and s treams.
I support the strongest proposed option that would require power plants to "dry handle" waste from both fly and bottom ash ponds and to use evaporation treatment for scrubber sludge waste. This option would reduce pollution by over 5 billion pounds per year, while the least stringent option, which 80% of plants are already in compliance, would merely reduce pollutants by less than half a billion pounds.
Since the ELG has not been updated since 1982, the most stringent options for effluent limitation are needed to bring the best available technology to coal

- fired power plants and the cleanest water to our taps.
Existing technology can achieve these goals while creating new jobs. I encourage the EPA to create these necessary standards for our health wa ter, our communities and our environment.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Whitney Byrd Commenter Affiliation: Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A38 Comment Excerpt Number: 1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 498 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Wise Energy for Virginia Coalition is in support of the following limitations (all of whi ch are retained in Best Available Technology standard “BAT” Option 5):

 Dry handling of fly ash at all steam electric plants

 Chemical precipitation and biological treatment of scrubber (FGD) waste

 Dry handling of bottom ash at all steam electric plants

 Chem ical precipitation of landfill leachate (Option 4)

 Evaporation treatment for scrubber waste (FGD), reducing discharges close to zero (Option 5)

 Stringent compliance deadlines
The most stringent option for ELG (BAT option 5) would reduce pollution by over 5 billion pounds per year, while the least stringent option (BAT option 3), which 80% of plants are already in compliance, would merely reduce pollutants by less than half a billion.
Comment Response:
The commenter states that it supports proposed Optio n 5 (the same as Option F in the final rule for the wastestreams listed by the commenter) yet provided conflicting information as to its understanding of the proposed BAT limitations applicable to FGD wastewater in proposed Option 5. The proposed BAT basi s for control of FGD wastewater discharges in Option F (which is equivalent to proposed Option 5 for the wastestreams listed by the commenter) is evaporation. See Section VIII of the final preamble.
For the reasons explained in Sections VIII.C and E of the final preamble, EPA selected Option D as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES in the final rule. Option D represents the same suite of BAT technologies for all wastestreams as Option F (including dry handling for control of fly ash transport water a nd FGMC wastewater discharges, as well as dry handling or closed

- loop technologies for control of bottom ash transport water discharges) with the exception of the model technologies for controlling FGD wastewater and combustion residual leachate. EPA sele cted surface impoundments as the BAT basis for control of combustion residual leachate discharges rather than chemical precipitation for the reasons described in Section VIIIC.6 of the final preamble. Similarly, except for “small” and oil

- fired generating units, EPA selected chemical precipitation plus biological treatment as the BAT basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges rather than evaporation for the reasons described in Section VIII.C.1 of the final preamble. EPA notes that as part of BAT for existing sources, the final rule establishes a voluntary incentives program for facilities that adopt process changes and controls that achieve limitations based on evaporation for FGD wastewater discharges. See preamble section VIII.C.13. Moreover, the new source standards (NSPS and PSNS) in the final rule are based on the Option F technologies.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 499 Finally, also see Sections VIII and XVI.A.1 of the preamble for a discussion of the timing of the applicability of the limitations and standards in the final rul e.

Commenter Name: Jamie Rhodes Commenter Affiliation: Environment Council of Rhode Island Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Resp onse: No
Comment Excerpt:
Our organizations urge EPA to select Option 5 for the final rule. Option 5 would eliminate almost all toxic discharges from power plants, reducing pollution by more than 5 billion pounds a year. Strong rules are urgently needed because Steam Electric Power Plants are responsible for at least 50 to 60 percent of the toxic pollutants discharged into waters of the U.S.

- more than the other nine top polluting industries combined. 1

. Despite the scope of this pollution problem, the ex isting standards have not been updated since 1982 and fail to set discharge limits on a long list of dangerous pollutants toxic to humans and aquatic life, including arsenic, mercury, lead and selenium. According to EPA, this failure has led to over 160 wa ter bodies not meeting state water quality standards, 185 waters with fish consumption advisories and the degradation of 399 water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies. 2

1 EPA , Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limit ation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 3

- 14 (April 2013)

2 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam

- electric/proposed.cfm
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Based on public comments, EPA revised its estimates of water bodies not meeting s tate water quality standards, fish consumption advisories and the degradation of water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies. See the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electri c Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report) (DCN SE04527)

.

Commenter Name: Jamie Rhodes Commenter Affiliation: Environment Council of Rhode IslandEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 500 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Our organizations urge the Agency to move forward with Option 5, which would require power plants to control all of their pollution, not just some of it. EPA has proposed eight regulatory options, four of which are “preferred.” Yet none of the Agency’s “preferred” regulatory options are adequate to address this widespread pollution problem. The most stringent “preferred” option proposed by EPA (option 4a) would eliminate only 2.62 billion pounds of pollution

– roughly less than half of all the annual pollution loading from power plants 5

. In contrast, Option 5, though not preferred by the Agency, would eliminate 96% of all pollution from power plants, cutting an estimated 5.3 billion pounds a year. 6 For decades, the power plant industry has been given a free pass to dump their toxic wastewater into our rivers, lakes, streams and bays, but EPA’s analysis of Option 5 demonstrates that we can virtually eliminate thi s predominant source of toxic pollution to our waters using technologies that are readily available and affordable to the industry.

5 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,485

- 34,486 (Table IX

- 4)

6 Id

. Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Exc erpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Jamie Rhodes Commenter Affiliation: Environment Council of Rhode Island Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4034

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 14 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorpora ted into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Our organizations urge EPA to move swiftly to finalize Option 5, which would eliminate billions of tons of pollution a year, resulting in thousands of river miles that are safer to swim and fish in, and thousands of miles of cleaner drinking water sources.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 501 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Miyoko Sakashita Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4178

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We support the proposed rule because it contains much

- needed revisions to the 1982 effluent limitatio ns that will stem the toxic pollutants in wastewater streams from power plants. Power plant water pollution impairs our nation’s waters and threatens public health and wildlife. The long

- awaited effluent limitations are a significant step forward in regula ting toxic wastewater streams of mercury, arsenic, lead, and selenium from power plants. We urge EPA to select Option 5, which is the most comprehensive regulation and would significantly eliminate toxic discharges from power plants. We support Option 5 be cause it requires “zero discharge” of fly ash and bottom ash wastewater for all power plants, and it requires chemical precipitation and evaporation to treat Flue Gas Desulfurization (“FGD”) wastewater. EPA should finalize the most protective rule

— Optio n 5

— and implement it promptly when finalized because delay will undermine the effectiveness of the regulation in protecting water quality and safety.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Eugenia Marks, Senior Director of Policy, Audubon Commenter Affiliation: Audubon Society of Rhode Island Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4245

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incor porated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We urge EPA to select Option 5 for the final rule. Option 5 would eliminate almost all toxic discharges from power plants, reducing pollution by more than 5 billion pounds a year. Strong rules are urgently need ed because Steam Electric Power Plants are responsible for at least 50 to 60 percent of the toxic pollutants discharged into waters of the U.S.

- more than the other nine top polluting industries combined. [1] The existing standards have not been updated since 1982 and fail to set discharge limits on a long list of dangerous pollutants toxic to humans and aquaticEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 502 life, including arsenic, mercury, lead and selenium. According to EPA, this failure has led to over 160 water bodies not meeting state water qua lity standards, 185 waters with fish consumption advisories and the degradation of 399 water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies.
We ask that EPA provide stringent standards to achieve safe water for people and aquatic life by adopti ng Option 5 as the final rule.

[1] EPA, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 3

- 14 (April 2013)
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Based on public comments, EPA revised its estimates of water bodies not meeting state water quality standards, fish consumption advisories and the degradation of water bodies across the country that are dri nking water supplies. See the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report) (DCN SE04527)

.

Commenter Name: D. Kuck Commenter Affiliation: Privat e Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4413

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must finalize th e strongest of the proposed standards for power plant water pollution in order to protect our waterways and ensure human safety.

I am a Health Professional

- a veterinarian. My task is to protect the Public Health through ensuring safe food and drink. My j ob description is very similar to that of the EPA. It is clear to me that unsafe water that is filled with chemicals is a direct threat to PEOPLE, PETS, LIVESTOCK as well as all the other creatures and plants dependent upon water.

The Clean Water Act manda tes that EPA require dischargers to use the best available technology to reduce or eliminate their water pollution. For decades, the coal industry has been allowed to dump millions of pounds of toxic waste into our rivers and streams without limit, and EPA nowEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 503 has the opportunity to create new standards that will protect people and the environment from this dangerous pollution.
The best option proposed by EPA is for power plants to install zero liquid discharge technology and convert to safer coal ash handl ing systems that will eliminate discharges of the most contaminated wastewaters entirely. The proposed regulation includes less stringent standards that would fall short of what the Clean Water Act requires and would not go far enough to clean up this toxi c pollution. Only by enacting the toughest standards proposed will EPA fulfill its duty to protect people and the environment.
Comment Response:
EPA notes that it did not propose “zero liquid discharge technology” as the technology basis for the control of any discharges, including discharges of FGD wastewater. EPA assumes the commenter is referring to evaporation as the technology basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges, which was included in proposed Option 5, because it refers to the “strongest of the proposed standards for power plant water pollution.”
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Also, EPA notes the final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry. The rule does not require the use of any particular technology or practice to meet the final limitations and standards, and plants are free to meet the limitations and standards using any technology or practice they cho ose.

Commenter Name: Nadia L. Luhr Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Conservation Network (NCCN) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4480

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
According to data reported by the EPA, steam electric power plants contribute more than half of the toxic pollutants discharged to water bodies by all industrial categories currently regulated under the Clean Water Act . Effluent limitation guidelines for steam electric power plants were last updated in 1982, and significant industry changes and technology improvements over the last three decades necessitate the adoption of stronger, more modern regulations.
We appreciat e that the EPA is updating the effluent limitation guidelines, and as discussed in more detail below, the NC Conservation Network strongly urges the EPA to select Option 5 for the final rule. Option 5 would eliminate almost all toxic discharges, reducing p ollution by more than 5 billion pounds each year and greatly benefiting public health and natural resources.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 504 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Based on public comments, EPA revised its estimates of wa ter bodies not meeting state water quality standards, fish consumption advisories and the degradation of water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies. See the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standard s for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report) (DCN SE04527)

.

Commenter Name: Nadia L. Luhr Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Conservation Network (NCCN) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4480

- A1 Comment Ex cerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We Strongly Urge the EPA to Select Option 5 for the Final Rule
The EPA has proposed eight regulatory options of varying stringency. Option 5 would establish the strongest ELGs for steam electric power plants, and the EPA has estimated that Option 5 would eliminate 96 percent of all pollutant discharges from power plants

— approximately 5.3 billion pounds each year. 5 In comparison, the E PA’s preferred option, Option 4a, would eliminate only 2.62 billion pounds of pollution each year. 6 As stated in the proposed rule, “Option 5 would remove the most pollutants from steam electric power plant discharges.” 7

Under the CWA, the Best Available Technology (“BAT”) standards that EPA is proposing to set for fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and scrubber waste (“FGD waste”) must represent the best available technology that is economically achievable. 8 A technology is “available” i f it is in use in the industry, even if it is not widely used. 9 Option 5 would require dry handling of fly ash, which has been a requirement for new power plants since 1982; it would require dry handling or closed

- loop unit systems for bottom ash, which are already widely implemented by approximately 42 percent of existing facilities; and it would require chemical precipitation and vapor evaporation for the treatment of FGD wastewater

— technology that has been used in at least one facility and is being co nsidered for others.
In addition to being available, these technologies are economically achievable. A technology is economically achievable if the costs can be reasonably borne by the industry as a whole. 10 If Option 5 were adopted, the vast majority of p lants would incur costs of less than 1 percent of annual revenue. 798 facilities, approximately 75 percent of facilities under these rules, would see a cost

- to

- revenue ratio of zero percent.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 505 -- The ELGs proposed under Option 5 represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and reflects technology that has already been adopted widely by a large number of facilities across the country. Promulgation of these rules would reduce pollution by more than 5 billion pounds each year and grea tly benefit the public health and natural resources. We strongly urge the EPA to move forward with the adoption of Option 5 in furtherance of its responsibility to protect the nation’s waterways and public health.

5 Id. at 34,485

- 34,486 (Table IX

- 4).

6 Id.

7 Id. at 34,473.

8 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A).

9 Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA
, 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir. 1989) (“Congress intended these [BAT] limitations to be based on the performance of the single best

- performing plant in an industrial field”).

10 Waterk eeper Alliance v. U.S. EPA , 399 F.3d 486, 516 (2d Cir. 2005).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2. EPA determined, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, that the technologies that form the bases for the final rule are available and that the final rule is economically achievable for the industry as a whole, with acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts, as explained in preamble Section VIII.
For the final rule, EPA updated its estimates of the number plants that already have or will have in the near future technologies in place that would enable them to meet zero discharge limitations and standards applicable to bottom ash transport water discharges. See the preamble.
Regarding EPA’s decision no t to establish BAT limitations based on proposed Option 5 (Option F), see preamble Section VIII and response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 216 in comment code 28b.

Commenter Name: Becky Hayat Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resource s Defense Council (NRDC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4490

- A1Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 506 Comment Excerpt Number: 20 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The electricity sector’s drain on water re sources and the associated risks are undeniable. Thus, EPA must implement regulations that work to alleviate the mounting water stresses across the nation caused by electric power plants’ dependency on water. We urge EPA to select Option 5, or at minimum O ption 4, as its final rule, because in addition to eliminating almost all of the toxic pollutants discharged from power plants 36 , it would also yield the greatest reductions in water use. EPA is obligated to implement the most environmentally protective re gulatory measure that is economically achievable for industry. Options 4 and 5 are the only regulatory alternatives that would allow EPA to fulfill its mandate under the CWA.

36 ELGs at 34,485

– 34,486 (Table IX

- 4).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EP A

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2. EPA also notes that the suite of technologies represented by proposed Option 4, cited by the commenter, is substantially similar to the suite of technologies represented by Option D in the final rule. See prea mble section VIII for a description of the options.
Also see the preamble for estimates of reduced water withdrawals associated with the final rule.

Commenter Name: S. Hart Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4493 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Having grown up in a large city with public water that smelled of chemicals and we chose not to drink, I truly recognize what a blessing the land and resources of this area are. This is why I am writing to not only urge, but beg the EPA to issue strong rules to protect our water from being poisoned by toxic pollution from coal fired power plants. I strongly support any option that will require Duke energy to to stop storing coal ash, and what ever other waste is produced in leaky, under

- regulated Impoundments. To use the best available biological and chemical treatments available on ALL of their wastewater, and to u se evaporation treatment for sludge waste from air pollution scrubbers.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 507 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Also, EPA notes the final rule establishes limitations and standards on wastewater discharges from the steam electric power generating industry under the Clean Water Act and not requirements for management of coal ash surface impoundments. Thus, comments related to “storing coal ash” are outside the scope of this final rule.

Commenter Name: P. Ciaffone Commenter Affiliation: Appalachian Voices Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4494 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I encourage you to require the best technology, including zero

- waste, to minimize the amount of waste product that leads to huge wet impoundments that are causing harm to our environment and health.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: B. Hart Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4496 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comment Ex cerpt:
I support any option that will require Duke Energy and other utilities to stop storing waste in leaky impoundments, to use the best biological and chemical treatments available on all of their wastewater and to use evaporation treatment for sludge waste from air pollution scrubbers.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 508 Also, EPA notes the final rule establishes limitations and standards on wastewater discharges from the steam electric power gener ating industry under the Clean Water Act and not requirements for management of coal ash surface impoundments. Thus, comments related to “storing waste” are outside the scope of this final rule.

Commenter Name: C. Lish Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4498

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I strongly urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to finalize zero

- discharge water pollution standards to limit the amount of toxic metals that can be dumped into our waters from power plants.
“Our duty to the whole, including to the unborn generations, bids us to restrain an unprincipled present

- day minori ty from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.”

-- Theodore Rooseve lt
Power plants should be required to use the best available technology to reduce the most amount of pollution. Every year, these plants dump billions of pounds of arsenic, lead, mercury and selenium into surface waters. It’s time to end this reckless prac tice. Existing technology can easily solve this problem and should be employed.
“As we peer into society's future, we

— you and I, and our government

— must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious reso urces of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorro w.”

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I support the proposed option that would require power plants to “dry handle” waste from both fly and bottom ash ponds and to use evaporation treatment for Flue gas desulfurization scrubber sludge waste. By requiring coal plants to move hazardous coal ash with dry systems, rather than with water, the EPA can eliminate millions of gallons of dangerous ash wastewater every year. Smokestack scrubber sludge can also be treated using zero

- discharge systems, and certainlyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 509 requires at l east biological and chemical treatment to remove toxic heavy metals like selenium, arsenic, mercury, and lead.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Becky Smith Commenter Affiliation: Clean Water Action et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4548

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Our organizations urge EPA to select Option 5 for the final rule. Option 5 would eliminate almost all toxic discharges from power plants, reducing pollution by more than 5 billion pounds a year. Strong rules are urgently needed because Steam Electric Power Plants are responsible for at least 50 to 60 percent of the toxic pollutants discharged into waters of the U.S.

- more than the other nine top polluting industries combined. 1 Despite the scope of this pollution problem, the existing standards have not been updated since 1982 and fail to se t discharge limits on a long list of dangerous pollutants toxic to humans and aquatic life, including arsenic, mercury, lead and selenium. According to EPA, this failure has led to over 160 water bodies not meeting state water quality standards, 185 waters with fish consumption advisories and the degradation of 399 water bodies across the country that are drinking water supplies. 2

1 EPA, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Ge nerating Point Source Category 3

- 14 (April 2013)

2 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam

- electric/proposed.cfm
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
Based on public comments, EPA revised its estimates of water bodies not meeting state water quality standards, fish consumption advisories and the degradation of water bodies across the country that are drinki ng water supplies. See the Environmental Assessment for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (EA Report) (DCN SE04527)

.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 510 Commenter Name: Becky Smith Commenter Affiliation: Clea n Water Action et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4548

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA has an obligation under the Clean Water Ac t to end this reckless practice. Our organizations urge the Agency to move forward with Option 5, which would require power plants to control all of their pollution, not just some of it. EPA has proposed eight regulatory options, four of which are “prefer

red.” Yet none of the Agency’s “preferred” regulatory options are adequate to address this widespread pollution problem. The most stringent “preferred” option proposed by EPA (option 4a) would eliminate only 2.62 billion pounds of pollution

– roughly less than half of all the annual pollution loading from power plants 5

. In contrast, Option 5, though not preferred by the Agency, would eliminate 96% of all pollution from power plants, cutting an estimated 5.3 billion pounds a year. 6 For decades, the power p lant industry has been given a free pass to dump their toxic wastewater into our rivers, lakes, streams and bays, but EPA’s analysis of Option 5 demonstrates that we can virtually eliminate this predominant source of toxic pollution to our waters using tec hnologies that are readily available and affordable to the industry.

5 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,485

- 34,486 (Table IX

- 4)

6 Id.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Becky Smith Commenter Affiliation: Clean Water Action et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4548

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 511 When considering costs, the Clean Water Act allows EPA to evaluate whether costs can be reasonably borne by the industry as a whole. 13 EPA acknowledges in its proposal that Option 5 would by far remove the largest amount of pollutants from power plant discharges, resulting in the gr eatest benefit to public health and the environment. 14 And EPA has estimated that most utilities would only incur costs of less than 1% of annual revenue. 15 Yet the Agency claims it did not select Option 5 as a “preferred” option because of concern that it is too expensive when compared with the other options. Clearly this industry can bear the comparatively small cost to comply with requirements mandated by the Clean Water Act to clean up their toxic discharges. Society has been unfairly forced to bear the cost of these discharges for decades.

13 See Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 516 (2d Cir. 2005) and Rybachek v. U.S. EPA, 904 F. 2d 1276, 1290

- 91 (9th Cir. 1990)

14 Id. at 34,473

15 Id. at 34,494 (Table XI

- 4); 34,493
Comment Response :
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2. As explained in preamble Section VIII, EPA determined that the final rule is affordable for the industry as a whole.
With respect to EPA’s rationale for rejecting Option F as the basis for the final BAT limitations applicable to all existing steam electric power generating units, see preamble Section VIII.C.1 and response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 216, in comment code 28b.

Commenter Name: M. E. Schultz Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4622

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

I live in Texas, a state wit h a big number of coal

- fired power plants. for decades these plants, with other chemical factories, have made Texas the worst air polluter in the country. It is an established fact that the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has and will

con tinue to protect polluting industries and does all it can to resist EPA standards enforcement. It is a tragedy that workers who of necessity live near these coal fired plants, must continue toEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 512 submit to the chronic illness and early death of their family m embers, because of deadly ingestion of toxins in their water and air. WE TEXANS DEPEND ON THE EPA to make and enforce the strongest possible standards on these coal

- fired power plants.
The best option proposed by EPA is for power plants to install zero liq uid discharge technology and convert to safer coal ash handling systems that will eliminate discharges of the most contaminated wastewaters entirely. The proposed regulation includes less stringent standards that would fall short of what the Clean Water Ac t requires and would not go far enough to clean up this toxic pollution. Only by enacting the toughest standards proposed will EPA fulfill its duty to protect people and the environment.
Comment Response:
EPA notes that it did not propose “zero liquid di scharge technology” as the technology basis for the control of any discharges, including discharges of FGD wastewater. EPA assumes the commenter is referring to evaporation as the technology basis for control of FGD wastewater discharges, which was includ ed in proposed Option 5.
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
EPA notes the final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry. The f inal rule does not require the use of any particular technology or practice to meet the final limitations and standards, and plants are free to meet the limitations and standards using any technology or practice they choose.

Commenter Name: Pamela Ritg er Commenter Affiliation: Clean Wisconsin Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4632

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Clean Wisconsin has reviewed EPA’s proposal and is disappointed that Option 5, the option that would eliminate almost all toxic discharges and reduce pollution by more than 5 billion pounds per year, is no longer a preferred alternative being considered for adoption. 5 In the absence of Option 5, Clean Wisconsin insists that the EPA adopt the most stringent option still under consideration, Option 4a.

5 Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry Is Poisoning Our Water and How We Can Stop It , p. 2 (July 2013). AvailableEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 513 at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_07_23_ClosingTheFlo odgates

- Fin al.pdf

Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Jeff Stant, Patricia Schuba and Rae Schnapp Commenter Affiliation: Citizens Coal Council and the Wabash Riverkeeper Document Control Number : EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4657

- A7 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We have collected information via government documents and databases that support a

reasona ble level of concern for the health and well

- being of citizens in the path of migrating toxins that warrant the most prudent option, Option 5, under the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluents Guidelines Rule.
These examples show how communities, busines ses and farmers are endangered by the lax regulations that allow utilities to continue to store toxins in ponds, sitting unlined in floodplains, discharging to bodies of water while technologies exist that could eliminate all discharges and recycle all was tes and ensure that all toxins are kept out of floodplains and surface waters.
Thank you for considering our comments in proposing the strongest rule possible to control the handling of coal ash waste water. We propose that the EPA issue a zero discharge E LG Rule.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Juliet Cohen Commenter Affiliation: Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4671

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 514 There are three power generation plants on the Chattahoochee River: (1) Plant McDonough (Cobb County) (recently converted from coal combustion to natural gas, but there still remain ash ponds on site); (2) Plant Wansley (Heard and Carroll Counties); and (3) Plant Yates (Coweta County).
Steam electric power plants contribute 50

- 60 percent of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by all industrial categories regulated in the United States under the Clean Water Act. CRK strongly urges the EPA to adopt Option 5 as the final rule because, as stated in the public notice, Option 5 would remove the most pollutants from steam electric power plan t discharges. Also, the technologies identified in Option 5 are potentially available and may be appropriate depending on the specific situations as the basis for water quality

- based effluent limits in NPDES permits.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
EPA agrees with the commenter that “the technologies identified in Option 5 are potentially available and may be appropriate depending on the specific situations as the basis for water quality

- based effluent limits in NPDES permits.” See preamble section XVI.E.

Commenter Name: Juliet Cohen Commenter Affiliation: Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4671

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Re view External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We strongly urge the EPA to adopt Option 5 as the final rule, the most environmentally protective regulation for steam electric generation plants.
Comment Response:
See response to DC N EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Deanna White Commenter Affiliation: Clean Water Action

- Minnesota et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4681

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 515 External Review Flag: No Extern al Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA has proposed eight regulatory options, four of which are "preferred." We are concerned that none of the Agency’s "preferred" regulatory options are adequate to address this wid espread pollution problem. The most stringent "preferred" option proposed by EPA (option 4a) would eliminate only 2.62 billion pounds of pollution

– roughly less than half of all the annual pollution loading from power plants. In contrast, Option 5, though not preferred by the Agency, would eliminate 96% of all pollution from power plants, cutting an estimated 5.3 billion pounds a year. For decades, the power plant industry has essentially been given an unlimited permit to dump their toxic wastewater into o ur rivers, lakes, streams and bays. EPA has an opportunity to end this reckless practice and our organizations urge the Agency to move forward with Option 5, which would require power plants to control all of their pollution, not just some of it.

Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 15 External Review Fl ag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA Must Select Option 5 for New Source Performance Standards. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to set and revise New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new sour ces that “reflect[] the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable” through Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology, a standard that is even more stringent than BAT. EPA improperly rejected Option 5 for new sources without applying the correc t legal standard, which is whether the costs of Option 5 can be reasonably borne by the industry.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 516 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 149 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

VIII. BADCT FOR NEW SOURCES IS OPTION 5.

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to set and revise New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new sources that “reflect[] the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of the best available demonstrated control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives, including, where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants” or BADCT. 622 BADCT is the most stringent standard for control of discharges. As EPA notes, “Congress envisioned that new sources could meet t ighter controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into the facility design.” 623 In this case, EPA expressly noted that all of the treatment technologie

s identified in Option 5 are technologically available, and the record supports this determination. 624 EPA improperly rejected Option 5 for NSPS solely because of higher costs associated with evaporation systems for FGD wastewater. 625
EPA is required to “take into consideration the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, and any

non

- water quality environmental impact and energy requirements.” 626 As courts have recognized, the language related to consideration of costs in section 306 is “virtually identical” to the language i n in section 304(b)(2)(B) for existing sources. 627 Similar to the relevant cost inquiry for BAT determinations,
[t]here is no language in s[section] 306 requiring a cost

- benefit analysis. Rather, the EPA is required only to take costs under “consideration.” We conclude, therefore, that a cost

- benefit analysis is not required in determining the reasonableness of the cost of achieving the new source standards. What is required for new source standards is a thorough study of initial and annual costs and an affirmative conclusion that these costs can be reasonably borne by the industry. 628
Thus, the relevant inquiry for EPA when setting NSPS is whether the “costs can be reasonably borne by the industry” as a whole, 629 and costs are “to be given even less weight under section 306 than for existing sources.” 630

622 33 U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1).

623 TDD at 8

- 37.

624 TDD at 8

- 40.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 517 625 Id.

626 33 U.S.C. § 1316(b)(1)(B).

627 See, e.g., Am. Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA , 526 F.2d 1027, 1059 (3d Cir. 1975).

628 C PC Int’l, Inc. v. Train , 540 F.2d 1329, 1341

- 42 (8th Cir. 1976) (internal citations omitted). See also Am. Iron & Steel Inst. , 526 F.2d at 1059.

629 CPC Int’l, Inc. , 540 F.2d at 1341

- 42 (internal citations omitted).

630 Am. Iron & Steel Inst. , 526 F.2d at 1059.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
EPA notes that its decision to establish NSPS and PSNS based on the Option F technologies was not based on its analysis of the benefits associated with that option. Rather, EPA’s decisions on the final rule were based on the factors specified by Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act. See EPA v. Nat’l Crushed Stone Ass’n , 449 U.S. 64, 70

- 71 (1980); Ass’n of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA , 615 F.2d 794, 818 (9th Cir. 1980); Am. Iron & Steel v. EPA , 526 F.2d 1027, 1051

- 52, 1053 n.54 (3d Cir. 1975); Nat’l Ass’n of Metal Finishers v. EPA , 719 F.2d 624, 659 (3d Cir. 1983). While EPA conducted an assessment of benefits pursuant to Executive Order, the benefits analysis was not determinative in the options selected by EPA for the final rule.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Option 5 i s BAT for the steam

‐ electric industry
The sole additional control technology found in Option 5 but not in Option 4

— vapor ‐ compression evaporation

— makes Option 5 the most effective of all the proposed steam

‐ electric regulatory options at controlling the disc harge of pollutants. Option 5 is technologically achievable; zero

‐ liquid discharge technologies are used to control similar pollutants in many other industries, in several steam

‐ electric plants in the United States, and in several more abroad.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 518 Option 5 is also economically achievable. EPA has not demonstrated that Option 5 would be a burden to the steam electric industry. The measures of economic achievability presented by EPA are deeply flawed; EPA itself states that the metric for which it presents an adverse result for Option 5

— the cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratio

— “does not generally indicate whether profitability is jeopardized, cash flow is affected, or risk of financial distress is increased.” Option 5’s cost

‐ effectiveness is within the bounds of those of app roved ELGs (and is biased upward by the same faulty assumption used in the cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratio), EPA presents no evidence of its plant closures, its household costs are negligible, and it results in an average annual increase of 2,112 jobs.
Option 5 is BAT for the steam

‐ electric ELGs.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.
With respect to EPA’s rationale for rejecting Option F as the basis for the final BAT limitations applicable to all existing steam elect ric power generating units, see preamble Section VIII.C.1 and response to DCN

- EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 216 in C omment C ode 28

. b.
EPA notes that it revised its costs and pollutant loadings estimates for the final rule, in response to publ ic comments, and it thus it also revised its resulting “cost

- effectiveness” (cost per toxic weighted pound of pollutant reductions) estimates. See preamble Section XV. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule , see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Re view Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The selection of Option 5 would require an additional improvement to controls: a vapor

‐ compression evaporation system for FGD wastewater:
This type of system uses a falling

‐ film evaporator (or brine concentrator) to produce a concentrated wastewater stream and a distillate stream. With pretreatment, such as chemical precipitation and softening, brine concentrators can reduce wastewater volumes by 80 to 90 perce nt. Plants can further process the concentrated wastewater stream in a crystallizer or spray dryer, which evaporates the remaining water to generate a solid waste product and potentially aEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 519 condensate stream. The distillate and condensate streams may be reu sed within the plant or discharged to surface waters. EPA identified two U.S. plants and four Italian plants that treat FGD wastewater using vapor

‐ compression evaporation. A third U.S. plant is currently installing a vapor ‐ compression evaporation treatmen t system; it is scheduled to be operational by the end of 2013. 128

As shown in Table 10, this single change limits the release of arsenic, mercury and selenium into public waterways. EPA explains that:
Physical/chemical treatment systems can achieve low ef fluent concentrations for a number of pollutants, and reduce concentrations even further when combined with biological treatments systems...However, these technologies have not been effective at removing substantial amounts of boron and pollutants that contr ibute to high concentrations of [Total Dissolved Solids]. [Vapor

‐ compression evaporation] can address these recalcitrant pollutants... 129

The requirement of vapor

‐ compression evaporation for biological treatment of FGD wastewater represents the only differen ce between Options 4 and 5. Option 5’s additional pollutant removals, therefore, are the result of vapor

‐ compression evaporation and result in greater stringency than any of the other regulatory options. Option 5 removes far more pollutants than Option 4

— 8 ,201 million versus 7,831 million lb

‐ eq per year, respectively (see Table 10 above). Option 5’s total monetized benefits (excluding air

‐ related benefits), however, are slightly lower than those of Option 4

— $434.1 million annualized versus $435.0 million in annualized terms (see Table 8). EPA offers an explanation for this result, stating:
[U]nder Option 4, EPA assumes that plants with both leachate and FGD waste streams implement chemical precipitation and biological treatment for the combined streams. Und er Option 5, EPA assumes that plants treat the two streams separately: FGD wastewater by evaporation and leachate using chemical precipitation (which removes less pollutant load than biological treatment). 130

This methodological quirk does not, however, ex plain away the mismatch between toxic

‐ weighted pollutants and monetized benefits; rather, it illustrates a deep flaw in EPA methodology. While the additional pollutants removed in Option 5 have a higher toxic weight, they are not readily quantified or mone tized. EPA’s erroneously values the removal of those toxic pollutants at zero dollars.
Listed as the major capital cost components of vapor

‐ compression evaporation systems are water softeners, brine concentrators, and forced

‐ circulation crystallizers. 131 T he brine concentrator (sometimes called a falling

‐ film evaporator) and forced

‐ circulation crystallizer are used in sequence: The brine concentrator separates FGD wastewater

— which has already completed a chemical precipitation process

— in brine and distilla te; a forced

‐ circulation crystallizer (or other similar process, e.g., a spray dryer) then separates the brine concentrator distillate then passes into solid waste and a liquid condensate. 132

The distillate and condensate may either be reused within the pl ant

— in which case, the vapor

‐ compression evaporation system results in “zero liquid discharge” from the FGD scrubber

— orEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 520 may be released into surface waters or public water treatment works. Option 5 would regulate the latter; curiously, the former treatmen t of FGD wastewaters, zero liquid discharge, is not included among the regulatory options presented by EPA.
Effluent limitations for Option 5 are set based on a weighted average of brine concentrator distillate and crystallizer condensate measurements sam pled from a single Italian plant that appears to follow a zero liquid discharge protocol:
For the treatment of FGD wastewater using chemical precipitation followed by a vapor

‐ compression evaporation system, hereafter referred to as a “vapor

‐ compression evaporation” system (which is the technology serving as the basis for Regulatory Option 5), EPA evaluated three systems as part of the EPA sampling program. One plant operates a system that is similar to the technology basis for the FGD wastewater limitati ons in the proposed rule: a one

‐ stage chemical precipitation system followed by softening and a vapor

‐ compression evaporation system. EPA used the data from this plant to develop the limitations based on the vapor

‐ compression evaporation technology for the treatment of the FGD wastewater. That plant is Enel’s Federico II Power Plant, located in Brindisi, Italy (hereafter referred to as Brindisi). EPA used data from a second plant for characterization purposes and not for limitations development because it o nly collected effluent data for one day from the plant. The third system does not represent the technology serving as the basis for the vapor

‐ compression evaporation option, and was not used for the limitations development. This plant operates a solids re moval process prior to the vapor

‐ compression evaporation system but includes neither a full chemical precipitation system nor a softening step. Furthermore, this plant also operates a one

‐ stage evaporation system and instead of employing a second stage of evaporation to crystallize and remove salts and other pollutants from the concentration brine, mixes the brine with fly ash and sends it to the landfill for disposal. 133

128 Id. at 34,452.

129 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,460.

130 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,518, Table XIV

‐ 8

131 Id. at 34,482.

132 Technical Development Document, pp.3

‐ 13 and 3

‐ 14

133 Technical Development Document, p.13

‐ 5; see also 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,490, Table X

‐ 1; Technical Development Document Section 3.4.1; and DCN SE02002 sampling data for limits.xlsx.

C omment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 521 See Section VIII of the final preamble for updated information on U.S. plants known to EPA that are using evaporation.
EPA notes that it revised its costs and pollutant l oadings estimates for the final rule, in response to public comments. See the TDD and RIA.
The commenter questions EPA’s benefits analysis for a regulatory option that includes BAT limitations based on evaporation for control of FGD wastewater discharges. EPA notes that it also revised its benefits analysis for the final rule in response to public comments. See the RIA. In addition, EPA notes that, during development of the final rule, EPA decided not to base the final rule on Option F for the reasons sta ted in preamble section VIII. As a result, EPA chose not to conduct particular analyses for Option F to the same extent that it did for some of the other regulatory options considered.
While the Agency considers cost

- effectiveness and benefit

- cost analysis as informative in the ELG rulemaking process, and it is something that is done for the final rule pursuant to Executive Order, EPA based the final rule on factors that the Clean Water Act (sections 301, 304, and 306) expressly directs EPA to consider when establishing Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (see preamble section VIII), not on its benefits analysis. For the role of cost

- benefit in establishing BAT under the Clean Water Act, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3, in comment code 6.h. As a result, EPA did not perform cost

effectiveness or benefit

- cost analyses for Option F for the final rule. With respect to the commenter’s statements about monetized benefits for Option 5, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 20 09

- 0819

- 4724

- A2, Excerpt Number 1.
For a description of how EPA developed limitations and standards for FGD wastewater based on evaporation in the final rule, see Section 13 of the TDD.
The commenter suggests that EPA failed to consider “zero liquid discha rge” requirements for FGD wastewater, based on evaporation technology, for the final rule. EPA is aware that some plants achieve zero pollutant discharge from the FGD scrubber to surface waters or POTWs and EPA considered establishing zero pollutant disch arge requirements based on evaporation for FGD wastewater. EPA is mindful of the CWA’s pollutant discharge elimination goal. At the same time, EPA recognizes the extensive changes in this industry, and it wants to provide flexibility to plants in managing their wastewater and operations, as well as preserve the ability of plants to retain existing approaches where it is consistent with the CWA’s goals. While EPA would not choose to promote these considerations where it resulted in no further progress toward the pollutant discharge elimination goal of the Act, treatment by evaporation is widely known as one of the most effective technologies to remove an extensive array of pollutants from wastewaters resulting from various industrial operations, including FGD wastewater. EPA is also mindful of the significant incremental costs that plants incur to employ this technology in comparison to other FGD wastewater treatment technologies. See final preamble Section VIII. Therefore, EPA decided not to establish zero po llutant discharge limitations and standards based on evaporation for FGD wastewater.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 522 Commenter Name: CWA Mass Mail Campaign Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4772

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Strongly support option 5.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: T. Williams Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5159

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I support option V. We should all clea n our streams, rivers, bays of any harmful pollution. Take a stand like Boston did in Cleaning their harbor.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: J. Rivers Commenter Affiliation: Privat e Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5219

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
You need to finalize a strong standard to keep power plant pollution out of our water sources. Choose option 5.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 523 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: K. Brooks Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5385

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Please take a strong stance to protect our water by getting the strongest standards possible for power plant water pollution. Choose option 5!
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.

Commenter Name: M. Dave Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5422

- A1 Comment Excerpt Num ber: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Choose Option 5.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 524 6.i.iv. Support/oppose Options 4/5

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respon se: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA should choose either Option 4 or Option 5. The Clean Water Act requires that EPA base these critical protections on the best available technology economically achievable to reduce or eliminate pollution. EPA's Options 4 and 5 identify a number of technologies that live up to the standard, including treatment systems such as dry ash handling and vapor compression evaporation that have the potential to completely eliminate toxic pollution from certain wastewater streams. EPA ha s found that these stringent treatment options are available and cost effective, and there is no legal basis for EPA to require anything less than a strong rule that fully lives up to the Clean Water Act's requirements that pollution be eliminated wherever it is feasible to do so. EPA should choose Option 5.

Comment Response:
Although EPA did not select the proposed Option 4 or 5 for the final rule, it sets zero discharge standards and rigorous treatment of toxic heavy metals, as described in preamble sections III and VIII.
EPA notes that for the final rule it selected Regulatory Option D represents BAT because it is available, affordable to the industry as a whole, and has acceptable non

- water quality environmental benefits. It is similar to proposed Option 4 except for combustion residual leachate and non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. See preamble section VIII for EPA’s rationale for the final requirements for combustion residual leachate and non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes.
Regarding proposed Option 5, the difference between proposed Option 4 and 5, is that Option 5 would have established chemical precipitation and evaporation as BAT for FGD wastewater. See preamble section VIII for EPA’s rationale for not selecting evaporation as BAT. Also, s ee responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3698

- A1, Excerpt Number 2, as well as other responses in Comment Code 6.i.iii.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing TranscriptEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 525 Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0 819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 37 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
This goes on and on, but I would conclude by saying that Options 4 or 5 of the proposed effluent guidelines a re necessary to prevent the continuing poisoning of our waters. Anything less is unacceptable.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Publ ic Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 58 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The NPDES permits that limit iron but not ars enic and selenium with these lakes, regulation has done nothing to inhibit the impact of these toxic, steeping, shorefront mounds, but with these effluent limit guidelines and specifically Steam Electric Regulatory Options 4 and 5 of the pretreatment stand ards, as long overdue as they are, the EPA can start to catch back up to its original mid 1980s NPDES goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. We need Option 4 or 5 at this point, given the decades of accumulation from unrestricted discharges.

Comment Re sponse:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

Commenter Name: Mary Anne Hitt Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A27 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 526 Comment Excerpt:
The Sierra Club calls on the EPA to adopt a standard that adequately protects public health and our waterways. That means a standard that requires dry handling of coal as h, moving away from settling ponds that do essentially nothing to treat the waste, and using best water treatment technologies for scrubber sludge and leachate. These are labeled options 4 and 5 in the proposed rule.
As you know, we have technologies avai lable today

- in use at some coal plants, as a matter of fact

- that can treat this pollution at a modest cost. EPA has every reason to adopt a strong standard. But I understand you are under great pressure to adopt a weak and inadequate standard.

This is no surprise. As President Obama noted in his climate speech last month, this is the boilerplate reaction of polluters any time improved health and safety protections are proposed. As the President also noted, these gloom

- and

- doom scenarios never come to pass, industry adapts and evolves, and we all enjoy cleaner water and air. I implore you to stand firm and adopt a robust standard that will really protect our water, and our kids

- after all, it might be a couple more decades before we get another chanc e.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

Commenter Name: Appalachian Voices Commenter Affiliation: Appalachian Voices Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4501

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For these and other reasons detailed below, we implore EPA to adopt either Option 4 or Option 5 in drafting a final Effluents Limitations Guideline

. EPA Should Require Dry Handling of Fly Ash and Bottom Ash and Set Zero Discharge Limits for FGD and other CCR Waste Streams
The developments in North Carolina that support EPA adopting Option 4 or Option 5 include:

1. Recent studies by researchers at Duke U niversity that demonstrate downstream water quality degradation from contaminants discharged into the French Broad River, Mountain Island Lake and other water bodies;Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 527 2. Recent discoveries of unpermitted seeps and multiple exceedances of groundwater standards at nearly every coal ash pond in the state; 3. Actions taken by the NC General Assembly that have devastated state regulators' ability and authority to implement, monitor and enforce water quality standards.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

Commenter Name: Beth L. McGee Commenter Affiliation: Chesapeake Bay Foundation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4513

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: Envr Assess External Review Incor porated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
There are substantial ecological benefits of Option 4 and 5 compared to the other options.
We commend EPA for moving this regulation forward and urge you to adopt Option 4 or 5 as your preferred alternative.

Com ment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Notwithstanding the weak options that EPA now puts forward as “preferred” options, EPA’s underlying record for this rulemaking provides detailed analysis confirming that coal plants can shift away from leaking and unsafe impoundments to better and safer pollution controls, such as those incorporated into Options 4 and 5. 13 By transitioning to dry ash management systems and employing superior wastewater treatment tech nologies such as chemical precipitation, inEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 528 combination with biological treatment or vapor compression, it is possible to reduce pollution from coal plants by billions of tons each year, even achieving zero liquid discharge. 14

13 See, e.g. , Technical Dev elopment Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category at 7

- 1

- 7

- 48 (Apr. 2013), Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- LW

- 2008

- 0819

- 2257, [hereinafter TDD].

14 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,485

- 34,486

. Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8. Also, see responses to Comment Code 6.i.iii.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 16 External Review Flag: Economics/Benefits External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Costs of Options 4 and 5 Can Be Reasonably Borne by the Industry. When the correct legal standard is applied, EPA’s own analysis establishes that the cost of both Options 4 and 5 can be reasonably borne by the industry, for both new and existing plants. EPA found, for all options in the rule, that “the entity

- level compliance costs are low i n comparison to the entity

level revenues; very few entities are likely to face economic impacts at any level.” 15 EPA’s decisions not to choose Options 4 and 5 appear to be influenced by cost

- benefit analysis. The Clean Water Act and court decisions make clear that BAT limitations cannot be based on cost

benefit analysis. Congress precluded EPA from relying on cost

- benefit analysis to develop BAT limitations because of concerns that the data on benefits will not be as extensive or robust as the data on co sts, and therefore cost

- benefit comparisons will inevitably skewed toward prioritizing costs. This rulemaking bears out Congress’s concerns, since EPA’s cost

- benefit analysis systematically overestimates costs and underestimates benefits.

15 RIA at 4

- 9.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 529 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8. EPA’s decision not to base the final rule on a regulatory Option identical to proposed Option 4 was not because EPA determined proposed Option 4 to be not affordable to the steam electric industry. As explained in the referenced response, EPA selected Regulatory Option D as BAT for the final rule. It is similar to proposed Option 4 except for combustion residual leachate and non

chemical metal cleaning wastes. See Sect ion VIII of the preamble for EPA’s rationale for the final requirements for combustion residual leachate and non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes.
Regarding proposed Option 5, the difference between proposed Option 4 and 5, is that Option 5 would have establ ished chemical precipitation and evaporation as BAT for FGD wastewater. See Section VIII of the final preamble for EPA’s rationale for not selecting evaporation as BAT. See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for not selecting chemical precipitation plus evaporation as the basis of BAT for FGD wastewater. Also, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 216 in Comment Code 26,b.

For the role of benefit

- cost in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4464

- A1, Excerpt Number 3 in Comment Code 6.e.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 46 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Notwithstanding the weak options that EPA now puts forward as “preferred” options, EPA’s underlying record for this rulemaking provides detailed analysis confirming that coal plants can make a shift away from leaking and unsafe impoundments to better and safer pollution controls, such as those incorporated into Options 4 and 5. 128 By transitioning to dry ash management systems and employing superior wastewater treatment technologies such as c hemical precipitation, in combination with biological treatment or vapor compression, it is possible to reduce pollution from coal plants by billions of tons each year, even achieving zero liquid discharge. 129

128 See, e.g. , TDD at 7

- 1

- 7

- 48.

129 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,485

- 34,486.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 530 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.
EPA notes that the commenter supported regulatory options that include dry ash management systems and chemical precipitation in combination with b iological treatment or vapor compression (evaporation). As explained in the referenced response, EPA selected regulatory Option D as the basis for the final BAT limitations. This option includes dry ash handling (or closed loop) for ash transport water and chemical precipitation in combination with biological treatment for FGD wastewater as advocated for by the commenter.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Commen t Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Economic screening analysis
The Clean Water Act establishes a simple, clear standard for the choice of pollution control technol ogies to be enforced by EPA: For each industry, the most stringent, but still technologically achievable, control measures are identified. These are the measures to be enforced, unless there is evidence that a particular technology will place a prohibitive burden on the industry as a whole. In the proposed steam

‐ electric ELGs, this standard has been ignored. Control technologies were identified, sorted into eight regulatory options, and ordered in terms of their relative impact on controlling the discharge of pollutants. Regrettably, the two most stringent of these options were then eliminated from further consideration

— that is, not designated as “preferred”

— without EPA presenting evidence demonstrating that they were either technologically or economically unachievable.
Congress’ mandate to EPA in the Clean Water Act requires that pollution control technologies be eliminated from consideration for BAT only on grounds of:

1. Stringency: There are other more effective technologies for controlling the discharge of pollutants from a particular effluent stream. 2. Technological achievability: The proposed technology is not achievable (i.e. cannot be purchased or installed). 3. Economic achievability: The cost of proposed technology is, in EPA’s determination, an

unreason able burden to the industrial category as a whole (here, all steam electric generators other than oil

‐ fired generating units and generating units with capacities 50 MW or smaller).Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 531 EPA’s original proposal recommended Options 3 and 4 as preferred, and only performed its full economic analysis using the IPM model on those two options. The EPA proposal found Options 1 and 2 to be too lax

— “neither option would represent the best available technology level for steam electric power plant discharges”

— and rejected Option 5 even though “without question, Option 5 would remove the most pollutants from steam electric power plant discharges.” EPA’s elimination of Option 5 from consideration for this rulemaking was made on economic grounds: “EPA did not select Option 5 as its preferred option for BAT because of the high total industry cost for the option...and because of preliminary indications that Option 5 may not be economically achievable.”
Option 4 should be among EPA’s preferred options
Control technologies for Option 4

— dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller, and chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate

— are more effective at controlling the discharge of pollutants than are the Options selected by EPA a s preferred. These control technologies are also

— as documented by EPA in this rulemaking

— technologically achievable.
Furthermore, EPA itself describes Option 4 for as “economically achievable” and fails to make a case that it would be a burden to industry. EPA’s rationale for eliminating Option 4 from consideration is based entirely on a subcategorization of the steam

‐ electric industry that has not been appropriately justified in this docket.
Comment Response:
See responses DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1 , Excerpt Number 16 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 18 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The Clean Water Act establishes a simple, clear standard for the choice of pollution control technologies to be enforced by EPA: For each industry, the most stringent, but still technologically achievable, control measures are identified. These are the measures to be enforced, unless there is evidence that a particular technology will place a prohibitive burden on the industry as a whole. In the proposed steam

‐ electric ELG s, this standard has been ignored. Control technologies were identified, sorted into eight regulatory options, and ordered in terms of their relative impact on controlling the discharge of pollutants. Regrettably, the two mostEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 532 stringent of these options we re then eliminated from further consideration

— that is, not designated as “preferred”

— without EPA presenting evidence demonstrating that they were either technologically or economically unachievable.
EPA’s eight regulatory options for its effluent limitati ons guidelines and standards for steam electric power generators are shown above in Table 2. 104 Options 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were introduced in EPA’s original proposal; 105 Options 3a, 3b, and 4a were introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its review of the proposal. 106 Options described in bold text below are those designated by OMB as preferred, and, therefore, presented in more detail in the Federal Register (see also Table 2 above).
Option 1 differs from current EPA regulations by requi ring chemical precipitation for FGD wastewater, but it would allow status quo practices (such as use of unlined impoundments) to continue for fly ash and bottom ash transport water. As with all eight proposed versions of the regulation, Option 1 also requi res vapor ‐ compression evaporation for gasification wastewater and chemical precipitation for nonchemical metal cleaning wastewater.
Option 2 is identical to Option 1, with a single exception: Option 2 requires biological treatment, in addition to chemical precipitation, for FGD wastewater.
Option 3 adds zero

‐ discharge dry handling for fly ash transport water and flue gas mercury control wastewater to Option 2’s chemical precipitation and biological treatment for FGD wastewater.
Option 3a (introduced by O MB) is a weakened version of Option 3: controls for FGD wastewater would be determined on a case by case basis by permitting authorities using “best professional judgment.”
Option 3b (introduced by OMB) is an alternative weakening of Option 3: for FGD wast ewater, the requirement of chemical precipitation is consistent with Option 3, but biological treatment is required only for plants with capacity equal to or greater than 2,000 MW; biological treatment at smaller plants would be determined on a case by cas e basis by permitting authorities using “best professional judgment.”
Option 4 improves on Option 3’s chemical precipitation and biological treatment for FGD wastewater, and zero

‐ discharge dry handling for fly ash transport water and flue gas mercury cont rol wastewater with two additions: zero

‐ discharge dry handling for bottom ash transport water and chemical precipitation of coal combustion residual leachate.
Option 4a (introduced by OMB) is a weakened version of Option 4: surface impoundments are permit ted for bottom ash transport water at plants with capacity equal to or less than 400 MW, and the removal of suspended solids is permitted for combustion residual leachate.
Option 5 strengthens Option 4’s control requirements by replacing biological treatm ent of FGD wastewater with vapor

‐ compression evaporation systems.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 533 104 Benefit

‐ Cost Analysis, p.3

‐ 9

105 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source C ategory , as submitted to the Office of Budget and Management in accordance with Executive Order 12866

106 Office of Budget and Management, Revisions to: Proposed Rule: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 16 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 21 External Review Flag: No External Revie w External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s “preferred alternatives” for steam electric ELGs

Well

‐ supported subcategorization of an industry is permitted. Aside from this subcategorization process, however, Congress’ mandate t o EPA in the Clean Water Act requires that pollution control technologies be eliminated from consideration for BAT only on grounds of:

4. Stringency: There are other more effective technologies for controlling the discharge of pollutants from a particular effluent stream.

5. Technological achievability: The proposed technology is not achievable (i.e. cannot be purchased or installed).

6. Economic achievability: The cost of proposed technology is, in EPA’s determination, an unreasonable burden to the indus trial category as a whole (here, all steam electric generators other than oil

‐ fired generating units and generating units with capacities 50 MW or smaller).
EPA’s original proposal recommended Options 3 and 4 as preferred, 122 and only performed its full ec onomic analysis using the IPM model on those two options. The EPA proposal found Options 1 and 2 to be too lax

— “neither option would represent the best available technology level for steam electric power plant discharges” 123

— and rejected Option 5 even thou gh “without question, Option 5 would remove the most pollutants from steam electric power plantEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 534 discharges.” 124 EPA’s elimination of Option 5 from consideration for this rulemaking was made on economic grounds: “EPA did not select Option 5 as its preferred option for BAT because of the high total industry cost for the option...and because of preliminary indications that Option 5 may not be economically achievable.” 125
OMB’s review required EPA to instead recommend Options 3, 3a, 3b, and 4a, and introduced the following language to EPA’s proposed guidelines to explain the rejection of Option 4 (discussed above).
EPA does not include Options 1 and 2 among its “preferred alternatives” on the basis that there are other more effective technologies than those that would be required under these regulatory options. 126
The grounds for EPA’s decision to exclude Options 4 and 5 from its preferred alternatives are not well established. EPA’s failure to include Options 4 and 5 results in the elimination of the following co ntrol technologies from BAT consideration:

 Dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller

 Chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate

 Vapor

‐ compression evaporation of FGD wastewater (Option 5 only)

All thr ee of these technologies are more effective than those included in among EPA’s preferred alternatives and are technologically achievable (see Table 9).
The following sub

‐ sections demonstrate that the control technologies removed from consideration when Options 4 and 5 were not designated as “preferred”

— dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller, chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate, and vapor

‐ compression evaporation for FGD wastewater

— meet the criteria set out in the Clean Water Act for BAT. That is, these control technologies are: 1) more stringent than the technologies required in EPA’s preferred options; 2) technologically achievable in the United States today; and 3) economically achievabl e for the steam electric industry as a whole.
Table 9. Eliminated control technologies

Eliminated Technology Comparative Stringency Use in the Steam Electric IndustryEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 535 Dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller "Under Options 1, 3a, 2, 3b, 3, and 4a

(for units less than or equal to 400 MW), effluent limitations and standards for bottom ash transport water would be set equal to the current BPT effluent limitations,based on the technology of gravity settlin g in surface impoundments to remove suspended solids... Although surface impoundments can be effective at removing particulate forms of metals and other pollutants, they are not designed for nor are they effective at removing other pollutants of concern su ch as dissolved metals and nutrients. The concentrations of pollutants that remain in the wastestream at the ash impoundment effluent, in combination with the large volumes of bottom ash transport water discharged to surface waters, results in a large mass loading of pollutants of concern being discharged from surface impoundments. Effluent limitations and standards based on the technologies used as the basis for Options 4a (for units more than 400 MW), 4, and 5 would completely eliminate the discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water."(pp.34,461

‐ 34,462) 283 steam electric units in the United States employ dry handing systems for bottom ash transport water. (p.34,454)

Chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate "Under Options 1, 3a, 2, 3b, 3, and 4a,

effluent limitations and standards for leachate from surface impoundments and landfills containing combustion residuals would be set equal to the current BPT effluent limitations, based on the technology of gravity settling in surface im poundments to removesuspended solids...[S]ince surface impoundments are not designed for, nor are they effective at, removing other pollutants of concern such as dissolved metals, EPA used chemical precipitation/coprecipitation as the technology basis for Options 4 and 5. Physical/chemical treatment systems are capable of achieving low effluent concentrations of various metals and are "The pollutants of concern in leachate are the same pollutants that are present in, and in many cases are also pollutants of concern for, FGD wastewater, fly ash transport wastewater, bottom ash transport water, and other combustion residuals...Given the similarities present among the different types of wastewaters associated with combustion residuals, combustion residual leachate will be similarly amenable to chemical precipitation treatment. The treatability of pollutants such as arsenic and mercury us ing chemical precipitation technologyEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 536

effective at removing many of the pollutants of concern present in leachate discharges to surface waters."(pp.34462

‐ 34,463 ) is also demonstrated by technical information compiled for ELGs promulgated for other industry sectors."(p.34,454)

Vapor

‐ compression evaporation of flue gas desulfurization wastewater (Option 5 only) "Although EPA did not select Option 5 as

the preferred BAT option, without question, Option 5 would remove the most pollutants from steam electric power plant discharges."(p.34,473) "Two U.S. plants and four Italian plants are operating this technology to treat FGD wastewa ter from their coal

‐ fired generating units."(p.34,460)

Source: 78 Fed. Reg.

122 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, as submitted to the Office of Budget and Management in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

123 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,472.

124 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,473.

125 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,473.

126 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,472

‐ 34,473.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 16 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 537 Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 28 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The goal of the Clean Water Act is to eliminate all pollution in U.S. surface waters. The most stringent of the regulatory options proposed by EPA do much mo re to eliminate more water pollution from power plants, do more to protect the environment, and save more human lives than would their less stringent “preferred” counterparts. Options 4 and 5

— the most pollutant

‐ reducing regulatory options presented by EPA

—have been eliminated from consideration as steam

‐ electric ELGs inappropriately. Elimination from BAT consideration under the Clean Water Act requires one of the following:

1. Insufficient stringency: There are other more effective technologies for controlling the discharge of pollutants from a particular effluent stream. 2. Lack of technological achievability: The proposed technology is not achievable (i.e. cannot be purchased or installed). 3. Lack of economic achievability: The cost of proposed technology is, in EPA’s determination, an unreasonable burden to the industrial category as a whole (here, all steam electric generators other than oil

‐ fired generating units and generating units with capacities 50 MW or smaller).

Benefit

‐ cost analysis is not a permissible criterion for determining BAT under the Clean Water Act. Regulatory benefit

‐ cost analyses notoriously overestimate costs and underestimate benefits, and the benefit

‐ cost analysis for the proposed steam electric ELGs is no exception.
Option 4 is less strin gent only than Option 5, and is both technologically and economically achievable. Option 5 passes all three tests.
Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 16 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 6.

Commenter Name: Thomas Cmar Commenter Affiliation: Earthjustice, et al. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4686

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 29 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 538 Comment Excerpt:
Option 4 should be among EPA’s preferred options
Control technologies for Option 4

— dry handling of bottom ash transport water for units with capacities 400 MW or smaller, and chemical precipitation of combustion residual leachate

— are more effec tive at controlling the discharge of pollutants than are the Options selected by EPA as “preferred.” These control technologies are also

— as documented by EPA in this rulemaking

— technologically achievable. Furthermore, EPA itself describes Option 4 for as “ economically achievable” and fails to make a case that it would be a burden to industry. EPA’s rationale for eliminating Option 4 from consideration is based entirely on a subcategorization of the steam

‐ electric industry that has not been appropriately jus tified in this docket.
Option 5 is BAT for the steam

‐ electric industry
The sole additional control technology found in Option 5 but not in Option 4

— vapor ‐ compression evaporation

— makes Option 5 the most effective of all the proposed steam

‐ electric regulator y options at controlling the discharge of pollutants. Option 5 is technologically achievable; zero

‐ liquid discharge technologies are used to control similar pollutants in many other industries, in several steam

‐ electric plants in the United States, and in several more abroad.
Option 5 is also economically achievable. EPA has not demonstrated that Option 5 would be a burden to the steam electric industry. The measures of economic achievability presented by EPA are deeply flawed; EPA itself states that the metric for which it presents an adverse result for Option 5

— the cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratio

— “does not generally indicate whether profitability is jeopardized, cash flow is affected, or risk of financial distress is increased.” 163 Option 5’s cost

‐ effectiveness is within the bounds of those of approved ELGs (and is biased upward by the same faulty assumption used in the cost

‐ to

‐ revenue ratio), EPA presents no evidence of its plant closures, its household costs are negligible, and it results in an average annual i ncrease of 2,112 jobs.
In addition, as the vapor

‐ compression evaporation industry has developed, new designs and operation methods have become available. For example, Veolia’s press materials claim that the CoLDTM technology has the lowest capital and oper ating costs of all zero liquid discharge processes; CoLD has been successfully implemented at facilities in multiple industries. 164 More generally, zero liquid discharge capital costs have dropped precipitously over the past decade. According to Bill Heins, general manager of thermal products and zero liquid discharge for GE Water and Process Technologies, total capital costs for installation dropped as much as 65 percent over the past seven years. 165

Option 5 is BAT for the steam

‐ electric ELGs.

163 Regulatory Impact Analysis, p.4

‐ 2.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 539 164 Veolia Water. (2013). The CoLD Process: ZLD Wastewater Treatment for Coal

‐ fired Generation. Case Study, Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies. http://www.veoliawaterstna.com/vwst

‐ northamerica/ressources/documents/1/30047,CoLD

‐ Coal

‐ TDS

‐ 1

‐ 22.pdf.

165 Global Water Intelligence. (2009, December). From zero to hero

– the rise of ZLD. Global Water Intellig ence, 10(12). http://www.globalwaterintel.com/archive/10/12/market

‐ ins ight/from

‐ zero ‐ to

‐ hero

‐ the

‐ rise

‐ of

‐ zld.html

. Comment Response:
See responses to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 16 and DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4684

- A1, Excerpt Number 46.
As described in Section 7.1.4 of the TDD, a vendor of the evaporat ion system for treating FGD wastewater has developed a system that does not require a chemical precipitation or lime

softening step. Therefore, the FGD wastewater can be sent directly into the evaporation and crystallization process that is operated at a l ow temperature for optimizing the FGD wastewater chemistry. At a lower temperature, dissolved solids will crystallize ( e.g. , hydrates and double salts) at lower concentrations. Therefore, this system does not produce any additional sludge from chemical add itions, allows the evaporated water to be reused, and produces stable solids for disposal [Veolia Water Solution, 2013; ERG, 2015e]. EPA is aware of one coal

- fired power plant that operates a full

- scale CoLD TM process system; however, it is not used to treat FGD wastewater. In addition, EPA lacks sufficient data on which to base industry

- level compliance costs using this technology configuration and the commenter did not supply data that can be used to support such an analysis.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Overall Duke Energy Supports: EPA’s rejection of Options 4 & 5.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 540 Commenter Name: Mark W. Metcalf Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Public Service Co rporation (WPS) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4770

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Because of the small contribution of toxics and high treatment costs for bottom ash transport water, WPSC supports Options 1 through 3 (including 3a and 3b), which would set effluent limits for bottom ash transport water attainable by treatment in a settling pond and equal to the current Best Practical Tech nology (BPT) limits for bottom ash transport water. WPSC does not support Options 4 and 5, which would require dry bottom ash handling systems, remote mechanical drag systems, or impoundment based systems that eliminate the discharge of bottom ash transpor t water at all facilities. Options 4 and 5 are not justified as they would require significant modifications at over 200 generating facilities, including the WPSC J.P. Pulliam and Weston Generating facilities.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.
Also see responses to Comment Codes 6.i.ii, 6.i.v, and 6.i.vi.

Commenter Name: Paul Nazaryk Commenter Affiliation: BHP Navajo Coal Company (BNCC) and San Juan Coal Company (SJCC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4380

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The proposed ELG rule will encourage power plants to move toward the "dry handling" of CCR material and minimize these risks. As such, BNCC and SJCC support "dry handling" requirements for certain CCR wastes including fly ash and flue gas mercury control wastewater. See Comment # 2 below.

1. The EPA

-

preferred Options 3a. 3b.and 3, which specify water tech nology and treatment standards for existing direct dischargers are both environmentally protective and cost effective. As a result, BNCC and SJCC would support adoption of any one of these three approaches.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 541 EPA

- preferred Options 3a, 3b, and 3 specify water technology and treatment standards for existing power plants with wastewater discharge permits. These options require the "dry handling" of fly ash and flue gas mercury control waste, chemical precipitation combined with biological treatment for flue gas desulfurization wastewater , and chemical precipitation for nonchemical metal cleaning wastes. The standards included in these options are all environmentally protective, yet remain cost effective. As a result, we support adoption of any one these three a pproaches .

In contrast, EPA

- preferred Option 4a along with the other Options 4 and 5 would place an unrealistic and unnecessary financial burden on utilities.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4770

- A2, Excerpt Number 1.

Comment er Name: Michalene Reilly Commenter Affiliation: Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4471

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 23 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Respon se: No
Comment Excerpt:
In conclusion, Hoosier strongly believes Regulatory Options 3b, 3, 4a, 4, and 5 are not economically achievable or feasible to implement at Hoosier's electric generating facilities. Hoosier would support Regulatory Option 1 , or, Option 2, provided it is modified to remove the biological treatment requirement.
Comment Response:
The final rule establishes limitations and standards applicable to the discharge of pollutants from the steam electric power generating industry based on the “best available technology economically achievable” and the “best available demonstrated control technology,” as those terms are used in sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act.
EPA determined that the technologies represented by Regulatory Option D represent Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (except for discharges from “small” or oil

- fired generating units) because they are available and economically achievable (i.e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and have acceptab le non

- water quality environmental impacts as required by the Clean Water Act (see preamble Section VIII). Also see responses to Comment Code 6.i.ii.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 542 Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
We Energies strongly supports EPA’s determination that Options 4 and 5 are not the preferred regulatory options for existing dischargers.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1, Excerpt Number 8.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 543 6.i.v. Support/oppose Option 3a/3b

Commenter Name: Chas Spell Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Public Service Company Document Contr ol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4303

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 6 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
For FGD wastewaters, APS supports Options 3a and 3b. The “Best Professional Judgment” (BPJ) approach proposed for FGD wastewaters should specify that it does not mean the permit writer has no standards for decision. To the contrary, the standards for maki ng “BPJ” decisions have long been prescribed by 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d). The permit writer “must consider” the listed statutory factors, including cost. See Clean Water Act 304(b) (2), (4) (B), 306(b) (1) (B). EPA should acknowledge in the final rule "BPJ" li mits for FGD wastewater should not include chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and zero discharge as they are not cost

- effective. Because none of these three treatment options are cost

- effective, they cannot be required if "BPJ" is used.

Comment Response:
The final rule is not based on proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b (or the specific suites of technologies that form the bases for these options), in part, due to the fact that they would require effluent limitations and standards for discharg es of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater to be determined on a Best Professional Judgment (“BPJ”) basis. See preamble Section VIII and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 in Comment Code 6.j.i. The final rule is based on R egulatory Option D for existing sources and Regulatory Option F for new sources. See preamble Section VIII for EPA’s rationale for selecting these options, and the technology bases they represent, for the final rule, as well as its rationale for rejecting other options.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that “limits for FGD wastewater should not include chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and zero discharge as they are not cost

- effective.” For the reasons explained in the preamble, except for exi sting small and oil

- fired generating units (see preamble Section VIII.C.12), EPA determined that chemical precipitation plus biological treatment represents Best Available Technology Economically Achievable for the control of discharges of FGD wastewater b ecause it is available and affordable for the industry as a whole, and it has acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts (see preamble Section VIII). For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 544 Commenter Name: P. J. Becker Commenter Affiliation: City Water, Light and Power (CWLP) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4349

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES).
CWLP agrees with the proposed rule options 3a and 3b for the PSES. Options 3a and 3b (under Option 3b for units locate d at plants with a total wet

- scrubbed capacity of less than 2,000 MW), the regulations would not specify PSES for FGD wastewater, and publicly owned treatment works (POTW) would need to develop local limits. CWLP has worked with our local POTW to allow for some of our WFGD treated effluent to be discharged to the POTW. CWLP has obtained a wastewater discharge permit with our POTW and we work very closely with them to in order to maintain our permit specific limits.
Comment Response:

The final rule is not based on proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b (or the specific suites of technologies that form the bases for those options), which the commenter supports. EPA did not select for the final rule any regulatory option that would have required limitations and standards for discharges of FGD wastewater to be based on the permitting authority’s “best professional judgement” for the reasons explained in preamble Section VIII.C.1. For existing sources, except for small and oil

- fired generating units (see preamble Section VIII.C.12), the final rule establishes limitations and standards for discharges of FGD wastewater that are based on chemical precipitation plus biological treatment (see preamble Section VIII.C.1). The selected technology basis for the final limita tions and standards for this wastestream, which achieves significant pollutant reductions, is available and affordable to the industry as a whole, with acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. See also Section IV of the preamble for an explanati on of how PSES are analogous to BAT limitations.

Commenter Name: Bruce W. Ramme Commenter Affiliation: We Energies Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4475

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Revi ew Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 545 In general, We Energies partially supports EPA’s proposal of Options 3a, 3b, 3, or 4a (see 78 Fed. Reg. at 34,468

– 34,470) as the preferred alternatives for BAT for existing dischargers. The Company be lieves most of the proposed preferred alternatives are adequate as written but believes some parts should be reconsidered (e.g., FGD wastewater BAT selection).
Comment Response:
The final rule is not based on the proposed options supported by the commen ter (options 3a, 3b, 3 or 4a), or on the specific suites of technologies that form the bases for those options. For an explanation of why EPA selected Option D for existing sources for the final rule, as well as why it rejected other options, see Section V III of the preamble. EPA cannot respond to the commenter’s statement that “most of the preferred alternatives are adequate as written but . . . some parts should be reconsidered” because it is too generalized and without explanation or basis. Nevertheless, EPA’s decision to establish BAT limitations for the discharge of FGD wastewater based on chemical precipitation plus biological treatment (except for existing small and oil

- fired generating units, see preamble Section VIII.C.12)) is explained in Section V III.C.1.

Commenter Name: Stephen M. Frank Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc. Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4510

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Discharges Directly to Surface Water from Existing Facilities

- Preferred Option 3a
Based on the extensive data collected by EPA, NRG supports the alternatives for Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) referred to as Option 3a for discharges directly to surface water from existing facilities. Specifically, we support establishing BAT of:

1. Numeric effluent limits for copper and iron in discharges of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes (where these limits are already enforc ed). We support EPA’s proposed exemption from new copper and iron BAT limitations for any existing discharges of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes that are currently authorized without iron and copper limits as is the case for many facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio. 2. Effluent limits for bottom ash transport water and combustion residual leachate from landfills and surface impoundments that are equal to the current Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) effluent limits for t hese discharges.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 546 The final rule is not based on proposed regulatory option 3a (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that option), which the commenter supports. See Section VIII of the final rule preamble for an explanation of why, for the final rule, EPA selected Regulatory Option D for existing sources and why it rejected other regulatory options. In particular, the final rule does not include a requirement that FGD wastewater limitations and standards be estab lished on a Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) basis, unlike proposed Option 3a (see preamble Section VIII.C.1). See also response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 in Comment Code 6.j.i.
For the reasons explained in Section VIII of the p reamble, the final rule also does not establish BAT limits for discharges of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes, nor does it establish BAT limits for the discharge of bottom ash transport water that are equal to the previously established BPT limits (except in the case of discharges from existing small and oil

- fired generating units, see preamble Section VIII.C.12). The final rule does, however, establish a BAT limit on TSS in discharges of combustion residual leachate that is equal to the previously establi shed BPT limit on TSS in low volume waste sources.

Commenter Name: Brian Brazil Commenter Affiliation: TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC (TCG) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4665

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No E xternal Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Overall, TransAlta supports EPA’s choice of the option listed as 3b in Table VIII of the proposal. This option allows much stronger control of wastewater emissions than previo us ELGs while allowing permitting agencies some discretion on what technology is economically feasible for their regulated sources.
Comment Response:
The final rule is not based on proposed regulatory option 3b (or the specific suite of technologies that forms the basis for that regulatory option), which the commenter supports. See Section VIII of the final rule preamble for an explanation of why, for the final rule, EPA selected Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources and wh y it rejected other regulatory options. In particular, Section VIII.C.1 explains why the final rule does not require limitations and standards for discharges of FGD wastewater to be established on a “best professional judgment” basis. As explained in Secti on VIII.C.9 of the preamble, EPA determined that the final limitations and standards are economically achievable for the industry as a whole.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 547 Commenter Name: Julia M. Blankenship Commenter Affiliation: American Municipal Power, Inc. (AMP) Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4670

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
AMP commends EPA for identifying a variety of options in the Proposed ELG Rule, i ncluding four options ‘‘preferred” by the agency. Of these, AMP would prefer either Option 3a or Option 3b, which achieve the goal of environmental protection while requiring less expensive and less extensive retrofits or modifications for compliance.

Com ment Response:
The final rule is not based on proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b (or the specific suites of technologies that form the bases for those options), which the commenter supports. See Section VIII of the final rule preamble for an explanatio n of why, for the final rule, EPA selected Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources and why it rejected other regulatory options. In particular, Section VIII.C.1 explains why the final rule does not require limitations and stan dard for discharges of FGD wastewater to be established on a “best professional judgment” basis.

Commenter Name: S. L. Phillips Commenter Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5509

- A2 C omment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
While Option 1 is the most cost

- effective approach and preferred Option for LDEQ, Option 3a is a mix of practical treatment technologies for applicable waste streams at generating units in the state and is the LDEQ preferred Option out of the 4 EPA preferred options. Engineering and cost analyses indicate that, with the exception of biological treatment, the treatment costs un der this option are cost effective and significantly less than those proposed under Option 4a, an option with some of the highest estimated costs. LDEQ supports selecting Option 3a (excepting biological treatment) out of the EPA preferred options as this r epresents the best balance between environmental benefit and implementation costs.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 548 The final rule is not based on the options supported or referenced by the commenter (option 1 or option 3a), or the specific suites of technologies that form the bases for those options. See Section VIII of the final rule preamble for an explanation of why, for the final rule, EPA selected Regulatory Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources and why it rejected other regulatory options. In particular, Section VIII.C.1 explains why the final rule does not require limitations and standards for discharges of FGD wastewater to be established on a “best professional judgment” basis. In addition, EPA determined that the final rule is affordable f or the industry as a whole (see Section VIII.C.9 of preamble).

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 549 6.i.vi. Support Option 3

Commenter Name: Nancy A. Evans Commenter Affiliation: PPL Services Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4348

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 16 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No

Comme nt Excerpt:
PPL believes that the best balance of environmental protection, cost

- effectiveness, and regulatory finality is achieved by Regulatory Option 3, with the appropriate modification to remove requirements for biological treatment unless the speci fic limits for the parameters of concern or modified to properly reflect what the technology can achieve. Accordingly, we request EPA to adopt that approach in the final ELGs.
Comment Response:
EPA did not base the final ELGs on proposed Option 3 (or the specific suite of technologies that form the basis for that option). The final rule is based on Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources, for the reasons explained in section VIII of the preamble.

For the role of cost

- effectiveness in E PA’s decisions for the final rule , see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in C omment C ode 6.h. The limitations and standards in the final ELGs properly reflect what the BAT/BADCT technologies can achieve. See Section 13 of the TDD and the preamble.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 550 6.i.vii. Support/oppose Options 3/4a

Commenter Name: Public Hearing Transcript Commenter Affiliation: Public Hearing Transcript Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3920

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 147 External Review Flag: N o External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
And for these reasons, I support EPA's choice of Option 3 or 4 for the steam electric ELG.
Comment Response:
The commenter noted that limiting the amount of toxic dischar ges will save lives, prevent illnesses, and protect freshwater ecosystems. This commenter also noted that the benefit and cost analyses for the proposed rule estimate that the rule will produce hundreds of millions of dollars of public health benefits as w ell as secondary health benefits. The commenter quoted estimated CO 2 reduction impacts associated with Options 3 and 4 and expressed support for those options.
EPA did not base the final ELGs on proposed Option 3 or 4a (or the specific suite of technologie s that form the bases for those options). The final rule is based on Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources. For a description of these options, and the reasons EPA selected them, as well as why it rejected other options, see preamble s ection VIII. Although EPA did not select the proposed Options 3 or 4, the final rule sets zero discharge limitations and standards and other discharge requirements that EPA estimates will collectively remove 1.4 billion pounds of pollutants annually, as de scribed in preamble section III.

Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
1. Technology Basis Options
The Department believes Options 3 or 4a are the best options for implementation in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, because they a pply definitive technology based standards to all coal combustion facilities. These options, especially 4a, do the most to advance the fundamental goal of the NPDES program by eliminating discharges fromEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 551 impoundments. These options are also preferable to the Department because they do not rely on best professional judgment (BPJ) decisions. The Department supports promulgation ofthe effluent limit guidelines requirements found in Option 3 or 4a because they will significantly improve the tools available to the States for effective permit development.
Comment Response:
EPA did not base the final ELGs on proposed Options 3 or 4a (or the specific suite of technologies that form the bases for those options). The final rule is based on Option D for existing sources and Option F for new sources. For a description of these options, and the reasons EPA selected them, as well as why it rejected other options, see Section VIII of the preamble. Although EPA did not select the proposed Options 3 or 4, the final rul e sets zero discharge limitations and standards and other discharge requirements that EPA estimates will collectively remove 1.4 billion pounds of pollutants annually, as described in preamble section III.
EPA agrees with the commenter that, where EPA has the information to establish nationally applicable, technology

- based effluent limitations and standards, such limitations and standards are generally preferable to those developed on a “best professional judgment” (BPJ) basis. This is due, in part, to the fact that national limits provide predictability and clarity to the regulated entities, as well as affected communities, and they reduce the burdens associated with developing limits on a site

- specific basis. For the reasons explained in Section VIII of th e preamble, the final rule continues to reserve BAT/PSES/NSPS/PSNS for discharges of nonchemical metal cleaning wastes.

Commenter Name: Pamela Ritger Commenter Affiliation: Clean Wisconsin Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4632

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 19 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The EPA is vested with the authority and duty to protect the citizens of the United States from environmental harm. In the case o f coal combustion wastewater, the EPA has failed to perform its duties to protect the health of our people, wildlife and ecosystems for far too long. The often

cited excuse for not passing adequate regulation necessary to protect public health is cost. In this case, the cost to end the dumping of toxic pollutants from coal power plants would cost less than one percent of annual revenue for most coal plants and about two pennies a day for Americans if electric utilities passed on part of their cleanup costs to consumers, or less than $7 per year. 50 It is a miniscule price to pay compared to the health care costs of treating cancer or the lifelong costs of caring for a child born with developmental or cognitive disorders. Therefore, not only should the EPA a dopt Option 4a to comply with its duty to protect the American people, wildlifeEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 552 and environment, but adopting the most stringent option also makes economic sense. As in most scenarios, the price of preventing illness pales in comparison to treating illness . The EPA should apply this same logic to its duty to regulate polluters, and protect human health to the best of its ability by adopting Option 4a.

50 Environmental Integrity Project et al., Closing the Floodgates: How the Coal Industry Is Poisoning Our Water and How We Can Stop It, p. 2 (July 2013). Available
at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/2013_07_23_Cl osingTheFlo odgates

- Final.pdf
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5049

- A1, Excerpt Number 1 in Comment Code 6.i.viii.

Commenter Name: Jerry Purvis Commenter Affiliation: East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc. (EKPC) Document Cont rol Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4455

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EKPC's baseload generating capacity is from three coal

- fired generating stations

- Spurlock Station, Dale Station, and Cooper Station. The three stations have a combined output capacity of approximately 1,900 MW. When evaluating our approach to providing comments on the rule, EKPC focused on the impacts of the rule at Spurlock Station since Spurlock Station has two pulverized coal boilers (325 MWs and 555 MWs capacity, respectively) with two wet flue gas desulfurization ("FGD") systems. The ELG shall impact EKPC's coal

- fired fleet, a perfect example of a smaller electric utility.

EKPC will be severely financially impacted by the cost of compliance associated with EPA's proposed ELGs for coal

- fired steam electric utilities under any of EPA's four preferred alternatives. However, the most stringent preferred alternatives, Options 3 and 4a, are economically unachievable and are not otherwise justified as Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable ("BAT"). Specifically, as set forth below, under Option 4a and at Spurlock Station alone, EKPC would incur capital costs in exces s of $145 million to install treatment technologies to meet the proposed standards. Option 3 would require capital investments of approximately $90 million. As discussed herein, adoption of the most stringent proposed BAT alternatives is not justified, an d EKPC supports adoption of preferred regulatoryEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 553 Option 3a or 3b as the basis for the final ELGs. EKPC appreciates the opportunity to provide the following comments section

- by

- section for the EPA to consider during final rulemaking.

..... In sum, EKPC cont ends that the record does not support selection of preferred Options 3 or 4a as BAT with respect to FGD wastewater, especially for smaller coal

- fired utilities and generating stations, such as those operated by EKPC. The economic achievability evaluation u nderestimated the capital and operating costs of the necessary treatment systems; significant technical achievability issues remain; and the environmental benefit analysis of reductions in selenium that were performed by EPA were based upon an improper ben chmark, as the 1987 recommended water quality criterion for aquatic life is outdated and known to be overly conservative.

..... This fits within the confines of Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) and the rules intent. EKPC supports EPA in clearly defining th e water quality standards, BPJ, BPT, BAT, and other technology based limits. A clearly defined target provides opportunity for innovation, engineering design and creativity.
EKPC appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments on such an important ru lemaking for the electric

- generating industry. As set forth above, EKPC respectfully requests that EPA reject preferred Options 3 and 4a as BAT as they would subject coal

- fired utilities to unreasonable costs and would mandate compliance with emission limi tations that may not be technologically achievable for limited additional environmental benefit.
Comment Response:
EPA did not base the final rule on proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b. Rather, the final rule is based on Option D for existing sources a nd Option F for new sources. For a description of these options, and the reasons EPA selected them, as well as why it rejected other options, see preamble section VIII. EPA determined the final rule is technologically available, economically achievable (i. e., affordable) for the industry as a whole, and has acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. See preamble section VIII.
EPA disagrees that the rule is not affordable, including for “smaller” plants, as the commenter suggested. As discussed in preamble section IX and the RIA, EPA’s analysis for the final BAT limitations demonstrates that they are economically achievable for the point source category as a whole, as required by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA performed cost and economic impact

asses sments using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) and concluded the rule would have a minimal effect on steam electric generating capacity. These IPM results support EPA’s conclusion that the final rule is economically achievable. For additional information on economic achievability, see Sections VIII and IX of the final preamble and the RIA. EPA did consider the size of the generating unit, and ultimately determined that it would be appropriate to establish differentiated BAT limitations and PSES for genera ting units that are less than or equal to 50 MW, for the reasons explained in preamble section VIII. Again, taking these differentiatedEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 554 requirements into account, EPA’s analyses show that the final limitations and standards are achievable for the industry as a whole, with little projected impact in terms of change in steam electric generating capacity, as well as a host of other metrics. See the RIA.
EPA disagrees that the effluent limitations developed for the final rule are not technologically available. EPA documented the technological availability of each technology used as the basis for the final ELGs and presented the basis for the limitations promulgated in Sections 7 and 13, respectively, of the TDD.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s estimate of cos ts. Because the commenter does not provide any details related to its cost estimates, EPA was not able to specifically review the cost basis for the estimated value presented for the commenter’s plant. However, EPA reviewed all comments received and, where specific information was included, updated costs associated with the installation and operation of the model technologies, based on the treatment already in place at each plant.
Regarding the benchmark used for selenium, see the response for DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4455

- A1, Excerpt Number 21 in Comment Code 25.f.ii.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 555 6.i.viii. Support Options 4/4a

Commenter Name: J. and A. MacDonald Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5049

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 Ex ternal Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
I urge the EPA to finalize the rules for the above mentioned docket, and I respectfully submit that the EPA should select option 4a for existing source s and option 4 for new sources.
While these are likely to have the highest estimated costs, and are likely to result in the most active push back by the power industry, I believe these could have overall lower costs than the other options. This is because it is exceedingly difficult to estimate the costs of negative externalities such as impairment of overall health of our population, and effects on fish stocks that may result from the introduction of toxic metals into our water. As an example, it is very difficult to say how much a given level of metal pollution increases overall health costs, and so that usually doesn't get taken into account when assessing costs and benefits.
In addition, it has taken 30 years to update the rules governing the emission o f toxins from power plants . it takes an inordinate amount of time and effort to make these changes and whatever rule is finalized will not be updated for perhaps another 30 years. Because of this, we should be as restrictive as possible now while we have the chance .
Comment Response:
Although EPA did not select proposed Option 4a for existing sources or proposed Option 4 for new sources, the regulatory options EPA selected as BAT/NSPS for the final rule reflect the same technologies (or ones that achie ve greater pollutant reductions) than the options supported by the commenter, with the exception of one wastestream.
For BAT, there are two main differences between proposed Option 4a and Option D, which is the option selected as the basis for BAT limitat ions in the final rule. In the final rule, EPA established zero pollutant discharge requirements for bottom ash transport water for units greater than 50 MW, whereas the proposed rule Option 4a would have only established such requirements for units greate r than 400 MW. Also, for the reasons explained in the preamble, EPA reserved BAT limitations for non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes. See the final preamble for a detailed discussion of the final requirements and the selection of Option D as the basis for BAT limitations in the final rule.
For new sources, the final rule establishes NSPS based on evaporation for FGD wastewater, but reserves NSPS for non

- chemical metal cleaning wastes for the reasons specified in the preamble.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 5 56 NSPS for the other wastestream s in the final rule are the same as those in proposed Option 4, the option advocated for by the commenter. See the preamble section VIII for a detailed discussion of the final requirements and the selection of Option F as the basis for NSPS in the final ru le.
EPA revised its cost estimates of the final rule based on public comments. See the final TDD, RIA, and BCA. While EPA has available data to estimate the costs of technologies, EPA does not have available data to estimate cost off

- sets such as monetize d reductions associated with improvements to human health (“impairment of overall health of our population”) or positive effects on fish stocks as suggested by the commenter. EPA agrees that, due to a lack of information, it is often difficult to produce m onetized estimates of benefits associated with reductions in discharges of pollutants.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 557 6.j.i. Oppose BPJ

Commenter Name: Thomas W. Easterly Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5553

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

Flue Gas Desulfetization (FGD) Wastewater
1. Two of the regulatory options for the steam electric generation in Table 8

- 1 (3a and 3b) require Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) determination using Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) for FGD wastewater. All the steam electric generating stations in Indiana fall under 2,000 MW wet scrub bed capacity. If one of these two options is selected as final, Indiana will need to detetmine site specific BAT using BPJ for FGD wastewater for the majority of the steam electric generation facilities in Indiana. Requiring states to use BPJ to conduct a BAT detetmination that sets Technology Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) creates a significant burden for the state. In Indiana alone, for example, almost 25 permits will be renewed during the next permit cycle. Indiana lacks the personnel and technical resour ces needed to assess the performance wastewater treatment technologies and develop cost estimates of various options. While the case

- bycase site specific BPJ option(s) allow flexibility, Indiana prefers that EPA set the technology

- based effluent limitation s (TBELs) based on a BAT standard. Additionally, the BPJ option would likely create inconsistencies and would require extensive time and resources to not only perfmm the analysis, but also defend the decisions in the event that permits are challenged by ei ther the facility or third party groups.
Additionally, once

- through scrubbers for the FGD waste stream technology were not evaluated in the draft rule; this may have been based on the assumption that this type of technology will be eliminated. We would not have corresponding reference information to use drafting permits if the BPJ option is finalized.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 in Comment Code 6.j.i regarding BPJ and the response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

- 4607

- A1, Excerpt Number 4 in Comment Code 5.b regarding EPA’s analysis of once

- through scrubbers.

Commenter Name: J. Madras Commenter Affiliation: Missouri Department of Natural Resources Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1 Co mment Excerpt Number: 6Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 558 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Options 3a and 3b require BPJ for removal of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. Option 3a requires BPJ for all faci lities and 3b for facilities less than 2,000 MW. For Missouri, only Ameren

- Labadie and Associated Electric

- Thomas Hill are facilities that are greater than 2,000 MW, leaving the majority of Missouri's power plant permits subject to a BPJ decision.
Best pro fessional judgment requires permit writers to make a decision based on financial and economic information available. This leaves the permits open to challenges from the facility and possible third parties, which leads to uncertainty and inconsistencies. A clearly defined technology basis makes the decision based on multiple, nationwide stakeholders and groups, which provides more information and holds the states and permittees to the same standard, thus removing individual and regional differences in pe rmits.
2. Best Professional Judgment
Some of the proposed options leave permit requirements subject to the permitting authority's BPJ, introducing risk that alternatives would be missed, the best decision would not be made, the decision would be open to co mment, and possible appeal by the facility or third party organizations. EPA has already invested significant resources in evaluating facilities, technologies and economic impacts. BPJ avoids having the guideline set the technology based standard that i s achievable across the country, creating uncertainty and inconsistency in the regulatory environment. Missouri is currently at an impasse on power plant permits, due in large part to this regulatory uncertainty. Competing interests have frequently preven ted implementation of any new requirements for these facilities, even those improvements successfully negotiated with the industry.
Options 3a and 3b require BPJ for removal ofFGD wastewater. 3a requires BPJ for all facilities and 3b for facilities less than 2,000 MW. For Missouri, only Ameren

- Labadie, and Associated Electric

- Thomas Hill are facilities that are greater than 2,000 MW, leaving the majority of Missouri permits to require a BPJ decision. BPJ requires a high level of specialized training and places a significant strain on already limited staff time and limited resources available for training. BPJ requires significant investigation into, and decisions based on, economic and financial factors. At this time, Missouri's most highly trained per mit writers have limited background in economics. Missouri, like many other states, currently has little access to funding for advanced specialized training in engineering and economics.
BPJ requires permit writers to make a decision based on the informat ion available, leaving the permits open to challenges from the facilities and possible third parties. A clearly defined technology basis makes the decision based on multiple, nationwide stakeholders and groups, which provides more information and holds th e states to the same standard, thus removing individual and regional differences in permits.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 559 Comment Response:
As explained in Section VIII of the preamble, EPA did not base the final rule on proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b nor did EPA establish a r equirement that would direct permitting authorities to establish limitations for FGD wastewater using site

- specific BPJ for steam electric power plants. See Section VIII.C.1 for a discussion of why EPA rejected this approach. The rule will eliminate bur den on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4535

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 3 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
ACWA supports EPA’s establishment of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) s tandards for the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) rather than a Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) standard. The adoption of a BAT standard is consistent with the direction provided to EPA in the CWA, and EPA has collected sufficient information to warrant the establishment of a BAT standard for FGD. State water program staff rely significantly on EPA to research and collect the necessary data to determine technology

- based limits for various industrial groups. Most states lack the personnel and technical resour ces needed to undertake a BPJ analysis on a site

- specific basis, including assessing performance of wastewater treatment technologies and developing cost estimates of various options, both of which EPA has done. Additionally, for technology not evaluated i n the proposed rule, or for which cost and performance analysis data is withheld as Confidential Business Information (CBI), 3 states would not have corresponding reference information to use for drafting permits with a BPJ standard. 4 A BPJ standard could l ead to inconsistencies across states in a key industrial sector. While a BPJ standard does offer continuity with existing processes and offers flexibility, again, most states prefer a BAT standard.

3 EPA’s April 2013 report, Incremental Costs and Pollut ant Removals for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category Report (DCN SE01957), is referenced multiple times in the Technical Development Document but the report has been withheld f rom the docket due to CBI.

4 For example, states that have facilities with once

- through scrubber technology for FGD wastewater would be required to replicate large portions of the ELG development process in order to perform the BPJ analysis required to ch oose Best Available Technology (BAT) for thisEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 560 scrubber technology. This would include wastewater treatment performance and cost analysis that will be difficult for current state level staffing and technical resources. For states with facilities that predom inately utilize this technology, the result could be particularly burdensome.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes speci fied limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Donald R. Carlson Commenter Affiliation: Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 3922

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
In both Options 3a and 3b (for total plant

- level wet scrubbed capacity less than 2,000 MW), EPA is proposing that states make a Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) determina tion as to what constitutes BAT for FGD Wastewater. As indicated in the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA began reviewing the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guideline Standards following publication of the detailed study of the industry in 2009 concentrating on the FGD wastestream. EPA also conducted an in

- depth detailed survey of the steam electric industry in 2010 collecting and summarizing industry data, technology vendor data, information and data from other sources such as EPRI (Electric Po wer Research Institute) as well as economic data from the industry. States have neither the luxury nor the resources to collect and evaluate the data EPA has collected to address a handful of NPDES permits they administer. EPA should establish BAT in the effluent guideline standards. In the case of the proposed rule, if EPA requires states to use BPJ to establish BAT criteria for the designated wastestream, it would be likely that if an industry decides to contest the state's determination as to what con stitutes BAT for the FGD wastewater, the state will end up not only having to defend it's technical, enviromnental, and economical determination, but will have to justify that decision in light of EPA having not made a similar determination when finalizin g the proposed rule. Where EPA has identified a BAT technology in the proposed rule, they should make a BAT determination for the entire industry rather than establishing multiple options, (eight in this case) for consideration. Due to the ever dwindlin g staffing and resources available to states, EPA should be making the call regarding BAT for the FGD wastewater.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 561 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authoritie s to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Shellie Chard

- McClary Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4181

- A2 Comment Excerpt Nu mber: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
DEQ supports EPA's establishment of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) standards for the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) rather than a Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) standard. The adoption of a BAT standard is consistent with the direction provided to EPA in the CWA, and EPA has collected sufficient inf01mation to warrant the establishment of a BAT standard for FGD. States rely on EPA to research and collect the necessary data to determine technology

- based limits since most states lack the personnel and technical resources needed to undertake a BPJ analysis on a case

- by

- case basis. Additionally , for technology n ot evaluated in the proposed rule, or for which cost and performance analysis data is withheld as Confidential Business Information (CBI), states would not have corresponding reference information to use for drafting permits with a BPJ standard. A BPJ standard could lead to inconsistencies across states in a key industrial sector. While a BPJ standard does offer continuity with existing process and offers flexibility, it is difficult for states to make the required analysis.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Doris Cooksey Commenter Affiliation: City Pub lic Service of San Antonio (CPS Energy) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 10 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 562 Option 3a that allows permi t writers to use best practical judgment (BPJ) is not our preferred option. State staff is limited and will be taxed with making this decision and EPA has extensive knowledge of the process.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 081 9

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 7 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Duke Energy does not support best professional judgment (BPJ) as this option will place undue burden on the NPDES permitting authorities and the industry, will result in an unevaluated increase in cost to the state agencies and further delay the installation of a model technology.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Com ment Excerpt Number: 37 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Duke Energy does not support best professional judgment (BPJ) as an appropriate regulatory option for establishing BAT limit s for FGD wastewater. This option will place undue burden on the NPDES permitting authorities and the industry and will result in an unevaluated increase in cost to the state agencies and further delay in the installation of a model technology.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 563 Comment Res ponse:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4283

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: Cari Boyce Commenter Affiliation: Duk e Energy Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3 Comment Excerpt Number: 46 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Duke Energy does not support EPA option 3a using Best Prof essional Judgment (BPJ) to determine BAT limits for FGD wastewater. This option creates considerable uncertainty and will require a significant amount of resources to perform these evaluations nationwide, not only from the industry, but also from the state NPDES permitting authority. In addition, not only will the state need the resources to conduct the BPJ determination, it is also expected the state and others will have to spend considerable additional resources defending every BPJ decision. This will jus t further delay the installation of technology improvements for treating FGD wastewater and would further delay any potential environmental benefit. Even though the state NPDES permitting authority has the authority to determine BAT limits based on BPJ, hi storically, the states have relied on EPA to establish BAT limits due to this lack of resources. It is, therefore, not justified for EPA to regulate this decision to the state level in a national rulemaking, especially when costs to be incurred by the stat e were not evaluated or considered by EPA.
Furthermore, the uncertainty associated with a BPJ determination creates considerable challenges with long

- term capital planning for a utility, since the determination of the specific technology required for compl iance would not be known until the NPDES permit renewal. For a utility, such as Duke Energy, with a large number of potentially affected units, the ability to plan appropriately for the numerous technology installations is critical. Without the certainty, the capital costs to comply with the limits could increase dramatically and thus, directly adversely affect every customer.
Comment Response:
For the final rule, EPA did not select proposed regulatory options 3a or 3b for final regulation because it has sufficient information to establish BAT requirements for FGD wastewater. See preamble section VIII.C and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities to the extent it establishes sp ecified limitations and standards.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 564 Commenter Name: Nancy A. Evans Commenter Affiliation: PPL Services Corporation Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4348

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
6.In the final rule EPA should adopt a modified Option 3 approach to enhance regulatory certainty and cost

- effectiveness.
In the present regulatory environment of increased scrutiny of coal

- fired generatio n, power plants

– even when conducting operations in good faith and in strict compliance with applicable environmental rules

– often find themselves subject to permit challenges, citizen suits, and other legal challenges. In some instances, the “second

- gue ssing” inherent in such challenges has resulted in delays in implementing new regulatory requirements, unnecessary costs incurred by permittees forced to change compliance strategies, and controversies which serve the interested of neither EPA nor the faci lities. Both merchant and regulated utility power generators have found this regulatory uncertainty to be a major impediment to efficient compliance planning.
EPA has proposed eight regulatory options for consideration in this rulemaking. To achieve compli ance with the final ELGs (regardless of which option is ultimately adopted), it will be necessary for power plants to make substantial investments of both time and money. PPL views it as critical for EPA to adopt a regulatory approach in the final ELGs whi ch promotes the most efficient implementation of new requirements and minimizes the risk of prolonged legal challenges of regulatory determinations made in good faith. At a minimum, such legal challenges create continuing uncertainty for the regulated comm unity. However, these challenges also pose the risk of unnecessary costs that can substantially increase the price of electricity to the

consumer.
We urge EPA to avoid regulatory approaches in the final rule which focus on subjective mechanisms (e.g., stan dards based on case

- by

- case application of best professional judgment) that only enhance the risk of second

- guessing through subsequent legal challenges (e.g., Option 3a). A modified Option 3 that takes into account our concerns about the ELG numerical lim itations and the capabilities of the technologies that EPA has evaluated is preferable.
Comment Response:
EPA did not establish a requirement that would direct permitting authorities to establish limitations for FGD wastewater using site

- specific BPJ. Se e response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 46. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities and delay related to legal challenges to the extent it establishes specified li mitations and standards.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 565 Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 93 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA also suggests a possible “BPJ” approach to determining proper FGD wastewater treatment. Southern does not favor a BPJ approach, as it fails to provide the industry with much certainty. However, if EPA applies a BPJ approach, it must specify that it doe s not mean the permit writer has no standards for decision. To the contrary, the standards for making “BPJ” decisions have long been prescribed by 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d). The permit writer “must consider” the listed statutory factors, including cost. See Cle an Water Act §§ 304(b)(2)(B), (4)(B), 306(b)(1)(B).
If EPA does include an option for “BPJ” limits for FGD wastewater, it should acknowledge that the data developed in this very rulemaking establish that chemical biological treatment and zero discharge are not cost

- effective, and chemical precipitation may be cost effective only for plants with a maximum design flow rate greater than 200 gpm. On the other hand, if selenium in the plant’s final discharge does not meet the water quality standards for the rece iving stream, the permitting authority can establish appropriate and protective water quality based effluent limits as part of the facility’s NPDES permit.
Comment Response:
EPA did not promulgate Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) limits for FGD wastewate r for steam electric power plants in the final rule. See preamble section VIII.C and responses to DCN EPA

HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6 and DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4305

- A3, Excerpt Number 46. Comments related to guidance EPA should offer on BP J limitations for FGD wastewater are not relevant to the final rule.
EPA did establish limits for FGD for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the TDD and the record for the rule. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Ron Shipman Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Power Company Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4447

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 27 External Re view Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 566 Comment Excerpt:
BPJ Would Not Provide Industry With Much Certainty.
EPA suggests a possible "BPJ" approach to determining proper FGD wastewater treatment. Georgia Power urges EPA to reconsider a BPJ approach because it fails to provide the industry with much certainty. However, if EPA applies a BPJ approach, it must specify that it does not mean the permit writer has no standards for decision. To the contrary, the standards f or making "BPJ" decisions have long been prescribed by 40 C.P.R. § l25.3(d). The permit writer "must consider" the listed statutory factors, including cost. See Clean Water Act§§ 304(b)(2)(B), (4)(B), 306(b)(l)(B). If EPA does include an option for "BPJ " limits for FGD wastewater, it should acknowledge that the data developed in this very rulemaking establish that the following systems are not cost effective for reasons set forth above: (1)biological treatment plus chemical precipitation; (2) zero liquid discharge (ZLD) treatment; and (3) vapor compression

- evaporation. Therefore, none of these three treatments can be required if "BPJ" is used.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 93. For the role of cost

- ef fectiveness analysis in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Elizabeth E. Aldridge, Hunton & Williams Commenter Affiliation: UWAG Document Control Numbe r: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4655 Comment Excerpt Number: 132 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA also suggests a possible “BPJ” approach to determining proper FGD wastewater treatment. UWAG does not favor a BPJ approach, as it fails to provide the industry with much certainty. However, if EPA applies a BPJ approach, it must specify that it does not mean the permit writer has no standards for decision. To the contrary, the standards f or making “BPJ” decisions have long been prescribed by 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d). The permit writer “must consider” the listed statutory factors, including cost. See Clean Water Act §§ 304(b)(2)(B), (4)(B), 306(b)(1)(B).
If EPA does include an option for “BPJ ” limits for FGD wastewater, it should acknowledge that the data developed in this very rulemaking establish that chemical biological treatment and ZLD are not cost

- effective, and chemical precipitation may be cost effective only for plants with a maximum design flow rate greater than 200 gpm.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 567 Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 93. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt N umber 27 in Comment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Kevin D. Frizzell Commenter Affiliation: Owensboro Municipal Utilities (OMU) Elmer Smith Station (ESS) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4683

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 11 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:

9. Best Professional Judgment (BPJ):
OMU ESS is doesn’t believe BPJ is a sound option because it does not provide a certainty in planning for future compliance. If BPJ is directed to the permit writer, then the EPA should acknowledge that the data developed in the proposed rule for chemical precipitation, biological treatment, and zero liquid discharge are all not cost

- effective approaches. These three should be el iminated if BPJ is used.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 93. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Co mment Code 6.h

.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 5140

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 73 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
EPA also suggests a possible “BPJ” approach to determining proper FGD wastewater treatment. Neither APPA nor UWAG favor an open

- ended BPJ approach, as it fails to provide th e industryEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 568 with much certainty. However, if EPA applies a BPJ approach, it must specify that it does not mean permit writers have no standards for decision. To the contrary, the standards for making “BPJ” decisions have long been prescribed by the CWA. 24 P ermit writers “must consider” the listed statutory factors, including cost. 25
If EPA does include an option for “BPJ” limits for FGD wastewater, it should acknowledge that the data developed in this very rulemaking establish that chemical precipitation, bi ological treatment, and zero discharge are all not cost

- effective, for the reasons set out in these comments. None of these three treatments should be required if “BPJ” is used.

24 See 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(d).

25 See Clean Water Act §§ 304(b)(2)(B), (4)(B), 3 06(b)(1)(B).
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4379

- A1, Excerpt Number 93. For the role of cost

- effectiveness in EPA’s decisions for the final rule, see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

2009

- 0819

- 4655, Excerpt Number 27 in Comment Code 6 .h

.

Commenter Name: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Commenter Affiliation: Raven Power Holdings, LLC Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4467

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Raven Power does not support the Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) (options 3A, 3B). These options will place an undue burden and cost on both industry and NPDES permitting authorities.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6.

Commenter Name: JoAnne Rau Commenter Affiliation: Dayton Power & Light Company (DP&L) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4470

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 5 External Review Flag: No External Rev iew External Review Incorporated into Response: NoEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 569 Comment Excerpt:
The Use of Best Professional Judgment
Pursuant to Option 3a, USEPA is contemplating a possible "BPJ" approach to determining proper FGD wastewater treatment. While in general DP&L suppo rts flexibility in the application of regulations for treating wastewater, in this instance DP&L does not believe a BPJ approach is appropriate for FGD wastewater given the lack of mature, commercially available and demonstrable technologies for treating t his wastewater stream.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that there is a lack of mature, commercially available, and demonstrable technologies for treating FGD wastewater. As explained in Section VIII of the preamble, consistent with the statute, EPA’s sel ected regulatory option is based on technologies that are available, demonstrated, economically achievable, and have acceptable non

- water quality environmental impacts. EPA’s record indicates that 45% of all plants with wet scrubbers are already able to meet the BAT effluent limitations. These plants either do not discharge their FGD wastewater or they have the BAT or more advanced technology that can meet the effluent limitations.
EPA did not establish a requirement that would direct permitting author ities to establish limitations for FGD wastewater using site

- specific BPJ. See preamble section VIII.C and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6.

Commenter Name: Peter A. Tennant Commenter Affiliation: Ohio River Valley Water S anitation Commission (ORSANCO) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4512

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Options 3a and 3b use Best Profession al Judgment (BPJ) for choosing the FGD treatment technology. ORSANCO and its member States believe that this will place an undue burden on the States to individually develop the expertise to evaluate all the potential technologies as well as the economics of each option. It may also potentially open the permits up to legal challenge. Therefore we urge EPA to reject options 3a and 3b.
Comment Response:Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 570 See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities and delay related to legal challenges to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.

Commenter Name: H. Morriss Barney IV Commenter Affiliation: Texas Municipal Power Agency (TMPA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4584

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
TMPA prefers having the certainty of Best Available Technology (BAT) to the open ended Best Profe ssional Judgment (BPJ) approach, since BPJ fails to provide the industry with certainty. BAT may have a higher cost than other options, but the certainty is important for municipalities that are faced with costly business decisions. BAT provides more certa inty on effluent controls than other options and therefore lowers long

- run cost for public power utilities.
Comment Response:
EPA decided not to establish a requirement that would direct permitting authorities to establish limitations for FGD wastewater using site

- specific BPJ. The rule will eliminate burden on permitting authorities and delay related to legal challenges to the extent it establishes specified limitations and standards.
See preamble section VIII.C and response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 43 83

- A1, Excerpt Number 6.

Commenter Name: Jeff Udd Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4606

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 2 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The MPCA requests that the proposed regulations contained in regulatory options 3a and 3b as identified in 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432 not be included in the final regulations due to the inclusion of Best Professi onal Judgment (BPJ) requirements for regulation of discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) waste streams. BPJ determinations defer the identification of attainableEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 571 treatment limits to individual permit authors on a case

- by

- case basis rather than est ablishing a uniform federal standard. Therefore these proposed regulations would fail to complete the task with which the EPA is charged under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and would instead be likely to create inconsistencies in the way FGD was tes are regulated at the national level.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. EPA’s record indicates that 45% of all plants with wet scrubbers are already able to meet the BAT effluent limitations. These p lants either do not discharge their FGD wastewater or they have the BAT or more advanced technology that can meet the effluent limitations. The rule will limit the burden on permitting authorities and provide certainty to industry and a level playing fi eld to the extent that it specifies limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Jeff Udd Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4775

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 1 External Review Fl ag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
The MPCA supports the revision of these regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to maintain up

- to

- date federal standards to which dischargers in this category of point sources will be subject. To that end, the MPCA requests that the proposed regulations contained in regulatory options 3a and 3b as identified in 78 Fed. Reg. 34,432 not be included in the final regulations due to the inclusion of Best Pro fessional Judgment (BPJ) requirements for regulation of discharges from Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) waste streams. BPJ determinations defer the identification of attainable treatment limits to individual permit authors on a case

‐ by

‐ case basis rather tha n establishing a uniform federal standard. Therefore these proposed regulations would fail to complete the task with which the EPA is charged under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and would instead be likely to create inconsistencies in the way FG D wastes are regulated at the national level.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. EPA’s record indicates that 45% of all plants with wet scrubbers are already able to meet the BAT effluent limitations. Th ese plants either do not discharge their FGD wastewater or they have the BAT or more advanced technology that can meet the effluent limitations. The rule will limit the burden on permitting authorities and provide certainty to industry and a level playi ng field to the extent that it specifies limits in the final rule.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 572 Commenter Name: Kelly Jean Heffner Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4811

- A1 Comment Excerpt Numb er: 1 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
With regard to the EPA identified four preferred options, Options: 3a, 3b, 3, and 4a, PaDEP favors option 3. PaDEP does not believe it to be appropriate, (options 3a and 3b), to install an Effluent Limitations Guideline (ELG) that directs the permit writer to use Best Professional Judgment (BPJ). The purpose of an ELG is to establish uniform minimum treatment standards for the wastestream, wit h the BPJ process only applicable when the ELG has not been developed or does not address the process or pollutants of concern.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6. The rule will limit the burden on permitt ing authorities and provide certainty to industry and a level playing field to the extent that it specifies limits in the final rule.

Commenter Name: Zak Covar Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4985

- A2 Comment Excerpt Number: 8 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
Establishing Limits Based on Best Professional Judgment
TCEQ is opposed to the revised rulemaking specificall y requiring establishment of effiuent limitations based on BPJ in lieu of BAT numerical standards
EPA has established various preferred options for various waste streams in the revised effluent guidelines in the rulemaking pr eamble. Several options identify not establishing Best Available Technology (BAT) standards and in the alternative, specifically require permitting authorities to establish limits based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ). TCEQ is opposed to the revised

ru lemaking specifically requiring establishment of effluent limitations based on BPJ, and if EPA does not choose to specifically establish BAT numerical standards, the revised effluentEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 573 guidelines should remain silent in establishing effluent limitations for these specific waste streams.
Comment Response:
See response to DCN EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4383

- A1, Excerpt Number 6.Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 574 6.j.ii. Support BPJ

Commenter Name: Patrick Finigan Commenter Affiliation: Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4529

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 4 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:


### 3.Unique Facility Wastewater Treatment Configurations
On average, individual facilities have unique configurations, which include combined wastewater treatment system, that precludes upstream monitoring and may affect compliance achievement. Because of the significant expense of requiring these facilities to completely reconfigure their existing operations, the final rule should provide facilities with existing combined wastewater treatment with an alternative option for setting its effluent discharge limits.
Under this approach, a qualifying facility would have the option to undertake a Best Prof essional Judgment (BPJ) process with their state regulator to set the plant

- specific effluent limitations based on a number of factors, including the ELGs otherwise applicable to the facility and the unique operational and technical limits that preclude th e facility to comply with these ELGs through the existing combined wastewater treatment system. It is our understanding that the number of facilities with this concern is quite small, and a BPJ option will provide an adequate process for addressing both m onitoring and compliance concerns on a case

- by

- case basis.
In addition, sources with unique design considerations that affect compliance should be given an alternative BPJ process that would assist in finding the most reasonable compliance option.

Comment Response:
This commenter raises a couple of issues: upstream monitoring and BPJ permitting. The final rule does not establish a proposed anti

- circumvention provision that would have required internal monitoring to demonstrate compliance with certain nume ric limitations and standards. See Section VIII of the preamble for additional information. Also, Section XVI of the preamble provides additional information on approaches for existing facilities with combined wastewater to address combined wastestreams.
With respect to BPJ permitting, in general, the final rule establishes limitations and standards for a variety of wastestreams as such BPJ is not available for those wastestreams. BPJ is only applicable in the absence of effluent guidelines. See CWA sectio ns 301(b) and 402(A)(1). See Chapter 5 of the NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual. Also, see Section VIII of the preamble for EPA’s rationale for its selection of Regulatory Option D as the basis for the final rule and its rejection of other regulatory options. T hese decisions reflect EPA’s view of what represents BestEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 575 available technology economically achievable (existing sources) or best available demonstrated control technology (new sources) for the industry as a whole.
EPA notes the availability of variances as allowed for by the CWA in the preamble to the final rule. These include Fundamentally Different factors variances (301(n)), economic variances 301(c)(nonconventional pollutants), and water quality variances (301(g) Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent guidelines for certain nonconventional pollutants (ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols):

FDF Variances
In the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added section 301(n). This provision explicitly authorizes modif

ications of the otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations, if a discharger is fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in CWA section 304 or 403 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in establishing the effluent limitatio ns and standards. CWA section 301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA can establish alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for approval of a FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information submitted during rulemaking raising the factors that are fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation must be no less stringent than justified by the difference and must not result in markedly more adverse n on

- water quality environmental impacts than the national limitation.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, subpart D, authorizing the Regional Administrators to establish alternative limitations, further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF

v ariance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR § 125.31(d) identifies six factors ( e.g. , volume of process wastewater, age and size of a discharger's facility) that can be considered in determining if a discharger is fundamentally different. The Age ncy must determine whether, based on one or more of these factors, the discharger in question is fundamentally different from the dischargers and factors considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent guidelines. The regulation also lis ts four other factors ( e.g. , inability to install equipment within the time allowed or a discharger's ability to pay) that cannot provide a basis for an FDF variance. In addition, under 40 CFR § 125.31(b) (3), a request for limitations less stringent than the national limitation can be approved only if compliance with the national limitations will result in either (a) a removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non

- water qua lity environmental impact (including energy requirements) fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during development of the national limits. The legislative history of CWA section 301(n) underscores the necessity for the FDF variance applican t to establish eligibility for the variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR § 125.32(b)(1) and 40 CFR § 403.13 impose this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's permit that are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact, fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in establishing the applicable guidelines and standards. In practice, very few FDF variances have been granted for past ELGs. An FDF varian ce is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or PSNS. DuPont v. Train , 430 U.S. 112 (1977)Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 576 Economic Variances
Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes a variance from the otherwise applicable BAT effluent guidelines for nonconventional pollutants due to economic factors. See also CWA section 301(l). The request for a variance from effluent limitations developed from B AT guidelines must normally be filed by the discharger during the public notice period for the draft permit. Other filing periods can apply, as specified in 40 CFR § 122.21(m)(2). Specific guidance for this type of variance is provided in “ Draft Guidance f or Application and Review of Section 301(c) Variance Requests, ” dated August 21, 1984, available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/OWM0469.pdf

. Water Quality Variances
Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes a variance from BAT effluent guide lines for certain nonconventional pollutants (ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols) due to localized environmental factors. As this final rule does not establish limitations or standards for any of these pollutants, this variance is not applic able to this particular rule.
With respect to BPJ permitting, in general, the final rule establishes limitations and standards for a variety of wastestreams as such BPJ is not available for those wastestreams. BPJ is only applicable in the absence of effl uent guidelines. See CWA sections 301(b) and 402(A)(1). See Chapter 5 of the NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual. Also see Section VIII of the preamble for EPA’s rationale for its selection of Regulatory Option D as the basis for the final rule and its rejection of other regulatory options.

Commenter Name: Erin Bartlett Commenter Affiliation: The Large Public Power Council (LPPC) Document Control Number: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4573

- A1 Comment Excerpt Number: 9 External Review Flag: No External Review External Review Incorporated into Response: No
Comment Excerpt:
EPA’s Technical Development Document (TDD) recognizes that there is a wide assortment of FGD designs, coal types using FGD, and existing FGD wastewater control systems. 10 To address this situation, LPPC suggests that state regulators should be given the flexibility to assess the circumstances present at an individual facility. Thus, source

‐ specific Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) standards may be appropriate in certain instances. 11 When needed, a B PJ process could be obtained by sources through an application or waiver process stating why the facility requires a separate process. A BPJ process would allow for considerations of factors including remaining life of the unit, size of the unit, discharge flow rate, and any physical constraints that would preclude chemical precipitation, and thus would be an important option for small or uniquely situated units. However, LPPC emphasizes that the BPJ process shouldEffluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Gener ating Point Source Category:

EPA’s Response to Public Comments

4

- 577 only be an alternative that the facility o wner or operator elects in those situations where the application of chemical precipitation is not technically or economically feasible.

10 Tables 4

‐ 11 and 4

‐ 12 on page 4

‐ 30 of the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Gui delines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, EPA

‐ 821

‐ R

‐ 13

‐ 002, April 2013 (TDD) note the number of different coal types and pollution control designs in the industry. The text on page 6

‐ 2 of the TDD states that “[t]h e pollutant concentrations in FGD wastewater vary from plant to plant depending on the coal type, the sorbent used, the materials of construction in the FGD system, the FGD system operation, the level of recycle within the absorber, and the air pollution control systems operated upstream of the FGD system.”

11 Several LPPC members with larger capacity plants (>2000MW) note that MW capacity is not an appropriate threshold for BPJ or other ELG limitations, also noting that FGD slurry blowdown flow rates fr om larger plants such as theirs is a small fraction of the approximately 1.2 million gallons per day (MGD) average cited on page 6

‐ 2 and in Table 6

‐ 1 of the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for th e Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category, EPA

‐ 821

‐ R

‐ 13

‐ 002, April 2013.
Comment Response:
EPA disagrees that the BPJ process should be an alternative “that the facility owner or operator elects.” As described in Section VIII of the preamble, EPA determined Regulatory Option D is available and economically achievable for the industry. Also see response to DCN EPA

- HQ

OW

- 2009

- 0819

- 4529

- A1, Excerpt Number 4.