# HUNTON WilliAMS

November 25,2014



### VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Mr. Ronald Jordan Engineering and Analysis Division EPA Headquarters William Jefferson Clinton Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code 4303T Washington, DC 20460 HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP RIVERFRONT PLAZA, EAST TOWER 951 EAST BYRD STREET RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219-4074

TEL 804 • 788 • 8200 FAX 804 • 788 • 8218

ELIZABETH E. ALDRIDGE DIRECT DIAL: 804 •788 • 8549 EMAIL: ealdridge@hunton.com
FILE NO: 29142.070312



### RE: Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rulemaking: Additional Bottom Ash Transport WaterData
DearRon:
As discussed in our September 10 meeting, the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) has collected and analyzed additional samples ofbottom ash transport water (BATW), and we are submitting those analyses withthis letter. See Attachment 1for all sample characterization data, and Attachment 2 for certificates ofanalyses and chain ofcustody forms for each sample. We requestthat you considerthese analyses and this letter as you work to finalize the revised steam electric effluent limitations guidelines.
These newdata support UW AG'

# spositionthat further regulating BATWis not cost effective. Some ofthe ponds sampled are dedicated bottom ash ponds, and some receive a variety oftypical wastewaters in addition to BATW. The pollutant loading exiting bothtypes ofponds is very low, which results in a very high costpertoxic-weightedpound equivalent (TWPE) removed. 1. 

### Sampling Methodology
UWAG collected BATW samples from the following facilities:

ATLANTA AUSTIN BANGKOK BEIJING BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE DALLAS HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES McLEAN MIAMI NEW YORK NORFOLK RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN FRANCISCO TOKYO WASHINGTON www.hunton.com

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page2

Table 1. Summary ofFacilities Sampled Facility State Date Sampled Coal Type AEP/Kammer 

## wv 4/2/14 Bituminous OVEC/KygerCreek OH 4/2/14 Bituminous Indiana Michigan IN 6/4/14 Bituminous Power/Tanner's Creek Mississippi Power/Daniel MS 7/31114 Bituminous/ Subbituminous GreatRiver Energy/Stanton ND 8/5/14 PowderRiver Basin HoosierEnergy/Ratts IN 8/27114 Bituminous
The plant information sheets (Attachment 3) contain additional background and operational dataregarding each ofthe facilities sampled, including source waterbody, capacity, and bottom ashpond characteristics such as depth, volume and estimated residence time. One of the facilities, Daniel, recycles its bottom ash pond effluent for use as sluice water. UWAGbelieves the data from the six bottom ashponds sampled are representative of BATW characteristics for the industry as a whole. Three ofthe ponds are used to treat wastewaters other than BATW, including coal pile runoff, metal cleaning wastes, and low volume wastes. Two ofthe three ponds used to treat otherwastewaters also receive mill rejects. 1 The table below describes the wastewaters received by these three ponds.
Table 2. Wastewaters Treated in Bottom Ash Ponds Facility OtherWastewater EnteringPond BoilerBlowdown Filter Backwash Mill Reject Sluice Stanton Ion Exchange wastewater Boiler Seal wastewater Coal Pile Runoff BottomAsh Sluice

1Mill rejects are dense materials found in coal that are too hard to be ground bythe mills to the desired size for burning in the boilers. This material may include scrap steel, hard coal, rocks with quartz, and iron sulfide minerals such as pyrite and marcasite.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November25, 2014 Page 3

Facility

Daniel

Ratts Other WastewaterEnteringPond Stormwater Coal Pile Runoff AshLandfill Stormwater BoilerTube Cleaning wastewater Ion Exchange wastewater Combined Cycle Unit wastewater Combined Cycle Oil/Water Separator wastewater Yard Drain Wastewater Boller Blowdown Sewage Treatment Mill Rejects Bottom Ash Sluice Coal Pile Runoff Bottom Ash Sluice
In addition to Stanton and Daniel, Kyger Creek and Tanner's Creek also sluice or place mill rejects in their bottom ashponds. The Tanner's Creek and Stanton mill rejects are pyritic; it is unknown whether Kyger Creek's and Daniel's mill rejects are pyritic.
At each facility, the sampling team collected samples at three locations: at the source water (SP-1), at the bottom ash sluice pipe priorto entering the pond (SP-2), and at the bottom ashpondnearthe effluent (SP-3). For each facility, the three samples were collected onthe same day. For SP-1 and SP-3, we collected single grab samples. For SP-2 (bottom ash sluice pipe sample priorto entering the pond), we collected composite samples from multiple grabs overthe sluicing period. To collectthe bottom ash sluice pipe samples, once the sluicing cycle began, the sampling team waited until all the clear water inthe sluice pipe was flushed out and there was a visible presence ofash within the water leaving the pipe. The team collected grab samples at regularperiods throughout the sluicing cycle, composited them, and allowed the composited sample to settle for a minimum ofone hour. The team then collected the supernatant ofthe composite sample for analysis.
The experienced sampling crewused clean sampling in accordance with EPA Method 1669 for the collection ofmetals and mercury. The conventional samples were properly preserved and chilled to< 6°C. As required for EPAMethod 1631E, mercury field blanks

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25, 2014 Page 4

were collected at each sampling location. At locations SP-1 (source water) and SP-3 (bottom ashpond nearthe discharge), metals field blanks were collected.
The sampling crewtook field measurements ofpH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and sulfide at each sampling location. A HachModel HQ40d portable multi-meterwas usedto measure pH, conductivity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen.2 Certifiedreference standards were used for calibration ofpH and conductivity, and check standards were analyzed priorto eachmeasurementto ensure proper calibration.
The crewused a LaMotte 4456-01 sulfide testkitto test for sulfides. This kit is comparable to EPA Method 376.2 and measures downto 0.2 ppm sulfide. See Attachment 3 for all field measurements.
Fortotal mercury determination, UW AGhad all samples analyzed in accordance with EPAMethod 1631E by a laboratory specializing in analysis and speciation oftrace level mercury, CebamAnalytical, Inc. Applied Speciationperformed all total recoverable metals analyses using inductively coupled plasmatriple quadrupole mass spectrometry (ICP-QQQMS), which uses eitherreactive or collision gases thatpreferentiallyreact with interfering ions ofthe same target mass-to-charge ratios to remove interferences. TSS, TDS, chlorides, sulfate, total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total phosphorus, and TKN were preserved and analyzed using EPA-approved methods. 2. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures
For all mercury and metals samples, we used preparation blanks, certified reference materials, matrix duplicates, and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicates for Quality Control (QC). For TSS, TDS, chlorides, sulfate, total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total phosphorus, and TKN analysis, the labs followed the method-specific QA/QC procedures. All QC parameters associated with the samples were within acceptance limits. No significant issues were encountered withthe analyses except as described below:

• First, the mercury result for the bottom ashpond effluent at Tanner's Creek is Rflagged due to field contamination. The field blank at the pond effluent is ten times higherthan the average ofthe other field blanks and is essentiallythe same result as

2 At Tanner's Creek, the sampling crew used a YSI 556 multi-parameter meter for these measurements.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 5

the bottom ashpond effluent. The laboratoryrepeated the analyses ofboth samples to rule out analytical error.

• Second, the TDS results at all three sampling locations at Stanton are R-flagged due to exceeding the recommendedholding time ofseven days. These samples were analyzed onthe ninth day, and the results are recorded in Attachment 3. 

### 3. Field Measurements Confirm theAbsence ofSulfides in Bottom Ash Ponds
The field measurements detected no sulfides at SP-2 (bottom ash sluice pipe sample) or SP-3 (near-effluent bottom ash pond sample). Also, the dissolved oxygen levels recorded at the time ofsampling indicate sufficient levels ofoxygento convert any sulfide present to sulfate. Therefore, each ofthenew samples supports UWAG's contention that sulfides are not present in BATW, andthat EPA's TWPE estimates for BATW should not include sulfides. See UWAG's 2013 Comments on EPA's Proposed Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (UWAG 2013 Comments), p. 44. 

### 4. UWAG's Use ofSettled BATW Sluice Pipe Samples Overestimated the Pollutant LoadingAttributableto BATWEffluent Samples
Inits 2013 Comments, UWAGprovided characterization data for 21 samples of BATW (see Attachment 6 to UWAG's 2013 Comments). As explained in UWAG's comments and my letter ofAugust 1, 2014, UWAG collected 14 out ofthe 21 samples from the bottom ash sluice pipes priorto entering the ashponds.3 The other seven samples were collected either atthe actual bottom ashpond discharge point or nearthe discharge point.
EPA questionedthe representativeness ofUW AG's settled bottom ash sluice pipe samples, so UWAG decided to compare settled sluice pipe samples to near-effluent discharge point samples at each ofthe six facilities sampled. As anticipated, the settled bottom ash sluice pipe samples collectedpriorto entering the pond greatly overestimate the pollutant loadings attributable to bottom ashpond effluent. Forexample, the table below compares several major constituents in the Kyger Creek settled bottom ash sluice sample and the Kyger Creek near-effluent sample.

3 One ofthe 14 bottom ash sluice water samples was collected at the effluent ofthe dewatering binprior to entering the ash pond.

# HUNTON& 

# WILLIAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25, 2014 Page 6

Table3. Comparison ofCertain Constituents in Kyger Creek's Bottom Ash SluicePipe Sample and Near-Effluent Sample4
Pollutant BAS (SP-2) Near-Effluent (SP-3) Relative % Diff Aluminum (ppb) 6850 222 97% Arsenic (ppb) 8.91 0.99 J 89% Chromium (ppb) 13.2 

## u (<0.68) 95% Copper (ppb) 6.18 0.49J 92% Iron (ppb) 8240 485 94% Lead (ppb) 3.37 0.227 J 93% Mercury (ppt) 6.55 1.60 76% Nickel (ppb) 14.6 8.01 45% Selenium (ppb) 0.86 J 0.36 J 58% Averaging the pollutant characterization data for the six facilities shows that the settled bottom ash sluice pipe samples contain a much higherpollutant load overall, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Comparison ofCertain Constituents at SP-2 and SP-3, Averaging All Six Samples Together5• 6

Pollutant Average BAS Average Near- Relative% (SP-2) Effluent (SP-3) Difference Aluminum (ppb) 4085 964 76% Arsenic (ppb) 9.16 8.99 2% Chromium (ppb) 8.01 1.31 84% Copper (ppb) 9.78 1.45 85% Iron (ppb) 2656 326 88% Lead (ppb) 2.70 0.818 70%

4 U=Below MDL; J=Between MDL and RL.

5 The average result for mercury is based on five samples since the Tanner's Creek sample was Rflagged.

6 For average calculations, UWAG used J-flagged values as well as unflagged values. Forvalues <MDL, we used the MDL.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 7



### Pollutant Mercury (ppt) Nickel (ppb) Selenium (ppb) 

### Average BAS (SP-2)

3.72 8.58 1.08 

### Average Near- Relative% Effluent (SP-3) Difference 1.85 50% 3.71 57% 0.990 9%
At each ofthe six sampled facilities, the settled bottom ash sluice pipe samples contain substantiallyhigher concentrations ofpollutants than the near-effluent bottom ashpond samples. The average percent difference when comparing the settledbottom ash sluice results (SP-2locations) to the samples collected from the near-effluent bottom ashpond (SP-3 locations) for all constituents is 47% (Kammer), 36% (Kyger Creek), 29% (Tanner's Creek), 30% (Daniel), 29% (Stanton), and 47% (Ratts).
In fact, a majority ofthe constituents are lower in concentrationnearthe effluentthan in the source water entering the facility. The average source water concentrations are greater than the average pondnear-effluent concentrations for aluminum, copper, cobalt, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, lead, tin, titanium, zinc, mercury, ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, total Kjedahl nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspended solids.
Whether viewed from the individual facility perspective or as averaged across the six facilities, it is clearthat the settled bottom ash sluice pipe samples substantially overestimate bottom ash effluentpollutant loadings.
UW AG also compared its original BATW data from 21 plants to the recently collected BATW datafrom the six newplants. Using the near-effluent characterization data (SP-3) for the six new samples, the estimated TWPEs (using medians and without subtracting outthe source waterpollutant contribution) are significantly lowerthan the TWPEs UW AG calculated in its 2013 Comments, as illustrated in Table 5. 

### Table 5. TWPE and $/TWPE Comparison: Original21 Plants to 6 New Plants (Including SourceWaterContribution) OriginalData 6 New Plants 21 Plants (UW AG 2013 Comments)_ BAPond- NearEffluent_{SP-3) Capacity BAS Flow TWPE/Year $/TWPERemoved TWPE/Year $/TWPE Removed

(MW) Mgal/year Removed 1981$ Removed 1981$

<50 9.4 16 $16,492 5.8 $46,497 50-100 30.2 52 $5,597 19 $15,780

# HUNTON& 

# WILLIAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 8

Capacity BAS Flow

(MW) MgaVyear 100-150 63.8 150-200 110 200-300 152 300-400 200 400-500 197 500-700 278 700-900 308

>900 223 OriginalData 6 NewPlants 21 Plants_{UWAG 2013 Comments) BAPond- NearEffluent (SP-31 TWPENear $/TWPERemoved TWPENear $/TWPERemoved

Removed 1981$ Removed 1981$ 110 $3,106 39 $8,758 191 $2,056 68 $5,797 263 $1,780 93 $5,018 347 $1,635 123 $4,610 341 $1,954 121 $5,509 482 $1,694 171 $4,775 534 $1,902 190 $5,362 386 $3,146 137 $8,869 Therefore, UW AG's use of 14 settledbottom ash sluice pipe samples out of21 total samples in its 2013 Comments was a very conservative approach. That approach overstated BATW pollutant loadings for the industry as a whole, and reduced the dollars per TWPE result for BATW.


### 5. Bottom Ash Ponds thatTreatOtherWastewaters Do Not Have Substantially HigherTWPEs Than Ponds ThatReceive Bottom Ash Only
To evaluate whethertreating coal pile runoff, mill rejects, and metal cleaning wastes inbottom ashponds makes a significant difference in overall TWPEs, UWAG compared the TWPEs generated from the full database of25 7plants to the TWPEs generated using only the characterization datafrom the three new samples for ponds thatreceive various combinations ofcoal pile runoff, mill rejects, metal cleaning wastes, and lowvolume wastes in addition to BA TW (Stanton, Daniel, and Ratts). Table 6 provides the comparison ofTWPEs removed and $/TWPEwithout source water adjustments.

7 Since both Kammer and Ratts were included in the original grouping of21 plants and in the new sampling effort, the full database includes 25 plants.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 9

Capacity BASFlow

(MW) Mgal/year

<50 9.4 50-100 30.2 100-150 63.8 150-200 110 200-300 152 300-400 200 400-500 197 500-700 278 700-900 308

>900 223 

### Table 6: Comparison ofTWPE and $/TWPE for25 BATW Samples to Plants with BottomAsh Ponds ThatTreatCoal Pile Runoffand/orMill Rejects in the BottomAsh Pond

(No Adjustmentfor SourceWaterContribution)**~** Plants ThatTreat Other 2 Plants ThatPlace MillRejects in BA 25 Plants Wastewaters and BATW (Stanton,Daniel, Ratts) Pond (Kyger Creek, Tanner's Creek)
TWPE/Year $/TWPE TWPE/Year $/TWPE TWPE/Year $/TWPE Removed Removed Removed Removed 1981$ Removed 1981$ Removed 1981$ 12 $21,753 10 $26,689 6.9 $38,782 40 $7,383 32 $9,058 22 $13,162 84 $4,097 68 $5,027 47 $7,305 145 $2,712 118 $3,327 81 $4,835 199 $2,348 162 $2,881 112 $4,186 263 $2,157 214 $2,646 148 $3,845 259 $2,577 211 $3,162 145 $4,595 366 $2,234 298 $2,741 205 $3,983 405 $2,508 330 $3,077 227 $4,472 293 $4,149 239 $5,091 164 $7,398
The TWPEs for the three ponds that treat otherwastewaters, including coalpile runoff, metal cleaning waste, and lowvolume wastes, are lower than the overall TWPEs calculated usingall25plants. Also, UWAG compared the TWPEs for two plants8 thatplace mill rejects intheirponds to the TWPEs for all25 plants, and their TWPEs are also lower than the overall TWPEs calculatedusing all 25 plants.

8 We used Kyger Creek and Tanner's Creek for this example. The Tanner's Creek mill rejects are pyritic, and it is unknown whether Kyger Creek's mill rejects are pyritic. These plants do not treat any other wastestream in the pond otherthan BATW.

# HUNTON& WILUAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 10

From this analysis, UWAG finds that its 25-plant BATW database is representative of the industry. Itcontains plants that treat othertypical industry wastewaters with BATW and plants that place pyritic mill rejects in the ponds. 

### 6. TWPE and $/TWPE Comparisons and Adjustments
To calculate TWPEs removed from the conversion ofwetbottom ashhandling to dry or closed-loop using the model plant approach, UW AGusedthe characterization datafrom all25 plants in its database (Attachment 6 to UWAG's 2013 Comments plus the 6 new samples), with two adjustments as noted below.

• Hoosier Energy/Ratts: Inits 2013 Comments, UWAG used datareported onForm 2C (the permit application form) for the Ratts BATW characterization. Most ofthose datapoints were based on less sensitive test methods, and most ofthe results were reported as less thanthe method detection limit (MDL). Also, the original Ratts data did not include the full analyte list.9 Since UWAG had new, high quality datafrom the 2014 Ratts sampling event, we substituted the new data for the incomplete and less sensitive original data.

• Kammer: Like Ratts, Kammer supplied data for the 2013 Comments and was sampled again for the newdataset. Because UW AG analyzed the 2013 Kammer data for a full analyte set and used sensitive testmethods, we averaged the new Kammer data with the original data.
The newUWAG data setrepresents 25 facilities, including 13 bottom ash sluice pipe samples (priorto entering the pond), 11 bottom ashpond effluent ornear-effluent samples, 10 and one sample from the effluent ofa dewatering bin. UW AG usedthe revised data set to estimate TWPEs and $/TWPE.
Tables 7 and 8 belowprovide the revised cost-effectiveness analyses using the model plant approach. Tables 7 and 8 are revisions ofTables4 and 5 in UWAG's 2013 Comments

9 The original Ratts data did not include results for aluminum, barium, boron, copper, cobalt, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, sodium, tin, titanium, vanadium, chloride, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, nitrate/nitrite, and total nitrogen.

10 The eleven bottom ash pond effluent data include the effluent data from the six new plants. The settled sluice water data from these facilities were not included in the newlyrevised UW AG data set.

# HUNTON& 

# WILUAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November25, 2014 Page 11

(UWAG 2013 Comments, pp. 74-75) but use the updated UWAG datarepresenting 25 facilities. 

### Table 7: TWPE and $/TWPE Using UWAG BATW Data (25 Facilities) 11 

### (No Adjustmentfor SourceWaterContribution)
Capacity BAS Flow TWPE/Year $/TWPE Removed (MW) (Mgallyear) Removed 1981$

<50 9.4 12 $21,753 50-100 30.2 40 $7,383 100-150 63.8 84 $4,097 150-200 110 145 $2,712 200-300 152 199 $2,348 300-400 200 263 $2,157 400-500 197 259 $2,577 500-700 278 366 $2,234 700-900 308 405 $2,508

>900 223 293 $4,149


### Table 8: TWPE and $/TWPE Using UWAG BATWData (25 Facilities) (Less Source WaterContribution)
Capacity BAS Flow TWPE/Year $/TWPE Removed (MW) (Mgal/year) Removed 1981$

<50 9.4 4 $60,813 50-100 30.2 14 $20,639 100-150 63.8 30 $11,454 150-200 110 52 $7,581 200-300 152 71 $6,564 300-400 200 94 $6,030

11 See also Attachment 4, TWPEs and $/TWPE for Updated25-Plant UW AG Database.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 12

Capacity (MW)
400-500 500-700 700-900

>900 BAS Flow (Mgal/year)
197 278 308 223 TWPE/Year $/TWPE Removed Removed 1981$ 93 $7,205 131 $6,245 145 $7,012 105 $11,600
The analyses demonstrate that further regulation ofBATW is not cost effective for any units. The costper TWPE removed is far greaterthan any costperTWPE value used byEPA in the pasttojustifyrevised effluent limitations. The $/TWPEranges from $2,157 to $21,753 (1981$) for BATW (with no adjustment for the source water contribution) and from $6,030 to $60,813 (1981$) with an adjustmentreflecting the source water contribution. These results, regardless offlow rate, are much greater than the highest $/TWPE that EPA has selected for BAT inprevious rulemakings ($404 for the Electrical and Electronic Components industry category). In addition, the TWPEremovals using the updated data are 23 percent lower than the TWPE removals using UWAG's original data for 21 facilities. Comparingthe TWPE calculations with and withoutthe source water contribution demonstrates thatthe majority ofTWPEs from BATWponds originate in the source water. For example, out ofa total of 145 TWPEs removed for plants with a capacity of 150-200 MWs, 93 TWPEs, or about 64%, originate in the source water. 

### 7. Industry-wide Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Because UW AG updated its database ofBATW characterization data, we also asked its consultant, NERA Economic Consulting, Inc., (NERA) to provide a newindustry-wide cost-effectiveness analysis for BATW. 12 That analysis is Attachment 5 to this letter. Based on the new characterization data, UW AG developed newTWPE removal coefficients for BATW and BATWwith source water contributions removed. The newcoefficients are as follows:

12 The industry-wide cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted on a unit basis based on sluice water flow rates and sluicing frequency from the ICRdatabase and UWAG member input. See Attachment 14 of UWAG's 2013 Comments for a detailed description ofthe NERA methodology.

# HUNTON& 

# WilliAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 13

BATWTWPE removed/year = 1.31 x BA Sluice Annual Flow (Million Gallons/Year)
BATW (minus source water contribution) TWPE removed/year= 0.47 x BA Sluice Annual Flow (Million Gallons/Year) Using these coefficients and changing no other factors ofits analysis, NERA's estimate ofcost-effectiveness for all units is $2,588 $/TWPE removed (1981$), including source water contributions. In its September 2013 analysis, the comparable value was $1,959 $/TWPE removed (1981$). (See Attachment 14 to UWAG's 2013 Comments.) NERA's new estimate ofcost-effectiveness assuming subtraction ofsource water contributions is $7,212 $/TWPE removed.
UW AG subtracted the source water TWPEs from the total BATWTWPE to illustrate that source water is a major contributor ofTWPEs for BATW. For BATW, a large part ofthe "pounds removed" is alreadypresent inthe intake water and is not added by the powerplant. Without the adjustment for pounds ofpollutants present inthe intake water, the TWPE calculationpenalizes powerplants for pollutants naturally occurring inthe waterbody (such as iron and aluminum) and also for pollutants added by upstream users. To subtract out the contribution ofthe source water in the effluent concentrations, UWAG calculated the net difference for eachplantby subtracting the source water concentration from the BATW concentration for each analyte. Ifthe source water concentration was higher than that in the BATW, UW AG used 0 as the net difference. The net difference concentrations for each analyte were then used to calculate the TWPEs that would be removed ifeachplant converted to dry orclosed loop bottom ash handling. 13

13 UWAG calculated the bottom ash sluice rate (in million gallons peryear) based on the plants' responses in C3-3, Table C-19 ofthe ICR. Table C-19 asked for the average bottom ash sluice rate (gallons per day) and the typical frequency (days peryear). Forplants that did nothave a response for Table C-19 (missing orredacted data), UW AG used the median flow rate and frequency for comparably sized units. Intotal, 665 units at 268 plants were identified from the ICR database orthe UW AG survey responses as having wet bottom ash handling. NERA calculatedthe TWPEremoved and 1981$/TWPE based on the two bottom ash handling options in the proposedELG rule: (1) all units, and (2) units 400 MW orgreater.

# HUNTON& 

# WILLIAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25,2014 Page 14



### 8. Summary UWAGrequests that EPA considerthis newBATWdata as it works toward finalizing the rule. The BATW data UWAGhas provided is more recent and ofhigherqualitythan the BATW dataEPA used in its proposal. As UWAG noted in its 2013 Comments, all ofthe BATW and fly ash datathat EPA extracted from the 1982 Technical DevelopmentDocument orrelated documents are outdated and do not reflectthe industry's current bottom ash handling wastewater characteristics. See UWAG 2013 Comments, pp. 28-43. Some ofthe datapoints EPAused were collected before the industry had implemented the 1982 effluent limitation guidelines, and thus they are notrepresentative oftoday's discharges. All ofthe 1980s andprior datapoints EPAused were analyzed using outdated methods. And it is inconceivable that EPA would base a major rulemaking on datathat are not supported by adequate documentation, such as certificates ofanalysis, quality control reports, or chain of custody forms. See UWAG 2013 Comments, pp. 31-37. In contrast, UWAGhas provided very recent data collected under rigorous QA/QC procedures and analyzed using sensitive methods. For all ofthese reasons, UWAG's BATWdatabase is far superiorto EPA's characterization data. The UW AGBATW data from 25 powerplants are representative ofthe industry. The datarepresent a variety ofcoals, boiler types, geographic locations, andplant configurations. The database includes plants thattreat otherwastewaters, including coal pile runoff, metal cleaning wastes, and low volume wastes, with BATW, and plants that sluice orplace mill rejects, including some that are pyritic, in the bottom ash pond. Based on UWAG's analysis, the addition ofcoal pile runoff, pyrites, and otherwastewaters to bottom ashponds does not significantly affectthe TWPEs discharged from bottom ashponds. Therefore, for purposes of determining whether further regulating BATW isjustified, the treatment ofother wastewaters in bottom ashponds and the presence ofpyritic mill rejects inthe ponds are notrelevant.
Based on UWAG's full database ofBATW samples and NERA's updated industrywide cost-effectiveness analysis, and using EPA's standard metric of 1981 $/TWPE removed, any further regulation ofBATWis not cost effective, regardless ofthe capacity ofthe unit. Sincerely,

Elizabeth E. Aldridge Counsel to UWAG

# HUNTON& WILUAMS

Mr. Ronald Jordan November 25, 2014 Page 15

Attachment 1- NewBATW Data Table (6 new samples) Attachment 2- Certificates ofAnalysis for NewBATWData (including COCs) Attachment 3- Plant Information and Field Measurements (6 new samples) Attachment 4- TWPEs and $/TWPE for Updated 25-Plant UWAG Database Attachment 5

- NERA Updated Industry-wide BATW Cost Effectiveness Analysis

29142.070312 EMF_US 52958252vll