67838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION this regulation can be had only by filing 4. Best Available Demonstrated Control AGENCY a petition for review in the U.S. Court Technology/New Source Performance of Appeals within 120 days after the Standards 40 CFR Part 423 regulation is considered issued for 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources [EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–9930–48– purposes of judicial review. Under 6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources OW] section 509(b)(2), the requirements in C. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines this regulation may not be challenged Rulemaking History RIN 2040–AF14 later in civil or criminal proceedings V. Key Updates Since Proposal A. Industry Profile Changes Due to Effluent Limitations Guidelines and brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Retirements and Conversions Standards for the Steam Electric B. EPA Consideration of Other Federal Power Generating Point Source ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in Rules Category the docket are listed in the http:// C. Advancements in Technologies www.regulations.gov index. A detailed D. Engineering Costs AGENCY: Environmental Protection record index, organized by subject, is E. Economic Impact Analysis Agency. available on EPA’s Web site at http:// F. Pollutant Data ACTION: Final rule. www2.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power- G. Environmental Assessment Models generating-effluent-guidelines-2015- VI. Industry Description SUMMARY: This final rule, promulgated A. General Description of Industry final-rule. Although listed in the index, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), B. Steam Electric Process Wastewater and some information is not publicly protects public health and the Control Technologies available, e.g., Confidential Business environment from toxic metals and 1. FGD Wastewater Information (CBI) or other information other harmful pollutants, including 2. Fly Ash Transport Water whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water nutrients, by strengthening the Certain other material, such as 4. FGMC Wastewater technology-based effluent limitations copyrighted material, will be publicly 5. Combustion Residual Leachate From guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the available only in hard copy. Publicly Landfills and Surface Impoundments steam electric power generating available docket materials are available 6. Gasification Wastewater industry. Steam electric power plants VII. Selection of Regulated Pollutants either electronically in http:// contribute the greatest amount of all A. Identifying the Pollutants of Concern www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at toxic pollutants discharged to surface B. Selection of Pollutants for Regulation the Water Docket in the EPA Docket waters by industrial categories regulated Under BAT/NSPS Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, under the CWA. The pollutants C. Methodology for the POTW Pass- 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Through Analysis (PSES/PSNS) discharged by this industry can cause Washington, DC. The Public Reading VIII. The Final Rule severe health and environmental Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 A. BPT problems in the form of cancer and non- p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding B. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS Options cancer risks in humans, lowered IQ legal holidays. The telephone number 1. FGD Wastewater among children, and deformities and 2. Fly Ash Transport Water for the Public Reading Room is 202– reproductive harm in fish and wildlife. 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water 566–1744, and the telephone number for Many of these pollutants, once in the 4. FGMC Wastewater the Water Docket is 202–566–2426. environment, remain there for years. 5. Gasification Wastewater Due to their close proximity to these FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 6. Combustion Residual Leachate 7. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes discharges and relatively high technical information, contact Ronald Jordan, Engineering and Analysis C. Best Available Technology consumption of fish, some minority and 1. FGD Wastewater low-income communities have greater Division, Telephone: 202–566–1003; Email: [email protected]. For 2. Fly Ash Transport Water exposure to, and are therefore at greater 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water risk from, pollutants in steam electric economic information, contact James 4. FGMC Wastewater power plant discharges. The final rule Covington, Engineering and Analysis 5. Gasification Wastewater establishes the first nationally Division, Telephone: 202–566–1034; 6. Combustion Residual Leachate applicable limits on the amount of toxic Email: [email protected]. 7. Timing metals and other harmful pollutants that SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 8. Legacy Wastewater 9. Economic Achievability steam electric power plants are allowed Organization of This Preamble 10. Non-Water Quality Environmental to discharge in several of their largest Table of Contents Impacts, Including Energy Requirements sources of wastewater. On an annual 11. Impacts on Residential Electricity basis, the rule reduces the amount of I. Regulated Entities and Supporting Prices and Low-Income and Minority toxic metals, nutrients, and other Documentation Populations pollutants that steam electric power A. Regulated Entities 12. Existing Oil-Fired and Small plants are allowed to discharge by 1.4 B. Supporting Documentation Generating Units billion pounds; it reduces water II. Legal Authority for This Action 13. Voluntary Incentives Program withdrawal by 57 billion gallons; and, it III. Executive Summary D. Best Available Demonstrated Control A. Purpose of the Rule Technology/NSPS has social costs of $480 million and B. Summary of Final Rule E. PSES monetized benefits of $451 to $566 C. Summary of Costs and Benefits F. PSNS million. IV. Background G. Anti-Circumvention Provision DATES: The final rule is effective on A. Clean Water Act H. Other Revisions January 4, 2016. In accordance with 40 B. Effluent Guidelines Program 1. Correction of Typographical Error for 1. Best Practicable Control Technology PSNS CFR part 23, this regulation shall be Currently Available 2. Clarification of Applicability considered issued for purposes of 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control I. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on Technology J. Best Management Practices November 17, 2015. Under section 3. Best Available Technology Economically IX. Costs and Economic Impact 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of Achievable A. Plant-Specific and Industry Total Costs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67839

B. Social Costs 2. Improved Ecological Conditions and Order 13563: Improving Regulation and C. Economic Impacts Recreational Use Benefits From Surface Regulatory Review 1. Summary of Economic Impacts for Water Quality Improvements B. Paperwork Reduction Act Existing Sources 3. Market and Productivity Benefits C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 2. Summary of Economic Impacts for New 4. Air-Related Benefits (Human Health and D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Sources Avoided Climate Change Impacts) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism X. Pollutant Reductions 5. Benefits From Reduced Water XI. Development of Effluent Limitations and Withdrawals (Increased Availability of F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation Standards Ground Water Resources) and Coordination With Indian Tribal XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental C. Total Monetized Benefits Governments Impacts D. Other Benefits G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of XIII. Environmental Assessment XV. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Children From Environmental Health A. Introduction A. Methodology Risks and Safety Risks B. Summary of Human Health and B. Results H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Environmental Impacts XVI. Regulatory Implementation Significantly Affect Energy Supply, C. Environmental Assessment A. Implementation of the Limitations and Distribution, or Use Methodology Standards I. National Technology Transfer and D. Outputs From the Environmental 1. Timing Advancement Act Assessment 2. Applicability of NSPS/PSNS 1. Improvements in Surface Water and 3. Legacy Wastewater J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions Ground Water Quality 4. Combined Wastestreams To Address Environmental Justice in 2. Reduced Impacts to Wildlife 5. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes Minority Populations and Low-Income 3. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk B. Upset and Bypass Provisions Populations 4. Reduced Threat of Non-Cancer Human C. Variances and Modifications K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Health Effects 1. Fundamentally Different Factors Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, 5. Reduced Nutrient Impacts Variance Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in E. Unquantified Environmental and 2. Economic Variances This Preamble Human Health Improvements 3. Water Quality Variances F. Other Secondary Improvements 4. Removal Credits I. Regulated Entities and Supporting XIV. Benefit Analysis D. Site-Specific Water Quality-Based Documentation A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed Effluent Limitations B. Quantification and Monetization of XVII. Related Acts of Congress, Executive A. Regulated Entities Benefits Orders, and Agency Initiatives 1. Human Health Benefits From Surface A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Entities potentially regulated by this Water Quality Improvements Planning and Review and Executive action include:

North American Industry Classi- Category Example of regulated entity fication System (NAICS) Code

Industry ...... Electric Power Generation Facilities—Electric Power Generation ...... 22111 Electric Power Generation Facilities—Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation ...... 221112 Electric Power Generation Facilities—Nuclear Electric Power Generation ...... 221113

This section is not intended to be • Environmental Assessment for the 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 1361. for readers regarding entities likely Standards for the Steam Electric Power III. Executive Summary regulated by this action. Other types of Generating Point Source Category (EA), entities that do not meet the above Document No. EPA–821–R–15–006. A. Purpose of the Rule criteria could also be regulated. To • Benefits and Cost Analysis for the Steam electric power plants 1 determine whether your facility is Effluent Limitations Guidelines and discharge large wastewater volumes, regulated by this action, you should Standards for the Steam Electric Power containing vast quantities of pollutants, carefully examine the applicability Generating Point Source Category into waters of the United States. The criteria listed in 40 CFR 423.10 and the (BCA), Document No. EPA–821–R–15– pollutants include both toxic and definitions in 40 CFR 423.11 of the rule. 005. bioaccumulative pollutants such as If you still have questions regarding the • arsenic, mercury, selenium, chromium, applicability of this action to a Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and and cadmium. Today, these discharges particular entity, consult the person account for about 30 percent of all toxic listed for technical information in the Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category (RIA), pollutants discharged into surface preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Document No. EPA–821–R–15–004. CONTACT section. 1 The steam electric power plants covered by the These documents are available in the ELGs use nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, B. Supporting Documentation or natural gas, to heat water in boilers, which public record for this rule and on EPA’s generate steam. This rule does not apply to plants This rule is supported, in part, by the Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/eg/ that use non-fossil fuel or non-nuclear fuel or other following documents: steam-electric-power-generating- energy sources, such as biomass or solar thermal • effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule. energy. The steam is used to drive turbines Technical Development Document connected to electric generators. The plants for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines II. Legal Authority for This Action generate wastewater composed of chemical and Standards for the Steam Electric pollutants and thermal pollution (heated water) Power Generating Point Source Category EPA promulgates this rule under the from their wastewater treatment, power cycle, ash handling and air pollution control systems, as well (TDD), Document No. EPA–821–R–15– authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, as from coal piles, yard and floor drainage, and 007. 308, 402, and 501 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. other plant processes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:54 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67840 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

waters by all industrial categories showed an increase in bromides at four the near eradication of an entire fish regulated under the CWA.2 The electric drinking water utilities’ intakes after population in the late 1970s in Belews power industry has made great strides to wastewater from these FGD systems Lake, North Carolina, due to selenium reduce air pollutant emissions under began to be discharged to the rivers, discharges from a steam electric power Clean Air Act programs. Yet many of whereas prior to the FGD wastewater plant (DCN SE01842); a series of fish these pollutants are transferred to the discharges, bromides were not a kills in the 1970s in Martin Lake, Texas, wastewater as plants employ problem in the intake waters of the also due to selenium discharges from a technologies to reduce air pollution. utilities. With bromides present in their steam electric power plant (elevated The pollutants in steam electric power drinking water source waters at selenium levels and deformities plant wastewater discharges present a increased levels, carcinogenic persisted for at least eight years after the serious public health concern and cause disinfection by-products (brominated plant ceased discharging) (DCN severe ecological damage, as DBPs, in particular trihalomethanes SE01861); reproductive impairment and demonstrated by numerous documented (THMs)) began forming, and at one deformities in fish and birds from impacts, scientific modeling, and other drinking water utility, violations of the selenium discharges (DCN SE04519); studies. When toxic metals such as THM MCL began occurring. See DCN and other forms of impacts to surface mercury, arsenic, lead, and selenium SE04503. waters, as documented by numerous accumulate in fish or contaminate Nitrogen discharged by steam electric other damage cases associated with drinking water, they can cause adverse power plants can also impact drinking discharges from surface impoundments effects in people who consume the fish water sources by contributing to containing steam electric power plant or water. These effects can include harmful algal blooms in reservoirs and wastewater. See EA Section 3.3. cancer, cardiovascular disease, lakes that are used as drinking water Waterbodies receiving steam electric neurological disorders, kidney and liver sources. Ground water contamination power plant discharges have routinely damage, and lowered IQs in children. from surface impoundments (ash ponds) exhibited pollutant levels routinely in There are, however, affordable containing steam electric power plant excess of state WQC for pollutants technologies that are widely available, wastewater also threatens drinking found in the plant discharges. This and already in place at some plants, water, as evidenced by more than 30 includes pollutants such as selenium, which are capable of reducing or documented cases. See EA Section 3.3. arsenic, and cadmium. Nutrients in eliminating steam electric power plant Steam electric power plant discharges steam electric power plant discharges discharges. In the several decades since also adversely affect the quality of fish can cause over-enrichment of receiving the steam electric ELGs were last that people eat. Water quality modeling waters, resulting in water quality revised, such technologies have shows that about half of waterbodies problems, such as low oxygen levels increasingly been used at plants. This that receive steam electric power plant and loss of critical submerged aquatic final rule is the first to ensure that discharges exhibit health risks to people vegetation, further impairing beneficial plants in the steam electric industry consuming fish from those waters uses such as fishing. EPA’s modeling employ technologies designed to reduce (primarily from mercury). Nearly half of corroborates such documented impacts, discharges of toxic metals and other waterbodies that receive steam electric revealing that nearly one fifth of harmful pollutants discharged in the power plant discharges exhibit pollutant waterbodies receiving steam electric plants’ largest sources of wastewater. levels for one or more steam electric power plant discharges exceed WQC for Steam electric power plant discharges power plant pollutants in excess of protection of aquatic life and nearly one occur in proximity to nearly 100 public human health water quality criteria third of such receiving waters pose drinking water intakes and more than (WQC).3 See EA Section 4. People who potential reproductive risks to birds that 1,500 public wells across the nation, eat large amounts of fish from lakes and prey on fish. and recent studies indicate that steam The steam electric ELGs that EPA rivers contaminated by mercury, lead, electric power plant discharges can promulgated and revised in 1974, 1977, and arsenic are particularly at risk, and adversely affect surface waters used as and 1982 are out of date. They do not consumption of such fish poses drinking water supplies. One study adequately control the pollutants (toxic additional risk to the fetuses of pregnant found that arsenic in ash and flue gas metals and other) discharged by this women. Compared to the general public, desulfurization (FGD) wastewater industry, nor do they reflect relevant minority and low-income communities discharges from four steam electric process and technology advances that have greater exposure to, and are power plants exceeded Safe Drinking have occurred in the last 30-plus years. therefore at greater risk from, pollutants Water Act (SDWA) Maximum The rise of new processes for generating in steam electric power plant Contaminant Levels (MCLS) in the electric power (e.g. coal gasification) discharges, due to their closer proximity waterbodies into which they discharged, and the widespread implementation of to the discharges and greater indicating that these contaminants are air pollution controls (e.g., FGD and flue consumption of fish from contaminated present in surface waters, and at levels gas mercury control (FGMC)) have waters. See Section XVII.J. above standards used to protect altered existing wastestreams and Steam electric power plant discharges created new types of wastewater at drinking water. See DCN SE01984. A adversely affect our nation’s waters and second, more recent study found many steam electric power plants, their ecology. Pollutants in such particularly coal-fired plants. The increased levels of bromide in rivers discharges, particularly mercury and used as drinking water after FGD processes employed and pollutants selenium, bioaccumulate in fish and discharged by the industry look very systems were installed at upstream wildlife, and they accumulate in the steam electric power plants. The study different today than they did in 1982. sediments of lakes and reservoirs, Many plants, nonetheless, still treat remaining there for decades. 2 Although the way electricity is generated in this their wastewater using only surface country is changing, EPA projects that, without this Documented adverse impacts include impoundments, which are largely final rule, steam electric power plant discharges ineffective at controlling discharges of would likely continue to account, over the 3 WQCs are established by states to protect foreseeable future, for about thirty percent of all beneficial uses of waterbodies, such as the support toxic pollutants and nutrients. This final toxic pollutants discharged into surface waters by of aquatic life and provision of fishing and rule addresses an outstanding public all industrial categories regulated under the CWA. swimming. health and environmental problem by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67841

revising the steam electric ELGs, as they IV.B.3). The final rule establishes BAT performance standards (NSPS) reflect apply to a subset of power plants that limitations as follows: 4 the greatest degree of effluent reduction discharge wastestreams containing toxic • For fly ash transport water, bottom that is achievable, including, where and other pollutants. As the CWA ash transport water, and FGMC practicable, a standard permitting no requires, this rule is economically wastewater, there are two sets of BAT discharge of pollutants (see Section achievable (affordable for the industry limitations. The first set of BAT IV.B.4). NSPS represent the most as a whole) and is based on available limitations is a numeric effluent stringent controls attainable, taking into technologies. On an annual basis, the limitation on Total Suspended Solids consideration the cost of achieving the (TSS) in the discharge of these rule is projected to reduce the amount effluent reduction and any non-water wastewaters (these limitations are equal of toxic metals, nutrients, and other quality environmental impacts and to the TSS limitations in the previously energy requirements. For direct pollutants that steam electric power established Best Practicable Control plants are allowed to discharge by 1.4 discharges to surface waters from new Technology Currently Available (BPT) sources, including discharges from oil- billion pounds; reduce water regulations). The second set of BAT fired generating units and small withdrawal by 57 billion gallons; and, it limitations is a zero discharge limitation generating units, the final rule has estimated social costs of $480 for all pollutants in these wastewaters.5 establishes NSPS as follows: million. Finally, of the benefits that • For FGD wastewater, there are two • A zero discharge standard for all were able to be monetized, EPA projects sets of BAT limitations. The first set of pollutants in fly ash transport water, $451 to $566 million in benefits limitations is a numeric effluent bottom ash transport water, and FGMC limitation on TSS in the discharge of associated with this rule. wastewater. FGD wastewater (these limitations are • B. Summary of Final Rule equal to the TSS limitations in the Numeric standards on mercury, previously established BPT regulations). arsenic, selenium, and TDS in the To further its ultimate objective to discharge of FGD wastewater. ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, The second set of BAT limitations is numeric effluent limitations on • Numeric standards on mercury and physical, and biological integrity of the mercury, arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/ arsenic in the discharge of combustion Nation’s waters,’’ the CWA authorizes nitrite as N in the discharge of FGD residual leachate. EPA to establish national technology- wastewater.6 Existing Sources—Discharges to based effluent limitations guidelines • For gasification wastewater, there POTWs. Pretreatment Standards for and new source performance standards are two sets of BAT limitations. The first Existing Sources (PSES) are designed to for discharges from categories of point set of limitations is a numeric effluent prevent the discharge of pollutants that sources that occur directly into waters limitation on TSS in the discharge of pass through, interfere with, or are of the U.S. The CWA also authorizes gasification wastewater (this limitation otherwise incompatible with the EPA to promulgate nationally applicable is equal to the TSS limitation in the operation of POTWs. PSES are pretreatment standards that control previously established BPT regulations). analogous to BAT effluent limitations pollutant discharges from existing and The second set of BAT limitations is for direct dischargers and are generally new sources that discharge wastewater numeric effluent limitations on based on the same factors (see Section indirectly to waters of the U.S. through mercury, arsenic, selenium, and total IV.B.5). The final rule establishes PSES sewers flowing to publicly owned dissolved solids (TDS) in the discharge as follows: 7 treatment works (POTWs). EPA of gasification wastewater. • • A zero discharge standard for all establishes ELGs based on the A numeric effluent limitation on pollutants in fly ash transport water, performance of well-designed and well- TSS in the discharge of combustion bottom ash transport water, and FGMC operated control and treatment residual leachate from landfills and wastewater.8 surface impoundments. This limitation technologies. • Numeric standards on mercury, is equal to the TSS limitation in the arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite as EPA completed a study of the steam previously established BPT regulations. electric category in 2009 and proposed For oil-fired generating units and N in the discharge of FGD wastewater. • the ELG rule in June 2013. The public small generating units (50 MW or Numeric standards on mercury, comment period extended for more than smaller), the final rule establishes BAT arsenic, selenium and TDS in the three months. This final rule reflects the limitations on TSS in the discharge of discharge of gasification wastewater. statutory factors outlined in the CWA, fly ash transport water, bottom ash New Sources—Discharges to POTWs. as well as EPA’s full consideration of transport water, FGMC wastewater, FGD Pretreatment standards for new sources the comments received and updated wastewater, and gasification (PSNS) are also designed to prevent the analytical results. wastewater. These limitations are equal discharge of any pollutant into a POTW Existing Sources—Direct Discharges. to the TSS limitations in the existing that interferes with, passes through, or For existing sources that discharge BPT regulations. is otherwise incompatible with the POTW. PSNS are analogous to NSPS for directly to surface water, with the New Sources—Direct Discharges. The CWA mandates that new source direct dischargers, and EPA generally exception of oil-fired generating units considers the same factors for both sets and small generating units (those with 4 For details on when the following BAT of standards (see Section IV.B.6). The a nameplate capacity of 50 megawatts limitations apply, see Section VIII.C. final rule establishes PSNS that are the (MW) or less), the final rule establishes 5 When fly ash transport water or bottom ash same as the rule’s NSPS. effluent limitations based on Best transport water is used in the FGD scrubber, the Available Technology Economically applicable limitations are those established for FGD wastewater on mercury, arsenic, selenium and 7 For details on when PSES apply, see Section Achievable (BAT). BAT is based on nitrate/nitrite as N. VIII.E. technological availability, economic 6 For plants that opt into the voluntary incentives 8 When fly ash transport water or bottom ash achievability, and other statutory factors program, the second set of BAT limitations is transport water is used in the FGD scrubber, the and is intended to reflect the highest numeric effluent limitations on mercury, arsenic, applicable standards are those established for FGD selenium, and TDS in the discharge of FGD wastewater on mercury, arsenic, selenium and performance in the industry (see Section wastewater. nitrate/nitrite as N.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67842 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits environmental regulations affecting higher or lower than estimated. The steam electric power plants, such as the current estimate reflects the best data Table III–1 summarizes the benefits Clean Power Plan (CPP) rule that the and analysis available at this time. In and social costs for the final rule, at Agency finalized in July 2015 (as well this preamble, EPA presents costs and three percent and seven percent as other relevant rules such as the Coal monetized benefits accounting for these discount rates. EPA’s analysis reflects Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule that other rules.9 Under this final rule, EPA the Agency’s understanding of the the Agency promulgated in April 2015). estimates that about 12 percent of steam actions steam electric power plants will EPA understands that these modeled electric power plants and 28 percent of take to meet the limitations and results have uncertainty due to the coal-fired or petroleum coke-fired power standards in the final rule. EPA based possibility of unexpected plants will incur some costs.10 For its analysis on a baseline that reflects implementation approaches and thus additional information, see Sections V the expected impacts of other that the actual costs could be somewhat and IX.

TABLE III–1—TOTAL MONETIZED ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE FINAL RULE [Millions; 2013$]

Total monetized social benefits Total social costs Discount rate 3% 7% 3% 7%

Final Rule ...... $451 to $566 $387 to $478 $480 $471

The remainder of this preamble is waters. Among its core provisions, the of treatment. See CWA section 301(b), structured as follows. Section IV CWA prohibits the discharge of 33 U.S.C. 1311(b). In addition, POTWs provides additional background on the pollutants from a point source to waters are required to implement local CWA and the ELG program. Section V of the U.S., except as authorized under treatment limits applicable to their outlines key updates since the proposal, the CWA. Under section 402 of the industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy including updates to the industry CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1342, discharges may any local requirements. See 40 CFR profile, estimated costs and economic be authorized through a National 403.5. impacts, and pollutant data. Section VI Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Direct dischargers (those discharging gives an overview of the industry, and (NPDES) permit. The CWA establishes a directly to surface waters) must comply Section VII reviews the identification dual approach for these permits, with effluent limitations in NPDES and selection of the regulated technology-based controls that establish permits. Indirect dischargers, who pollutants. Section VIII describes the a floor of performance for all discharge through POTWs, must comply final rule requirements, along with the dischargers, and water quality-based with pretreatment standards. bases for EPA’s decisions. Section IX effluent limitations, where the Technology-based effluent limitations presents the costs and economic technology-based effluent limitations and standards in NPDES permits are impacts, while Section X shows the are insufficient to meet applicable WQS. derived from effluent limitations accompanying pollutant reductions. To serve as the basis for the technology- guidelines (CWA sections 301 and 304, Section XI presents the numeric based controls, the CWA authorizes EPA 33 U.S.C. 1311 and 1314) and new limitations and standards for existing to establish national technology-based source performance standards (CWA and new sources that are established in effluent limitations guidelines and new section 306, 33 U.S.C. 1316) this final rule. Sections XII through XIV source performance standards for promulgated by EPA, or based on best explain the non-water quality discharges from categories of point professional judgment (BPJ) where EPA environmental impacts (including sources (such as industrial, commercial, has not promulgated an applicable energy requirements), the and public sources) that occur directly effluent limitation guideline or new environmental assessment, and the into waters of the U.S. source performance standard (CWA resulting benefits analysis. Section XV The CWA also authorizes EPA to section 402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. presents results of the cost-effectiveness promulgate nationally applicable 1342(a)(1)(B)). Additional limitations analysis, and Section XVI provides pretreatment standards that control are also required in the permit where information regarding implementation pollutant discharges from sources that necessary to meet WQS. CWA section of the rule. discharge wastewater indirectly to 301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C). IV. Background waters of the U.S., through sewers The ELGs are established by EPA flowing to POTWs, as outlined in regulation for categories of industrial A. Clean Water Act sections 307(b) and (c) of the CWA, 33 dischargers and are based on the degree Congress passed the CWA to ‘‘restore U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). EPA establishes of control that can be achieved using and maintain the chemical, physical, national pretreatment standards for various levels of pollution control and biological integrity of the Nation’s those pollutants in wastewater from technology, as specified in the Act (e.g., waters.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). In order to indirect dischargers that pass through, BPT, BCT, BAT; see below). achieve this objective, the Act has, as a interfere with, or are otherwise EPA promulgates national ELGs for national goal, the elimination of the incompatible with POTW operations. major industrial categories for three discharge of all pollutants into the Generally, pretreatment standards are classes of pollutants: (1) Conventional nation’s waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1). designed to ensure that wastewaters pollutants (TSS, oil and grease, The CWA establishes a comprehensive from direct and indirect industrial biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), program for protecting our nation’s dischargers are subject to similar levels fecal coliform, and pH), as outlined in

10 EPA estimates that the population of steam electric power plants is about 1080.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67843

CWA section 304(a)(4) and 40 CFR 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B). If, and it may reflect a higher level of 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., toxic however, existing performance is performance than is currently being metals such as arsenic, mercury, uniformly inadequate, EPA may achieved based on technology selenium, and chromium; toxic organic establish limitations based on higher transferred from a different subcategory pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a- levels of control than what is currently or category, bench scale or pilot studies, pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene), as in place in an industrial category, when or foreign plants. Am. Paper Inst. v. outlined in CWA section 307(a), 33 based on an Agency determination that Train, 543 F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. U.S.C. 1317(a); 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 the technology is available in another 1976); Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, CFR part 423, appendix A; and (3) category or subcategory and can be 539 F.2d 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT nonconventional pollutants, which are practically applied. may be based upon process changes or those pollutants that are not categorized internal controls, even when these 2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia- technologies are not common industry Technology N, phosphorus, and TDS). practice. See Am. Frozen Food Inst., 539 The 1977 amendments to the CWA F.2d at 132, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. B. Effluent Guidelines Program require EPA to identify additional levels EPA, 760 F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); EPA establishes ELGs based on the of effluent reduction for conventional Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 performance of well-designed and well- pollutants associated with Best F.2d 280, 285–88 (2nd Cir. 1977). operated control and treatment Conventional Pollutant Control technologies. The legislative history of Technology (BCT) for discharges from 4. Best Available Demonstrated Control CWA section 304(b), which is the heart existing industrial point sources. In Technology/New Source Performance of the effluent guidelines program, addition to other factors specified in Standards describes the need to press toward section 304(b)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. NSPS reflect ‘‘the greatest degree of higher levels of control through research 1314(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that effluent reduction’’ that is achievable and development of new processes, EPA establish BCT limitations after based on the ‘‘best available modifications, replacement of obsolete consideration of a two-part ‘‘cost demonstrated control technology’’ plants and processes, and other reasonableness’’ test. EPA explained its (BADCT), ‘‘including, where improvements in technology, taking into methodology for the development of practicable, a standard permitting no account the cost of controls. Congress BCT limitations on July 9, 1986 (51 FR discharge of pollutants.’’ CWA section has also stated that EPA need not 24974). Section 304(a)(4) designates the 306(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. 1316(a)(1). Owners consider water quality impacts on following as conventional pollutants: of new facilities have the opportunity to individual water bodies as the BOD5, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, and any install the best and most efficient guidelines are developed; see Statement additional pollutants defined by the production processes and wastewater of Senator Muskie (principal author) Administrator as conventional. The treatment technologies. As a result, (October 4, 1972), reprinted in Administrator designated oil and grease NSPS generally represent the most Legislative History of the Water as a conventional pollutant on July 30, stringent controls attainable through the Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1979 (44 FR 44501; 40 CFR 401.16). application of BADCT for all pollutants 1972, at 170. (U.S. Senate, Committee (that is, conventional, nonconventional, 3. Best Available Technology on Public Works, Serial No. 93–1, and toxic pollutants). In establishing Economically Achievable January 1973). NSPS, EPA is directed to take into There are four types of standards BAT represents the second level of consideration the cost of achieving the applicable to direct dischargers, and two stringency for controlling direct effluent reduction and any non-water types of standards applicable to indirect discharges of toxic and nonconventional quality environmental impacts and dischargers, described in detail below. pollutants. As the statutory phrase energy requirements. CWA section intends, EPA considers the 306(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1316(b)(1)(B). 1. Best Practicable Control Technology technological availability and the Currently Available economic achievability in determining 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Traditionally, EPA establishes what level of control represents BAT. Sources effluent limitations based on BPT by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. reference to the average of the best 1311(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors 1317(b), authorizes EPA to promulgate performances of facilities within the that EPA considers in assessing BAT are pretreatment standards for discharges of industry, grouped to reflect various the cost of achieving BAT effluent pollutants to POTWs. PSES are designed ages, sizes, processes, or other common reductions, the age of equipment and to prevent the discharge of pollutants characteristics. EPA can promulgate facilities involved, the process that pass through, interfere with, or are BPT effluent limitations for employed, potential process changes, otherwise incompatible with the conventional, toxic, and non-water quality environmental operation of POTWs. Categorical nonconventional pollutants. In impacts (including energy pretreatment standards are technology- specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number requirements), and such other factors as based and are analogous to BPT and of factors. EPA first considers the cost the Administrator deems appropriate. BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and of achieving effluent reductions in The Agency retains considerable thus the Agency typically considers the relation to the effluent reduction discretion in assigning the weight to be same factors in promulgating PSES as it benefits. The Agency also considers the accorded these factors. Weyerhaeuser considers in promulgating BAT. age of equipment and facilities, the Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Congress intended for the combination processes employed, engineering Cir. 1978). Generally, EPA determines of pretreatment and treatment by the aspects of the control technologies, any economic achievability based on the POTW to achieve the level of treatment required process changes, non-water effect of the cost of compliance with that would be required if the industrial quality environmental impacts BAT limitations on overall industry and source were making a direct discharge. (including energy requirements), and subcategory (if applicable) financial Conf. Rep. No. 95–830, at 87 (1977), such other factors as the Administrator conditions. BAT is intended to reflect reprinted in U.S. Congress. Senate deems appropriate. See CWA section the highest performance in the industry, Committee on Public Works (1978), A

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67844 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Legislative History of the CWA of 1977, The steam electric industry is a dynamic results accounting for the CCR rule). Serial No. 95–14 at 271 (1978). The one, influenced by many factors, Then, using results from the analyses of General Pretreatment Regulations, including electricity demand, fuel costs and loadings accounting for the which set forth the framework for the prices, availability of resources, and CCR rule, EPA also conducted an implementation of categorical regulation. Since proposal, there have additional set of analyses of compliance pretreatment standards, are found at 40 been some important changes in the costs and pollutant loadings accounting CFR part 403. These regulations overall industry profile. Some for the proposed CPP rule (this establish pretreatment standards that companies have retired or announced preamble only presents results apply to all non-domestic dischargers. plans to retire specific steam electric accounting for the proposed CPP rule). See 52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987). generating units, as well as converted or At the time EPA conducted its analyses, announced plans to convert specific the CPP had not yet been finalized, and 6. Pretreatment Standards for New units to a different fuel source. See DCN thus EPA used the proposed CPP for its Sources SE05069 for information on the data analyses. EPA concluded that the Section 307(c) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. sources for these announced retirements proposed and final CPP specifications 1317(c), authorizes EPA to promulgate and conversions. In addition to actual or are similar enough that using the PSNS at the same time it promulgates announced retirements and fuel proposed rather than the final CPP will NSPS. As is the case for PSES, PSNS are conversions, in some cases, plants have not bias the results of the analysis for designed to prevent the discharge of any altered, or announced plans to alter, this rule. See Section IX for additional pollutant into a POTW that interferes their wastewater treatment or ash information. Because EPA used the with, passes through, or is otherwise handling practices. To the extent proposal as a proxy for the final rule, incompatible with the POTW. In possible, EPA adjusted its analyses of the rest of the preamble simply refers to selecting the PSNS technology basis, the costs, pollutant loadings, non-water the CPP rule. Given that final CPP state Agency generally considers the same quality environmental impacts, and plans have not yet been determined, factors it considers in establishing benefits for the final rule to account for EPA recognizes that the modeled results NSPS, along with the results of a pass- these actual and anticipated changes. have uncertainty due to the possibility through analysis. Like new sources of The final rule accounts for plant of unexpected implementation direct discharges, new sources of retirements and fuel conversions, as approaches and that actual market indirect discharges have the opportunity well as changes in plants’ ash handling responses may be somewhat more or to incorporate into their operations the and wastewater treatment practices, less pronounced than estimated. The best available demonstrated expected to occur by the current estimate reflects the best data technologies. As a result, EPA typically implementation dates in the final rule. and analysis available at this time. For promulgates pretreatment standards for For more details, see TDD Section 4.5 or more information on these federal rules, new sources based on best available ‘‘Changes to Industry Profile for Steam see TDD Section 1.3.3. For more demonstrated control technology for Electric Generating Units for the Steam information on how EPA accounted for new sources. See Nat’l Ass’n of Metal Electric Effluent Guidelines Final Rule,’’ the effect of these rules on its Finishers v. EPA, 719 F.2d 624, 634 (3rd DCN SE05059. compliance cost, pollutant loadings estimates, and non-water quality Cir. 1983). B. EPA Consideration of Other Federal environmental impacts, see TDD Rules C. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Sections 9, 10, and 12. See Section V.D. Rulemaking History EPA made every effort to and Section IX, below, and the RIA EPA provided a detailed history of the appropriately account for other rules in regarding how EPA considered other steam electric ELGs in the preamble for its many analyses for this rule. Since federal rules in its economic impact the proposed rule, including an proposal, EPA has promulgated other analysis. explanation of why EPA initiated a rules affecting the steam electric C. Advancements in Technologies steam electric ELG rulemaking industry: the Cooling Water Intake following a detailed study in 2009. EPA Structures (CWIS) rule for existing There have been advancements in published the proposed rule on June 7, facilities (79 FR 48300; Aug. 15, 2014), several technologies since proposal that 2013, and took public comments until the CCR rule (80 FR 21302; Apr. 17, reinforce EPA’s decision regarding those September 20, 2013. 78 FR 34432. 2015), the CPP rule (see http://www2. technologies that serve as the During the public comment period, EPA epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power- appropriate basis for the final rule. For received over 200,000 comments. EPA plan-existing-power-plants), and the proposal, EPA evaluated a variety of also held a public hearing on July 9, Carbon Pollution Standard for New technologies available to control and 2013. Power Plants (CPS) rule (see http:// treat wastewater generated by the steam www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/carbon- electric industry. The final rule is based V. Key Updates Since Proposal pollution-standards-new-modified-and- on several treatment technologies This section discusses key updates reconstructed-power-plants). One result discussed in depth at proposal. As since EPA proposed its rule in June of taking into account these rules is a explained then, and further discussed in 2013, including how these updates are change in the population of units and Section VIII, the record demonstrates reflected in the final rule. plants that EPA estimates would incur that the technologies that form the basis incremental costs, as well as additional for the final rule are available. A. Industry Profile Changes Due to estimated benefits, under this final rule. Moreover, the record indicates that, Retirements and Conversions In some cases, EPA performed two sets based on the emerging market for For the final rule, EPA adjusted the of parallel analyses to demonstrate how treatment technologies, plants will have population of steam electric power the other rules affected this final rule. many options to choose from when plants that will likely incur costs and For example, EPA conducted an deciding how to meet the requirements the associated benefits as a result of this assessment of compliance costs and of the final rule. final rule based on company pollutant loadings for this rule both The biological treatment technology announcements, as of August 2014, with and without accounting for the that serves as part of the basis for the regarding changes in plant operations. CCR rule (this preamble only presents final requirements for FGD wastewater

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67845

discharged from existing sources has advancements in relevant treatment (industry survey) 11 and public sources. been tested at power plants for more technologies since proposal, and EPA Since proposal, EPA updated some of than ten years and demonstrated in full- expects that the advancements will the analysis input data obtained from scale systems for more than seven years. continue as this rule is implemented by public sources to reflect the most As this technology has matured, new the industry. current information about the vendors have emerged to provide economic/financial conditions in, and D. Engineering Costs expertise in applying it to steam electric the regulatory environment of, the power plants. In addition, other For the final rule, EPA updated its electric power industry, as well as data advanced technologies that plants may cost estimates to account for public on electricity prices and electricity use to achieve the effluent limitations comments. The following list consumption. Thus, EPA updated its and standards for FGD wastewater in summarizes the main adjustments EPA analysis to use the most current publicly the final rule are now entering the made to its cost estimates for the final available data from the following marketplace, such as lower-cost rule: sources: The Department of Energy’s biological treatment systems that utilize • Adjustment of population of Energy Information Administration a modular-based bioreactor, which is generating units and changes in (EIA) (in particular, the EIA 860, 861, prefabricated and can be delivered wastewater treatment or ash handling and 906/920/923 databases),12 the U.S. directly to the site. Another practices to account for company- Small Business Administration (SBA), advancement related to evaporation and announced generating unit retirements/ the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and crystallization technology, operating at repowerings and conversions of ash the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). low temperatures to crystallize handling systems (see Section IV.A); As was the case for the proposed rule, dissolved solids, requires no chemical • Adjustment of population of EPA performed an analysis using the treatment of the wastewater and generating units and changes in Integrated Planning Model (IPM), a generates no additional sludge for wastewater treatment or ash handling comprehensive electricity market disposal, resulting in a simpler and practices to account for implementation optimization model that can evaluate more economical application for of the CCR rule and CPP rule (see impacts within the context of regional treatment of both FGD wastewater and Section IV.B); and national electricity markets. For the gasification wastewater. Another • Adjustments to the direct capital final rule, EPA used an updated IPM development concerning the costs factors to better reflect all base case (v5.13) that incorporates evaporation system (which is the basis associated installation costs; improvements and data updates to the for the BAT limitations for FGD • Adjustments to the indirect capital previous version (v.4.10), notably wastewater in the voluntary incentives cost factors to account for appropriate regarding electricity demand forecast, program, as well as the basis for the engineering and contingency costs; generating capacity, market conditions, NSPS for FGD wastewater) is a process • Adjustment to plant population and newly promulgated environmental that generates a pozzolanic material receiving one-time bottom ash regulations also affecting this industry instead of crystallized salts as a solid management costs; (see Section IX). waste product of the treatment system; • Addition of costs for denitrification F. Pollutant Data although the pozzolanic material is pretreatment prior to biological expected to require landfill disposal treatment of FGD wastewater (for certain For the final rule, EPA incorporated since it likely would not be a marketable plants); data submitted by public commenters in material, the capital and operating cost • Updates to costing inputs to its effluent limitations and standards of the overall evaporation treatment account for costs of additional development, pollutants of concern process would be reduced. redundancy for the fly ash dry handling identification, and pollutant loadings Zero valent iron (ZVI) cementation, system; estimates. Such data include: sorption media, ion exchange, and • • electrocoagulation are also examples of Addition of tank rental costs for Industry-submitted data emerging treatment technologies that are surge capacity during certain bottom ash representing the FGD purge, FGD handling system maintenance; chemical precipitation effluent, and being developed to treat FGD • wastewater, and they could be used to Addition of building costs for FGD biological treatment effluent for the achieve the limitations in the final rule. certain bottom ash and FGD wastewater plants identified as operating BAT systems; and systems; See TDD Section 7 for a more detailed • discussion. Addition of costs for equipment • Industry-submitted ash transport The technologies used as the basis for that can be used to mitigate high water characterization and source water the final requirements for ash transport oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) data; 13 water (dry handling and closed-loop levels in FGD wastewater. systems) have been in operation at See Section 9 of the TDD for 11 For details on the industry survey, see TDD power plants for more than 20 years and additional information on the plant- Section 3 and 78 FR 34432; June 7, 2013). are amply demonstrated by the record specific compliance cost estimates for 12 EIA–860: Annual Electric Generator Report; supporting the final rule. Recent the final rule. EIA–861: Annual Electric Power Industry Database; EIA–923: Utility, Non-Utility, and Combined Heat advancements related to bottom ash E. Economic Impact Analysis & Power Plant Database (monthly). The most handling technologies have focused on current EIA data at the time of the analysis was for providing more flexible retrofit For its analysis of the economic the year 2012. solutions and improving the thermal impact of the final rule, EPA began with 13 Industry also submitted bottom ash transport the same financial data sources for water data approximately 14 months after the close efficiency of the boiler operation. These of the public comment period. EPA did not advancements result in additional steam electric power plants and their incorporate these late data into its analyses, but it savings related to electricity use, parent companies that were used and did perform a sensitivity analysis to determine how operation and maintenance, water costs, described in the proposed rule, these late data might have impacted EPA’s analyses primarily collected through the and decisions. EPA concluded from the sensitivity and thermal energy recovery. analysis that the late bottom ash transport water In sum, the record demonstrates that Questionnaire for the Steam Electric data would not have changed EPA’s ultimate there have been significant Power Generating Effluent Guidelines decisions for this final rule. See DCN SE05581.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67846 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

• Industry-submitted ash B. Steam Electric Process Wastewater been evaluated or are being developed impoundment effluent concentrations; and Control Technologies to treat FGD wastewater, including iron and While almost all steam electric power cementation, ZVI cementation, reverse • Industry-submitted pilot-test data plants generate certain wastewater, like osmosis, absorption or adsorption related to treatment of FGD wastewater. cooling water and boiler blowdown, the media, ion exchange, and electrocoagulation. EPA subjected the new data to its data presence of other wastestreams depends quality acceptance criteria and, as on the type of fuel burned. Coal- and 2. Fly Ash Transport Water appropriate, updated its analyses petroleum coke-fired generating units, Plants use particulate removal accordingly. See TDD Section 3 for and to a lesser degree oil-fired systems to collect fly ash and other additional information on the data generating units, generate a flue gas particulates from the flue gas in hoppers sources used in the development of the stream that contains large quantities of located underneath the equipment. Of final rule. particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and the coal-, petroleum coke-, and oil-fired nitrogen oxides, which would be steam electric power plants that G. Environmental Assessment Models emitted to the atmosphere if they were generate fly ash, most of them transport not cleaned from the flue gas prior to Although not required to do so, EPA fly ash pneumatically from the hoppers emission. Therefore, many of these to temporary storage silos, thereby not conducted an Environmental generating units are outfitted with air Assessment for the final rule, as it did generating any transport water. Some pollution control systems (e.g., plants, however, use water to transport for the proposed rule. EPA updated the particulate removal systems, FGD environmental assessment in several (sluice) the fly ash from the hoppers to systems, nitrogen oxide (NOX)-removal ways to respond to public comments, a surface impoundment. The water used systems, and mercury control systems). to transport the fly ash to the surface and improve the characterization of the Gas-fired generating units generate environmental and human health impoundment is usually discharged to fewer emissions of particulate matter, surface water as overflow from the improvements associated with the final sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides than rule. EPA performed dynamic water impoundment after the fly ash has coal- or oil-fired generating units, and settled to the bottom. quality modeling of selected case-study therefore do not typically operate air locations to supplement the results of pollution control systems to control 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water the national-scale Immediate Receiving emissions from their flue gas. In Bottom ash consists of heavier ash Water (IRW) model. EPA supplemented addition, coal-, oil-, and petroleum particles that are not entrained in the the wildlife analysis by developing and coke-fired generating units create fly flue gas and fall to the bottom of the using an ecological risk model that and/or bottom ash as a result of coal furnace. In most furnaces, the hot predicts the risk of reproductive impacts combustion. The wastewaters associated bottom ash is quenched in a water-filled among fish and birds with dietary with ash transport and air pollution hopper. For purposes of this rule, boiler exposure to selenium from steam control systems contain large quantities slag is considered bottom ash. Boiler electric power plant wastewater of metals (e.g., arsenic, mercury, and slag is the molten bottom ash collected discharges. EPA also updated and selenium). at the base of the furnace that is improved several input parameters for See TDD Sections 4, 6, and 7 for quenched with water. Most plants use the IRW model, including fish details on these systems, the water to transport (sluice) the bottom consumption rates for recreational and wastewaters they generate, the number ash from the hopper to an impoundment subsistence fishers, the bioconcentration of facilities that operate the systems and or dewatering bins. The ash sent to a factor for copper, and benchmarks for generate wastewater, and the control dewatering bin is separated from the assessing the potential for impacts to technologies used for wastewater transport water and then disposed. For benthic communities in receiving treatment prior to discharge. both of these systems, the water used to waters. See Section XIII.A for additional 1. FGD Wastewater transport the bottom ash to the discussion. impoundment or dewatering bins is FGD systems are used to remove VI. Industry Description usually discharged to surface water as sulfur dioxide from the flue gas so that overflow from the systems, after the A. General Description of Industry it is not emitted into the air. Dry FGD bottom ash has settled to the bottom. systems spray a sorbent slurry into a Of the coal-, petroleum coke-, and oil- EPA provided a general description of reactor vessel so that the droplets dry as fired steam electric power plants that the steam electric industry in the they contact the hot flue gas. Although generate bottom ash, most operate wet proposed rule and provides a complete dry FGD scrubbers use water in their sluicing handling systems. There are discussion of the industry in TDD operation, the water in most systems two types of bottom ash handling Section 4. As described in TDD Section evaporates and they generally do not technologies that can meet zero 4.5 (and Section V.A, above), EPA discharge wastewater. Wet FGD systems discharge requirements: (1) Dry considered retirements, fuel contact the sorbent slurry with flue gas handling technologies that do not use conversions, ash handling conversions, in a reactor vessel producing a any water, including systems such as wastewater treatment updates, and other wastewater stream. dry vacuum or pressure systems, dry industry profile changes in the Treatment technologies for FGD mechanical conveyor systems, and development of the final rule and wastewater include chemical vibratory belt systems; and (2) wet supporting technical analyses; however, precipitation, biological treatment, and systems that do not generate or the data presented in the general evaporation. At some plants, this discharge ash transport water, including industry description represents 2009 wastewater is handled in surface mechanical drag systems (MDS), remote conditions, as the industry survey (See impoundments, constructed wetlands, MDS, and complete-recycle systems. TDD Section 3) remains the best or through practices achieving zero available source of information for discharge. As described above in 4. FGMC Wastewater characterizing operations across the Section V.C and TDD section 7, EPA FGMC systems remove mercury from industry. identified other technologies that have the flue gas, so that it is not emitted into

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67847

the air. There are two types of systems some impoundments have a system to to identify pollutants of concern (POCs). used to control flue gas mercury collect the leachate. Constituents present in steam electric emissions: (1) Addition of oxidizing In a lined landfill or impoundment, power plant wastewater are primarily agents to the coal prior to combustion; the combustion residual leachate derived from the parent carbon and (2) injection of activated carbon into collected in the liner is typically feedstock (e.g., coal, petroleum coke). the flue gas after combustion. Addition transported to an impoundment (e.g., EPA characterized the wastewater of oxidizing agents to the coal prior to collection pond). Some plants discharge generated by the industry and identified combustion does not generate a new the effluent from these impoundments POCs (those pollutants commonly wastewater stream; it can, however, containing combustion residual leachate found) for each of the regulated increase the mercury concentration in directly to receiving waters, while other wastestreams. For wastestreams where the FGD wastewater because the plants first send the impoundment the final rule establishes numeric oxidized mercury is more easily effluent to another impoundment effluent limitations or standards, the removed by the FGD system. Injection of handling the ash transport water or POCs are those pollutants that have activated carbon into the flue gas does other treatment system (e.g., constructed been quantified in a wastestream at have the potential to generate a new wetlands) prior to discharge. Unlined sufficient frequency at treatable levels wastestream at a plant, depending on impoundments and landfills usually do (concentrations). For wastestreams the location of the injection. If the not collect leachate, which would allow where EPA is establishing zero injection occurs upstream of the the leachate to potentially migrate to discharge limitations or standards, the primary particulate removal system, nearby ground waters, drinking water POCs identified for each wastestream then the mercury-containing carbon wells, or surface waters. are those pollutants that are confirmed (FGMC waste) is collected and handled Using data from the industry survey to be present at sufficient frequency in the same way as, and together with, the and site visits, surface impoundments untreated wastewater samples of that fly ash. Therefore, if the fly ash is wet are the most widely used systems to wastestream. In both cases, in response sluiced, then the FGMC wastes are also treat combustion residual leachate. EPA to public comments, where EPA had wet sluiced and likely sent to the same also identified different management available paired source water (intake surface impoundment. In this case, practices, with approximately one-third water) data for a particular pollutant in adding the FGMC waste to the fly ash of plants collecting the combustion an untreated process wastewater can increase the amount of mercury in residual leachate from impoundments sample, EPA compared the two to the fly ash transport water. If the and recycling it back to the confirm that the concentration in the injection occurs downstream of the impoundment from which it was untreated process wastewater sample primary particulate removal system, the collected. Some plants use their exceeded that of the source water. See plant will need a secondary particulate collected leachate as water for moisture TDD Section 6.6 for details on EPA’s removal system (typically a fabric filter) conditioning of dry fly ash prior to analysis of POCs. to capture the FGMC wastes. disposal or for dust control around dry B. Selection of Pollutants for Regulation Of the current or planned activated unloading areas and landfills. Under BAT/NSPS carbon injection systems, most operate 6. Gasification Wastewater For wastestreams where the final rule upstream injection. However, plants establishes numeric effluent limitations that wish to market their fly ash will Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants use a carbon-based or standards, effluent limitations or typically inject the activated carbon standards for all POCs are not necessary downstream of the primary particulate feedstock (e.g., coal or petroleum coke) and subject it to high temperature and to ensure that the pollutants are removal system to prevent adequately controlled because many of contaminating the fly ash with carbon. pressure to produce a synthetic gas (syngas), which is used as the fuel for the pollutants originate from similar For plants operating downstream sources, have similar treatability, and injection, the FGMC wastes, which a combined cycle generating unit. After the syngas is produced, it undergoes are removed by similar mechanisms. would be collected with some carry- Because of this, it is sufficient to over fly ash, could be handled cleaning prior to combustion. The wastewater generated by these cleaning establish effluent limitations or separately from fly ash in either a wet standards for one or more indicator or dry handling system. processes, along with any condensate generated in flash tanks, slag handling pollutants, which will ensure the 5. Combustion Residual Leachate From water, or wastewater generated from the removal of other POCs. For Landfills and Surface Impoundments production of sulfuric acid, is referred wastestreams where the final rule to as ‘‘grey water’’ or ‘‘sour water,’’ and establishes zero discharge limitations or Combustion residuals comprise a standards, all POCs are directly variety of wastes from the combustion is generally treated prior to reuse or discharge. regulated. process, which are generally collected For wastestreams where the final rule EPA is aware of three plants that by or generated from air pollution establishes numeric effluent limitations operate IGCC units in the U.S. All three control technologies. These combustion or standards, EPA selected a subset of plants currently treat their gasification residuals can be stored at the plant in pollutants as indicators for all regulated wastewater with vapor-compression on-site landfills or surface pollutants upon consideration of the evaporation systems. One of these impoundments. Leachate includes following factors: plants also includes a cyanide liquid, including any suspended or • EPA did not set limitations or destruction stage as part of the treatment dissolved constituents in the liquid, that standards for pollutants associated with system. has percolated through or drained from treatment system additives because waste or other materials placed in a VII. Selection of Regulated Pollutants regulating these pollutants could landfill, or that passes through the interfere with efforts to optimize A. Identifying the Pollutants of Concern containment structure (e.g., bottom, treatment system operation. dikes, berms) of a surface In determining which pollutants • EPA did not set limitations or impoundment. Based on data from the warrant regulation in this rule, EPA first standards for pollutants for which the industry survey, most landfills and evaluated the wastewater characteristics treatment technology was ineffective

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67848 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(e.g., pollutant concentrations remained term averages for each set of limitations these four wastestreams are no longer approximately unchanged or increased and standards (see TDD Section 13). As considered low volume waste sources. across the treatment system). it has done for other rulemakings, EPA Given these new and revised • EPA did not set limitations or determined the nationwide percentage definitions, the final rule modifies the standards for pollutants that are removed by well-operated POTWs structure of the previously established adequately controlled through the performing secondary treatment using BPT regulations so that they specifically regulation of another indicator pollutant one of two data sources: identify these four wastestreams, but because they have similar properties • Fate of Priority Pollutants in without changing their applicable BPT and are treated by similar mechanisms Publicly Owned Treatment Works, limitations, which are equal to those for as a regulated pollutant. September 1982, EPA 440/1–82/303 (50 low volume waste sources. See TDD Section 11 for additional POTW Study); or B. BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS Options detail on EPA’s analysis and rationale • National Risk Management for selecting the regulated pollutants. Research Laboratory Treatability EPA analyzed many regulatory C. Methodology for the POTW Pass- Database, Version 5.0, February 2004 options at proposal, the details of which Through Analysis (PSES/PSNS) (formerly called the Risk Reduction were discussed fully in the document Engineering Laboratory database). Before establishing PSES/PSNS for a published on June 7, 2013 (78 FR With a few exceptions, EPA performs 34432). EPA proposed to regulate pollutant, EPA examines whether the a POTW pass-through analysis for pollutant ‘‘passes through’’ a POTW to pollutants found in seven wastestreams pollutants selected for regulation for found at steam electric power plants, waters of the U.S. or interferes with the BAT/NSPS for each wastestream of POTW operation or sludge disposal each based on particular control concern. The exception is for technologies. Depending on the interests practices. In determining whether a conventional pollutants such as BOD , pollutant passes through POTWs for 5 represented, public commenters TSS, and oil and grease. POTWs are supported virtually all of the regulatory these purposes, EPA generally compares designed to treat these conventional the percentage of a pollutant removed options that EPA proposed—from the pollutants; therefore, they are not least stringent to the most stringent, and by well-operated POTWs performing considered to pass through. secondary treatment to the percentage many options in between. For this final Section VIII, below, summarizes the rule, based on public comments, EPA removed by the BAT/NSPS technology results of the pass-through analysis. basis. A pollutant is determined to pass also considered a few additional EPA found that all of the pollutants regulatory options. None of these through POTWs when the median considered for regulation under BAT/ percentage removed nationwide by additional regulatory options involve NSPS pass through and, therefore, also regulation of different pollutants or well-operated POTWs is less than the selected them for regulation under median percentage removed by the wastestreams, or the application of PSES/PSNS. For a more detailed different control technologies, than BAT/NSPS technology basis. discussion of how EPA performed its Pretreatment standards are established those explicitly considered and pass-through analysis, see TDD Section presented at proposal. Rather, they for those pollutants regulated under 11. BAT/NSPS that pass through POTWs. involve slight variations on the overall Under this rule, for those VIII. The Final Rule packaging of the key options presented wastestreams regulated with a zero at proposal. Thus, in developing this A. BPT discharge limitation or standard, EPA final rule, EPA named six main set the percentage removed by the The final rule does not revise the regulatory options, Options A, B, C, D, 14 technology basis at 100 percent. Because previously established BPT effluent E, and F. Table VIII–1 summarizes a POTW would not be able to achieve limitations because the rule regulates these six regulatory options. In general, 100 percent removal of wastewater the same wastestreams at the more as one moves from Option A to Option pollutants, it is appropriate to set PSES stringent BAT/NSPS level of control. F, there is a greater estimated reduction at zero discharge, otherwise pollutants The rule does, however, make certain in pollutant discharges from steam would pass through the POTW. structural modifications to the BPT electric power plants and a higher For wastestreams for which the final regulations in light of new and revised associated cost. rule establishes numeric limitations and definitions. In particular, the final rule The following paragraphs describe the standards, EPA determined the establishes separate definitions for FGD six options (Options A through F), by pollutant percentage removed by the wastewater, FGMC wastewater, wastestream, including the technology rule’s technology basis using the same gasification wastewater, and combustion bases for the requirements associated data sources used to determine the long- residual leachate, making clear that with each.

TABLE VIII–1—FINAL RULE: STEAM ELECTRIC MAIN REGULATORY OPTIONS

Technology basis for the main BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS regulatory options Wastestreams A B C D E F

FGD Wastewater ...... Chemical Precipi- Chemical Precipi- Chemical Precipi- Chemical Precipi- Chemical Precipi- Evaporation. tation tation + Bio- tation + Bio- tation + Bio- tation + Bio- logical Treat- logical Treat- logical Treat- logical Treat- ment ment ment ment Fly Ash Transport Water Dry handling Dry handling Dry handling Dry handling Dry handling Dry handling.

14 Option B is equivalent to Proposed Option 3, Option F is equivalent to Proposed Option 5. and 3 and Option D is a slight variant of Proposed Option C is equivalent to Proposed Option 4a, Option A is a slight variant of Proposed Options 1 Option 4. Option E is equivalent to Proposed Option 4, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67849

TABLE VIII–1—FINAL RULE: STEAM ELECTRIC MAIN REGULATORY OPTIONS—Continued

Technology basis for the main BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS regulatory options Wastestreams A B C D E F

Bottom Ash Transport Impoundment Impoundment Dry handling/ Dry handling/ Dry handling/ Dry handling/ Water. (Equal to BPT) (Equal to BPT) Closed loop Closed loop Closed loop Closed loop. (for units >400 MW); Im- poundment (Equal to BPT)(for units ≤400 MW) FGMC Wastewater ...... Dry handling ...... Dry handling ...... Dry handling ...... Dry handling ...... Dry handling ...... Dry handling. Gasification Wastewater Evaporation ...... Evaporation ...... Evaporation ...... Evaporation ...... Evaporation ...... Evaporation. Combustion Residual Impoundment Impoundment Impoundment Impoundment Chemical Precipi- Chemical Precipi- Leachate. (Equal to BPT). (Equal to BPT). (Equal to BPT). (Equal to BPT). tation. tation. Nonchemical Metal [Reserved] ...... [Reserved] ...... [Reserved] ...... [Reserved] ...... [Reserved] ...... [Reserved]. Cleaning Wastes.

Consistent with the proposal, under limitations and standards for mercury, and standards equal to the previously all Options A through F, for oil-fired arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite as established BPT limitation on TSS, generating units and small generating N in FGD wastewater based on based on surface impoundments. units (50 MW or smaller) that are treatment using chemical precipitation 4. FGMC Wastewater existing sources, the rule would (as under Option A) followed by establish BAT/PSES effluent limitations biological treatment. Under Option F, Under all Options A through F, EPA and standards on TSS in fly ash EPA would establish effluent limitations would establish zero discharge effluent transport water, bottom ash transport and standards for mercury, arsenic, limitations and standards for FGMC water, FGD wastewater, FGMC selenium, and TDS in FGD wastewater wastewater based on use of a dry wastewater, combustion residual based on treatment using an evaporation handling system. Under all Options A leachate, and gasification wastewater system. Under all options, to facilitate through F, EPA would establish a equal to the previously promulgated implementation of the new BAT/NSPS/ separate definition for FGMC BPT effluent limitations on TSS 15 in fly PSES/PSNS requirements, EPA would wastewater, making clear it would no ash transport water, bottom ash also promulgate a definition for FGD longer be considered a low volume transport water, and low volume waste wastewater, making clear it would no waste source. sources, where applicable. Under longer be considered a low volume 5. Gasification Wastewater Options A through E, EPA would waste source. establish a voluntary incentives program The technology basis for control of for plants that choose to meet BAT 2. Fly Ash Transport Water gasification wastewater under all limitations for FGD wastewater based on Under all Options A through F, EPA Options A through F is an evaporation evaporation technology, as described in would establish (or in the case of NSPS/ system. Under these options, EPA Section VIII.C.13. Moreover, as EPA PSNS, maintain) zero discharge effluent would establish limitations and proposed, under all Options A through limitations and standards for pollutants standards on arsenic, mercury, F, the rule would establish an anti- in fly ash transport water based on use selenium, and TDS in gasification circumvention provision designed to of a dry handling system. wastewater. Under all Options A ensure that the purpose of the rule is through F, EPA would establish a 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water achieved, as further described below, in separate definition for gasification Section VIII.G. Finally, as EPA Under Options A and B, EPA would wastewater, making clear it would no proposed, under all Options A through establish effluent limitations and longer be considered a low volume F, the rule would correct a standards for bottom ash transport water waste source. typographical error in the previously equal to the previously promulgated 6. Combustion Residual Leachate promulgated regulations, as well as BPT limitation on TSS, which is based make certain clarifying revisions to the on the use of a surface impoundment. Under Options A through D, EPA applicability provision of the Under Options D, E, and F, EPA would would establish effluent limitations and regulations, as further described below, establish zero discharge effluent standards for combustion residual in Section VIII.H. limitations and standards for pollutants leachate equal to the previously 1. FGD Wastewater in bottom ash transport water based on promulgated BPT limitation on TSS for one of two technologies: A dry handling low volume waste sources. Under Under Option A, EPA would establish system or a closed-loop system. Under Options E and F, EPA would establish effluent limitations and standards for Option C, EPA would establish, for additional limitations and standards for mercury and arsenic in FGD wastewater bottom ash transport water, zero arsenic and mercury in combustion based on treatment using chemical discharge limitations and standards residual leachate based on treatment precipitation. Under Options B through based on dry handling or closed-loop using a chemical precipitation system E, EPA would establish effluent systems only for generating units with a (the same technology basis for control of nameplate capacity of more than 400 FGD wastewater under Option A). 15 Although TSS is a conventional pollutant, whenever EPA would be regulating TSS in this final MW. Units with a nameplate capacity Under all Options A through F, EPA rule, it would be regulating it as an indicator equal to or less than 400 MW would would establish a separate definition for pollutant for the particulate form of toxic metals. have to meet new effluent limitations combustion residual leachate, making

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67850 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

clear it would no longer be considered anaerobic fixed-film biological both the U.S. and abroad, and it has a low volume waste source. treatment system designed to remove been employed at coal mines. Currently, heavy metals, selenium, and nitrates.19 7. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes six U.S. steam electric power plants After accounting for industry changes (approximately ten percent of those Under all Options A through F, EPA described in Section V, forty-five discharging FGD wastewater) use would continue to reserve BAT/NSPS/ percent of all steam electric power biological treatment designed to PSES/PSNS for non-chemical metal plants with wet scrubbers have substantially reduce nitrogen cleaning wastes, as the previously equipment or processes in place able to compounds and selenium in their FGD established regulations do. meet the final BAT/PSES effluent wastewater. Other power plants are 20 C. Best Available Technology limitations and standards. Many of considering installing biological these plants use FGD wastewater treatment to remove selenium, and at After considering the technologies management approaches that eliminate described in this preamble and Section least one plant is scheduled to begin the discharge of FGD wastewater.21 operating a biological treatment system 7 of the TDD, as well as public Other plants employ wastewater comments, and in light of the factors for selenium removal soon. Four of the treatment technologies that reduce the six plants using biological systems to specified in CWA sections 304(b)(2)(B) amount of pollutants in the FGD and 301(b)(2)(A) (see Section IV.B.3), treat their FGD wastewater precede the wastestream. Both chemical biological treatment stage with chemical EPA decided to establish BAT effluent precipitation and biological treatment limitations based on the technologies precipitation; thus, the entire system is are well-demonstrated technologies that designed to remove suspended solids, described in Option D. Thus, for BAT, are available to steam electric power the final rule establishes: (1) Limitations particulate and dissolved metals (such plants for use in treating FGD as mercury and arsenic), soluble and on arsenic, mercury, selenium, and wastewater. Based on industry survey nitrate/nitrite as N in FGD wastewater, insoluble forms of selenium, and nitrate responses, 39 U.S. steam electric power and nitrite forms of nitrogen. These based on chemical precipitation plus plants (44 percent of plants discharging 16 plants show that chemical precipitation biological treatment; (2) a zero FGD wastewater) use some form of followed by biological treatment is discharge limitation for pollutants in fly chemical precipitation as part of their technologically available and ash transport water, based on dry FGD wastewater treatment system. More demonstrated. The other two plants handling; (3) a zero discharge limitation than half of these plants (30 percent of operating anoxic/anaerobic bioreactors for pollutants in bottom ash transport plants discharging FGD wastewater) use water, based on dry handling or closed- both hydroxide and sulfide to remove selenium precede the loop systems; (4) a zero discharge precipitation in the process to further biological treatment stage with surface limitation on all pollutants in FGMC reduce metals concentrations. In impoundments instead of chemical wastewater, based on dry handling; (5) addition, chemical precipitation has precipitation. The treatment systems at limitations on mercury, arsenic, been used at thousands of industrial these two plants are likely to be less selenium, and TDS in gasification facilities nationwide for the last several effective at removing metals (including 17 wastewater, based on evaporation; decades (see TDD Section 7). many dissolved metals) and would and (6) a limitation on TSS in Biological treatment has been tested at likely face more operational problems combustion residual leachate, based on power plants for more than ten years than the plants employing chemical surface impoundments.18 The final rule and full-scale systems have been pretreatment, but they nevertheless also establishes new definitions for FGD operating at a subset of plants for seven show the efficacy and availability of wastewater, FGMC wastewater, years. It has been widely used in many biological treatment for removing gasification wastewater, and combustion industrial applications for decades, in selenium and nitrate/nitrite in FGD residual leachate. wastewater. 1. FGD Wastewater 19 In estimating costs associated with this A few commenters questioned the technology basis, EPA assumed that in order to This rule identifies treatment using meet the limitations and standards, certain plants feasibility of biological treatment at chemical precipitation followed by with high FGD discharge flow rates (greater than or some power plants. Specifically, they biological treatment as the BAT equal to 1,000 gpm) would elect to incorporate flow claimed, in part, that the efficacy of minimization into their operating practices (by biological systems is unpredictable and technology basis for control of reducing the FGD purge rate or recycling a portion pollutants discharged in FGD of their FGD wastewater back to the FGD system), is subject to temperature changes, high wastewater. More specifically, the where the FGD system metallurgy can chloride concentrations, scaling, and technology basis for BAT is a chemical accommodate an increase in chlorides. See Section high oxidation-reduction potential 4.5.4 of EPA’s Incremental Costs and Pollutant (ORP) in the absorber, which could kill precipitation system that employs Removals for the Final Effluent Limitations hydroxide precipitation, sulfide Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric the microorganisms in the bioreactor. precipitation (organosulfide), and iron Power Generating Point Source Category (DCNs EPA’s record does not support these coprecipitation, followed by an anoxic/ SE05831 and SE05832). assertions for a well-designed and well- 20 This value accounts for announced retirements, operated chemical precipitation and conversions, and changes plants are projected to 16 For those plants that choose to participate in make to comply with the CPP and CCR rules. biological treatment system. the voluntary incentives program, the applicable 21 A variety of approaches that depend on plant EPA’s record demonstrates that limitations are for arsenic, mercury, selenium, and specific conditions are used to achieve zero proper pretreatment prior to biological TDS in FGD wastewater, based on the use of an pollutant discharge at these plants, including evaporation system (see Section VIII.C.13). evaporation ponds, complete recycle, and processes treatment and proper monitoring with 17 For small (50 MW or less) generating units and that combine the FGD wastewater with other adjustments to the treatment system as oil-fired generating units, the final rule establishes materials for landfill disposal. Although these necessary are key to reducing different BAT limitations for FGD wastewater, fly technologies, as well as others currently used for operational concerns raised by ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, achieve zero pollutant discharge, may be available FGMC wastewater, and gasification wastewater (see for some plants with FGD wastewater, EPA commenters. Proper pretreatment Section VIII.C.12). determined they are not available nationally. For includes chemical precipitation, which 18 The final rule also establishes BAT limitations example, evaporation ponds are only available in can address wastewater containing high on TSS in discharges of ‘‘legacy wastewater,’’ which certain climates. Similarly, complete recycle is only oxidant loads through addition of a are equal to previously established TSS limitations. available at plants with appropriate FGD See Section VIII.C.8. metallurgy. reducing agent in one of the treatment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67851

system’s reaction tanks.22 It also communication between the operator(s) that adding FGD wastewater to surface includes pretreatment of FGD of the generating unit and the boiler, as impoundments used to treat ash wastewater containing exceptionally well as bench testing and monitoring transport water can reduce the settling high levels of nitrates (e.g., greater than the ORP, and making proper efficiency in the impoundments due to 100 ppm nitrate/nitrite as N) using adjustments to the operation of the gypsum particle dissolution, thus standard denitrification technologies treatment system, would make it increasing the effluent TSS such as membrane bioreactors or stirred- possible to prevent potential selenium concentrations. Discharging wastewater tank bioreactors. Moreover, recent pilot exceedances at this plant. Data for two containing elevated levels of TSS would studies of biological treatment systems other plants operating full-scale likely result in also discharging other for FGD wastewater treatment, along biological treatment systems shows that pollutants (e.g., metals) in higher with data for full-scale biological fuel switches should not result in concentrations. EPRI has also reported treatment systems, demonstrate that exceeding the effluent limitations. EPA that FGD wastewater includes high monitoring ORP, pH, and total oxidant also has data from a pilot project at loadings of volatile metals, which can load is essential for proper operation of another plant employing the same type increase the solubility of metals in these systems. Monitoring these of coal used by the one plant that surface impoundments, thereby leading parameters enables the plant to adjust experienced elevated selenium effluent to increased levels of dissolved metals the system as necessary. For example, concentrations following a coal switch. and higher concentrations of metals in plants that monitor ORP in the absorber The data for this pilot project discharges from surface impoundments. or in the FGD purge will have sufficient demonstrate effective selenium removal Finally, as described in Section 8 of the advanced warning to respond to by the BAT technology basis, with all TDD, surface impoundments are also elevated ORP levels by adding a effluent values at concentrations below subject to seasonal turnover, which chemical reductant to the chemical the BAT limitations established in this adversely affects their efficacy. Seasonal precipitation system and/or increasing rule. turnover occurs when the the feed rate of the nutrient mix in the EPA also reviewed effluent data in the impoundment’s upper layer of water biological reactor. EPA’s cost estimates record for plants operating combined becomes cooler and denser, typically as account for all of these pretreatment and chemical precipitation and biological the season changes from summer to fall. monitoring steps. EPA’s record, treatment for FGD wastewater to The cooler, upper layer of water then moreover, shows that the treatment evaluate how cycling operation (i.e., sinks and causes the entire volume of systems that form the bases for the BAT changes in electricity generation rate) the impoundment to circulate, which limitations for FGD wastewater are able and short or extended shutdown periods can result in resuspension of solids that to effectively remove the regulated may affect the ability of plants to meet had settled to the bottom and a pollutants at varying influent the BAT effluent limitations. These data consequent increase in the concentrations. See DCN SE05733. demonstrate that cycling operations and concentrations of pollutants discharged Finally, as discussed in Section V.C, shutdown periods, whether short or from the impoundment. vendors continue to make long in duration, are manageable and do Chemical precipitation and biological improvements to these systems and to not result in plants being unable to meet treatment are more effective than develop non-biological systems for the ELG effluent limitations. See DCN surface impoundments at removing both selenium removal. For additional SE05846. soluble and particulate forms of metals, information on strategies to address EPA did not select surface as well as other pollutants such as potential operational concerns, see impoundments as the BAT technology nitrogen compounds and TDS. Because DCNs SE04208 and SE04222. basis for FGD wastewater because it many of the pollutants of concern in Some commenters also claimed that would not result in reasonable further FGD wastewater are present in the efficacy of biological systems in progress toward eliminating the dissolved form and would not be removing selenium is subject to changes discharge of all pollutants, particularly removed by surface impoundments, and in switching from one coal type to toxic pollutants (see CWA section because of the relatively large mass another (also referred to as fuel flexing). 301(b)(2)(A)). Surface impoundments, loads of these pollutants (e.g., selenium, Where EPA had biological treatment which rely on gravity to remove dissolved mercury) discharged in the performance data paired with fuel type, particulates from wastewater, are the FGD wastestream, EPA decided not to EPA reviewed it and found that existing technology basis for the previously finalize BAT effluent limitations for biological treatment systems continue to promulgated BPT effluent limitations FGD wastewater based on surface perform well during periods of fuel for low volume waste sources. impoundments. switching. See DCN SE05846. The data Pollutants that are present mostly in EPA also rejected identifying show that, in all cases except one, the soluble (dissolved) form, such as chemical precipitation, alone, (Option plants met the selenium limitations selenium, boron, and magnesium, are A) as BAT for FGD wastewater because, following fuel switches. In one instance not effectively and reliably removed by while chemical precipitation systems when a plant switched to a certain coal gravity in surface impoundments. For are capable of achieving removals of type, the plant exceeded the final daily metals present in both soluble and various metals, the technology is not maximum selenium limitation for one particulate forms (such as mercury), effective at removing selenium, nitrogen out of thirteen observations for the gravity settling in surface compounds, and certain metals that month while the average of all values impoundments does not effectively contribute to high concentrations of for that month were below the final remove the dissolved fraction. TDS in FGD wastewater. These monthly selenium limitation. This plant Furthermore, the environment in some pollutants of concern are discharged by was not subject to a selenium limit at surface impoundments can create steam electric power plants throughout the time data was collected. Moreover, chemical conditions (e.g., low pH) that the nation, causing adverse human EPA’s record demonstrates that effective convert particulate forms of metals to health impacts and some of the most soluble forms, which are not removed egregious environmental impacts (see 22 EPA included the equipment for chemical by the gravity settling process. Section XIII and EA). In light of this, addition of a reducing agent in its cost estimates for Additionally, the Electric Power and the fact that economically Options B through E. Research Institute (EPRI) has reported achievable technologies are available to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67852 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

reduce these pollutants of concern, EPA and 304 of the CWA require EPA to converting to dry fly ash handling determined that, by itself, chemical develop nationally applicable ELGs eliminates the need to treat fly ash precipitation would not result in based on the best available technology transport water in a surface reasonable further progress toward the economically achievable, taking certain impoundment, and it reduces the national goal of eliminating the factors into account. EPA decided that amount of wastes entering surface discharge of all pollutants (see CWA it would not be appropriate to leave impoundments and the risk and severity section 301(b)(2)(A)), and rejected that FGD wastewater requirements in the of structural failures and spills. technology basis as BAT in favor of final rule to be determined on a BPJ EPA decided not to finalize a BAT chemical precipitation followed by basis because there are sufficient data to limitation on fly ash transport water anaerobic/anoxic biological treatment. set uniform, nationally applicable equal to the previously promulgated EPA also decided not to establish, for limitations on FGD wastewater at plants BPT limitation on TSS, based on the all steam electric power plants, BAT across the nation. Given this, BPJ technology of surface impoundments, limitations for FGD wastewater based on permitting of FGD wastewater would for the same reasons (where applicable) treatment using an evaporation system. place an unnecessary burden on that EPA did not identify surface In particular, this technology basis permitting authorities, including state impoundments as BAT for FGD would employ a falling-film evaporator and local agencies, to conduct a wastewater (see Section VIII.C.1). (also known as a brine concentrator) to complex technical analysis that they 3. Bottom Ash Transport Water produce a concentrated wastewater may not have the resources or expertise stream (brine) and a distillate stream.23 to complete. BPJ permitting of FGD This rule identifies dry handling or While evaporation systems are effective wastewater would also unnecessarily closed-loop systems as the BAT at removing boron and pollutants that burden the regulated industry because technology basis for control of contribute to high concentrations of of associated delays and uncertainty pollutants in bottom ash transport 24 TDS, EPA decided it would not be with respect to permits. water. More specifically, the first technology basis for BAT is a system in appropriate to identify evaporation as 2. Fly Ash Transport Water the BAT technology basis for FGD which bottom ash is collected in a water wastewater at all steam electric power This rule identifies dry handling as quench bath and a drag chain conveyor plants because of the high cost of the BAT technology basis for control of (mechanical drag system) then pulls the possible regulatory requirements based pollutants in fly ash transport water. bottom ash out of the water bath on an on evaporation for discharges of FGD Specifically, the technology basis for incline to dewater the bottom ash. The wastewater at existing facilities. The BAT is a dry vacuum system that second technology basis for BAT is a system in which the bottom ash is annual cost to the industry of employs a mechanical exhauster to transported using the same processes as limitations based on evaporation would pneumatically convey the fly ash (via a change in air pressure) from hoppers a wet-sluicing system, but instead of be more than 2 and 1⁄2 times the cost to going to an impoundment, the bottom industry estimated for the final rule directly to a silo. Dry handling is clearly ash is sluiced to a remote mechanical (after tax) (approximately $570 million available to control the pollutants drag system. Once there, a drag chain more expensive than the final rule, on present in fly ash transport water. Today, the vast majority of steam conveyor pulls the bottom ash out of the an annual basis, after tax). Given the electric power plants use dry handling water on an incline to dewater the high costs associated with the techniques to manage fly ash, and by bottom ash, and the transport (sluice) technology, and the fact that the steam doing so avoid generating fly ash water is then recycled back to the electric industry is facing costs transport water. All new generating bottom ash collection system. associated with several other rules in units built since the ELGs were last These technologies for control of addition to this rule, EPA decided not revised in 1982 have been subject to a bottom ash transport water are to establish BAT limitations for FGD zero discharge standard for pollutants in demonstrably available. Based on wastewater based on evaporation for all fly ash transport water. In addition, survey data, more than 80 percent of steam electric power plants. many owners and operators with coal-fired generating units built in the Nevertheless, as described further generating units that are not subject to last 20 years have installed dry bottom below, in Section VIII.C.13, the final the previously established zero ash handling systems. In addition, EPA rule does establish a voluntary discharge NSPS for fly ash transport found that more than half of the entities incentives program under which steam water have chosen to retrofit their units that would be subject to BAT electric power plants can choose to be with dry fly ash handling technology to requirements for bottom ash transport subject to more stringent BAT meet operational needs or for economic water are already employing zero limitations for FGD wastewater based on reasons. The trend in the industry is, discharge technologies (dry handling or evaporation. moreover, toward the conversion and closed-loop wet ash handling) or Finally, EPA decided not to establish use of dry fly ash handling systems. See planning to do so in the near future. a requirement that would direct TDD Section 4.5. Based on data Dry bottom ash handling does not permitting authorities to establish collected in the industry survey, EPA adversely affect plant operations or limitations for FGD wastewater using estimates that approximately 80 percent reliability, and shifting to dry bottom site-specific BPJ. Public commenters of coal and petroleum coke-fired ash handling offers certain benefits. As representing industry, state, and generating units operate dry fly ash was the case for dry fly ash handling, environmental group interests urged handling systems. Since the survey, shifting to dry bottom ash handling EPA not to establish any requirement companies have continued to upgrade, eliminates the need to send bottom ash that would leave BAT effluent or announce plans to upgrade, their ash transport water to a surface limitations for FGD wastewater to be handling systems at generating units. impoundment, and it reduces the determined on a BPJ basis. Sections 301 See TDD Section 4.5. Dry ash handling does not adversely 24 EPA identified two technologies, a mechanical 23 This evaporation step would have been drag system or a remote mechanical drag system, as preceded by a chemical precipitation step using affect plant operations or reliability, and the BAT technology basis for bottom ash transport hydroxide precipitation, sulfide precipitation, and it promotes the beneficial reuse of coal water because of potential space constraints at some iron co-precipitation, as well as a softening step. combustion residuals. In addition, plants’ boilers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67853

amount of waste entering surface ash transport water from existing wastewater, or they already have a dry impoundments and the risk and severity sources based on unit size, in light of handling system that is capable of of structural failures and spills. comments and the key changes since achieving zero discharge. Under the Furthermore, one way companies may proposal discussed in Section V. zero discharge limitation, these plants choose to comply with the final rule’s Annualized cost per amount of energy could choose to continue to operate requirements is to install a completely produced increases along a smooth their wet systems as closed-loop dry bottom ash system, which increases curve moving from the very largest units systems, or they could convert to dry the energy efficiency of the boiler, thus to the smallest units. See DCN SE05813. handling technologies by managing the reducing the amount of coal burned and That, however, is expected due to fly ash and spent sorbent together in a associated emissions of carbon dioxide economies of scale. There is no clear retrofitted dry system (rather than an (CO2) and other pollutants per MW of breaking point at which to establish a impoundment) or by installing electricity generated. On an annual size threshold for purposes of dedicated dry handling equipment for basis, EPA calculated significant fuel differentiated requirements for bottom the FGMC waste similar to the savings and reduced air emissions from ash transport water.26 Furthermore, EPA equipment used for fly ash. such systems, the value of which EPA collected information in the industry EPA decided that it would not be estimates to be $41 million to $117 survey that found that units of all sizes, appropriate to establish BAT limitations million per year.25 See DCN SE05980. including those less than 400 MW, have for FGMC wastewater based on surface EPA did not identify surface installed dry handling and closed-loop impoundments for the same reasons impoundments as BAT for bottom ash systems. And, as further described (where applicable) that it did not transport water for the same reasons below, EPA projects a net retirement of identify surface impoundments as BAT (where applicable) that it did not only 843 MW under the final rule. This for FGD wastewater (see Section identify surface impoundments as BAT suggests that, as a group, units of 400 VIII.C.1). for FGD wastewater (see Section MW or less do not face particularly 5. Gasification Wastewater VIII.C.1). Moreover, because the unique hardships under the final rule estimated overall cost of the rule has with respect to the industry as a whole. This rule identifies evaporation as the decreased since proposal (see Section For these reasons, the final rule does not BAT technology basis for the control of IX), EPA also decided that establishing establish differentiated bottom ash pollutants in gasification wastewater. different bottom ash transport water transport water requirements for units More specifically, the technology basis limitations for generating units of and equal to or below 400 MW (or for units for BAT is an evaporation system using below a certain size (other than 50 MW, equal to or below any other size a falling-film evaporator (or brine as described in Section VIII.C.12), as in threshold, other than 50 MW, as concentrator) to produce a concentrated Option C, was not warranted. explained in Section VIII.C.12). wastewater stream (brine) and a At proposal and for the final rule, reusable distillate stream. This EPA considered an option that would 4. FGMC Wastewater evaporation technology is available and have established differentiated bottom This rule identifies dry handling as well demonstrated in the industry for ash transport water requirements for the BAT technology basis for the control treatment of gasification wastewater. All units below 400 MW (Option C). Some of pollutants in FGMC wastewater. More three IGCC plants now operating in the public commenters stated that EPA’s specifically, the technology basis for U.S. (the only existing sources of record does not support differentiated BAT is a dry vacuum system that gasification wastewater) use evaporation requirements for bottom ash transport employs a mechanical exhauster to technology to treat their gasification water. They stated that BAT should be convey the FGMC waste (via a change wastewater. EPA did not identify surface established at a level at which the costs in air pressure) from hoppers directly to impoundments as BAT for gasification are affordable to the industry as a a silo. Dry handling of FGMC waste is wastewater for the same reasons (where whole, and that the cost to a unit in available and well demonstrated in the applicable) that it did not identify terms of dollars per amount of energy industry; indeed, nearly all plants with surface impoundments as BAT for FGD produced (in MW) is not a relevant FGMC systems use dry handling wastewater (see Section VIII.C.1). In factor. They cited EPA’s record, which systems. Plants using sorbent injection addition, one existing IGCC plant demonstrates that units of all sizes have systems (e.g., activated carbon injection) previously used a surface impoundment installed dry handling and closed-loop to reduce mercury emissions from the to treat its gasification wastewater, and systems, as well as EPA’s economic flue gas typically handle the spent the impoundment effluent repeatedly achievability analysis, which does not sorbent in the same manner as their fly exceeded its NPDES permit effluent show that units of 400 MW or less are ash (see Section VI.B.4 and TDD Section limitations necessary to meet applicable especially likely to shut down if faced 7.5). As of 2009, 92 percent of the WQS. Because of the demonstrated with a zero discharge requirement. industry generating FGMC waste uses inability of surface impoundments to Other commenters supported EPA’s dry handling to manage it. Only a few remove the pollutants of concern, and consideration of the relative magnitude plants use wet systems to transport the given that current industry practice is of costs per amount of energy produced spent sorbent to disposal in surface treatment of gasification wastewater for units below or equal to 400 MW, as impoundments. Based on the industry using evaporation, EPA concluded that compared to larger units, as well as survey, the plants using wet handling surface impoundments do not represent differentiated bottom ash transport systems operate them as closed-loop BAT for gasification wastewater. water requirements for these units. systems and do not discharge FGMC EPA also considered including EPA reviewed its record and re- cyanide treatment as part of the evaluated whether it would be 26 At the same time, costs per amount of energy technology basis for BAT (as well as appropriate to establish differentiated produced do begin to increase very dramatically as one moves from units above 50 MW to units that NSPS, PSES, and PSNS) for gasification requirements for discharges of bottom are equal to 50 MW and smaller, and thus for wastewater. EPA is aware that the reasons described in Section VIII.C.12, the final rule 25 Neither these savings nor the fuel and establishes different requirements for units of 50 Edwardsport IGCC plant, which began emissions reductions have been incorporated into MW or less for several wastestreams, including commercial operation in June 2013, EPA’s analyses for this final rule. bottom ash transport water. includes cyanide destruction as one step

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67854 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

in the treatment process for gasification is a very small portion of the pollutants possible date’’ is determined and wastewater. EPA, however, does not discharged collectively by all steam implemented for steam electric power currently have sufficient data with electric power plants (approximately 3 plants. The final rule specifies the which to calculate possible ELGs for percent of baseline loadings, on a toxic- factors that the permitting authority cyanide. Thus, EPA decided not to weighted basis). Given this, and the fact must consider in determining the ‘‘as establish cyanide limitations or that this rule regulates the wastestreams soon as possible’’ date, and Section standards for gasification wastewater in representing the three largest sources of XVI.A.1 provides guidance on this rule. This decision does not pollutants from steam electric power implementation with respect to timing. preclude permitting authorities from plants (including by setting a zero In addition, the rule includes a ‘‘no later setting more stringent effluent discharge standard for two out of the than’’ date of December 31, 2023, for limitations where necessary to meet three wastestreams), EPA decided that implementation because, as public WQS. In those cases, plants may elect to this rule already represents reasonable commenters pointed out, without such install additional treatment, like further progress toward the CWA’s a date, implementation could be cyanide destruction, to meet water goals. The final rule, therefore, substantially delayed, and a firm ‘‘no quality-based effluent limitations. establishes BAT limitations for later than’’ date creates a more level combustion residual leachate equal to 6. Combustion Residual Leachate playing field across the industry. EPA’s the BPT limitation on TSS for low economic analysis assumes prompt EPA received public comments volume waste sources. renewal of permits (no permits will be expressing concern that the proposed 7. Timing administratively continued) and, thus, definition of combustion residual that the requirements of the rule will be leachate would apply to contaminated As part of the consideration of the fully implemented by 2023. While some stormwater. Although this was not the technological availability and economic commenters requested that EPA give Agency’s intention, for the final rule, achievability of the BAT limitations in permitting authorities the ability to EPA revised the definition to make it the rule, EPA considered the magnitude extend the implementation period clear that contaminated stormwater does and complexity of process changes and beyond December 31, 2023, in light of not fall within the final definition of new equipment installations that would public comments received on the combustion residual leachate. This rule be required at facilities to meet the proposal, and the fact that plants can identifies surface impoundments as the rule’s requirements. As described in reasonably be expected to meet the new BAT technology basis for control of greater detail in Section XVI.A.1, where ELGs by December 31, 2023, this pollutants in combustion residual BAT limitations in this rule are more timeframe is appropriate given the leachate. Based on surface stringent than previously established CWA’s pollutant discharge elimination impoundments, which relies on gravity BPT limitations, those limitations do goals (see CWA section 101(a)). to remove particulates, this rule not apply until a date determined by the establishes a BAT limitation on TSS in permitting authority that is as soon as 8. Legacy Wastewater combustion residual leachate equal to possible beginning November 1, 2018 the previously promulgated BPT (approximately three years following For purposes of the BAT limitations limitation on TSS in low volume waste promulgation of this rule), but that is in this rule, this preamble uses the term sources. Few steam electric power also no later than December 31, 2023 ‘‘legacy wastewater’’ to refer to FGD plants currently employ technologies (approximately eight years following wastewater, fly ash transport water, other than surface impoundments for promulgation). bottom ash transport water, FGMC treatment of combustion residual Consistent with the proposal and wastewater, or gasification wastewater leachate. Throughout the development supported by many commenters, the generated prior to the date determined of this rule, EPA considered whether final rule takes this approach in order to by the permitting authority that is as technologies in place for treatment of provide the time that many facilities soon as possible beginning November 1, other wastestreams at steam electric need to raise capital, plan and design 2018, but no later than December 31, power plants and wastestreams systems, procure equipment, and 2023 (see Section VIII.C.7). Under this generated by other industries, including construct and then test systems. It also rule, legacy wastewater must comply chemical precipitation, could be used allows for consideration of plant with specific BAT limitations, which for combustion residual leachate. At changes being made in response to other EPA is setting equal to the previously proposal, noting the small amount of Agency rules affecting the steam electric promulgated BPT limitations on TSS in pollutants in combustion residual industry (see Section V.B). Moreover, it the discharge of fly ash transport water, leachate relative to other significant enables facilities to take advantage of bottom ash transport water, and low wastestreams at steam electric power planned shutdown or maintenance volume waste sources. plants, and that this was an area ripe for periods to install new pollution control EPA did not establish zero discharge innovation, EPA requested additional technologies.27 EPA’s decision is also BAT limitations for legacy wastewater information related to cost, pollutant designed to allow, more broadly, for the because technologies that can achieve reduction, and effectiveness of chemical coordination of generating unit outages zero discharge (such as the ones on precipitation and alternative approaches in order to maintain grid reliability and which the final BAT requirements to treat combustion residual leachate. prevent any potential impacts on discussed in Sections VIII.C.2, 3, and 4, Commenters did not provide electricity availability, something that above, are based) are not shown to be information that EPA could use to public commenters urged EPA to available for legacy wastewater. Legacy establish BAT limitations. Thus, EPA consider. In addition, as requested by wastewater already exists in wet form, decided not to finalize BAT limitations industry and states, this final rule and and thus dry handling could not be used for combustion residual leachate based preamble clarify how the ‘‘as soon as eliminate its discharge. Furthermore, on chemical precipitation (Option E). EPA lacks data to show that legacy The record demonstrates that the 27 EPA’s record demonstrates that plants typically wastewater could be reliably amount of pollutants collectively have one or two planned shut-downs annually and incorporated into a closed-loop process that the length of these shutdowns is more than discharged in combustion residual adequate to complete installation of relevant that eliminates discharges, given the leachate by steam electric power plants treatment and control technologies. variation in operating practices among

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67855

surface impoundments containing BAT limitations for legacy wastewater electric power plants to greatly reduce, legacy wastewater. equal to the previously promulgated if not completely eliminate, the disposal EPA also decided not to establish BPT limitations on TSS in discharges of and treatment of their major sources of BAT limitations for legacy wastewater fly ash transport water, bottom ash ash-containing wastewater in surface based on a technology other than transport water, and low volume waste impoundments. As a result, EPA surface impoundments (chemical sources. anticipates that overall volumes of precipitation, chemical precipitation Finally, while there are a few plants legacy wastewater will continue to plus biological treatment, evaporation) that discharge from an impoundment decrease dramatically over time, as this because it does not have the data to do containing only legacy FGD rule becomes fully implemented. so. Data are not available because of the wastewater,30 EPA rejected establishing 9. Economic Achievability way that legacy wastewater is currently requirements for such legacy FGD handled at plants. wastewater based on a technology other EPA’s analysis for the final BAT The vast majority of plants combine than surface impoundments. EPA limitations demonstrates that they are some of their legacy wastewater with determined that, while it could be economically achievable for the steam each other and with other wastestreams, possible for plants to treat the legacy electric industry as a whole, as required including cooling water, coal pile FGD wastewater with the same by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA runoff, metal cleaning wastes, and low technology used to treat FGD performed cost and economic impact volume waste sources in surface wastewater subject to the BAT assessments using the Integrated impoundments.28 Once combined in limitations described in Section VIII.C.1 Planning Model (IPM) using a baseline surface impoundments, the legacy (because their characteristics could be that reflects impacts from other relevant wastewater no longer has the same similar), establishing requirements environmental regulations (see RIA).31 characteristics that it did when it was based on any technology more advanced For the final rule, the model showed first generated. For example, the than surface impoundments for these very small additional effects on the addition of cooling water can dilute legacy ‘‘FGD-only’’ wastewater electricity market, on both a national legacy wastewater to a point where the impoundments could encourage plants and regional sub-market basis. Based on pollutants are no longer present at to alter their operations prior to the date the results of these analyses, EPA treatable levels. Additionally, some that the final limitations apply in order estimated that the requirements wastestreams have significant variations to avoid the new requirements. Likely, associated with the final rule would in flow, such as metal cleaning wastes, a plant would begin commingling other result in a net reduction of 843 MW in which are generally infrequently process wastewater with their legacy steam electric generating capacity as of generated, or coal pile runoff, which is FGD wastewater in the impoundment so the model year 2030, reflecting full generated during precipitation events. that any legacy ‘‘FGD-only’’ wastewater compliance by all plants. This capacity Because surface impoundments are requirements would no longer apply. reduction corresponds to a net effect of typically open, with no cover, they also Alternatively, plants might choose to two unit closures or, when aggregating receive direct precipitation. As a result pump the legacy FGD wastewater out of to the level of steam electric generating of all of this, the characteristics of the impoundment on an accelerated plants, and net plant closure.32 These legacy wastewater contained in surface schedule and prior to the date that the IPM results support EPA’s conclusion impoundments (flow rate and pollutant final limitations apply. In this case, the that the final rule is economically concentrations) vary at both any given more rapid discharge of the wastewater achievable. plant, as well as across plants could result in temporary increases in 10. Non-Water Quality Environmental nationwide. Furthermore, EPA generally environmental impacts (e.g., Impacts, Including Energy would like to have enough performance exceedances of WQC for acute impacts Requirements 33 data at a well-designed, well-operated to aquatic life). EPA wanted to avoid plant or plants to derive limitations and creating such incentives in this rule, The final BAT effluent limitations standards using its well-established and and it therefore decided to establish have acceptable non-water quality judicially upheld statistical BAT limitations for discharges of legacy FGD wastewater based on the 31 IPM is a comprehensive electricity market methodology. In this case, except in optimization model that can evaluate such impacts limited circumstances, plants do not previously promulgated BPT limitations within the context of regional and national treat the legacy wastewater that they on TSS for low volume waste sources. electricity markets. See Section IX for additional send to an impoundment using anything Finally, EPA notes that, as a result of the discussion. beyond the surface impoundment zero discharge requirements for 32 Given the design of IPM, unit-level and thereby 29 plant-level projections are presented as an indicator itself. Thus, the final rule establishes discharges of all pollutants in three of overall regulatory impact rather than a precise wastestreams (fly ash transport water, prediction of future unit–level or plant-specific 28 For example, there are 65 plants for which EPA bottom ash transport water, and flue gas compliance actions. estimated FGD wastewater compliance costs and mercury control wastewater), this rule 33 As described in Section VIII.C.13, this rule that use an impoundment as part of their treatment provides strong incentives for steam includes a voluntary incentives program that system. For 54 of the 65 plants (83 percent), the provides the certainty of more time for plants to FGD wastewater is commingled with, at least, fly implement new BAT requirements, if they adopt and/or bottom ash transport water, and for another transport water, EPA does not have any data to additional process changes and controls that eight of the 65 plants (12 percent), the FGD characterize the effluent from these systems. Thus, achieve limitations on mercury, arsenic, selenium, wastewater is commingled with non-ash no steam electric industry data exist to establish and TDS in FGD wastewater, based on evaporation wastewater, such as cooling tower blowdown or BAT limitations for possible ‘‘fly ash-only’’ technology. The information presented in this low volume waste sources. DCN SE05875. impoundments or ‘‘bottom ash-only’’ section assumes plants will choose to comply with 29 For example, no plant uses biological treatment impoundments based on these technologies. BAT limitations for FGD wastewater based on or evaporation to treat its legacy fly ash transport 30 EPA determined that there are three plants that chemical precipitation and biological treatment. water or legacy bottom ash transport water are estimated to incur FGD wastewater compliance EPA does not know how many plants will opt into contained in an impoundment, including any costs and that use an impoundment as part of the the voluntary incentives program. Therefore, EPA impoundment that may contain only legacy fly ash treatment system, but where the FGD wastewater is also calculated non-water quality environmental transport water or only legacy bottom ash transport not commingled with other process wastewaters in impacts assuming all plants will elect to comply water. Although EPA identified fewer than ten the impoundment. There are no plants that with the voluntary incentives program and plants that use chemical precipitation to treat discharge from an impoundment containing only similarly found these impacts to be acceptable. See wastewater that contains, among other things, ash gasification wastewater. DCN SE05051.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67856 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

environmental impacts, including greater degree than the general coal-fired units, even when generating energy requirements. Section XII population from the reductions in the same amount of electricity. EPA describes in more detail EPA’s analysis discharges associated with the final estimates that the amount of pollutants of non-water quality environmental rule. discharged collectively by all oil-fired impacts and energy requirements. EPA generating units is a very small portion 12. Existing Oil-Fired and Small estimates that by year 2023, under the Generating Units of the pollutants discharged collectively final rule and reflecting full compliance, by all steam electric power plants (less energy consumption increases by less EPA considered whether than one percent, on a toxic-weighted than 0.01 percent of the total electricity subcategorization of the ELGs was basis). generated by power plants. EPA also warranted based on the factors specified Oil-fired generating units are estimates that the amount of fuel in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) (see generally among the oldest steam consumed by increased operation of Section IV.B.3 and TDD Section 5). electric units in the industry. Eighty- motor vehicles (e.g., for transporting fly Ultimately, EPA concluded that it seven percent of the units are more than ash) increases by approximately 0.002 would be appropriate to set different 25 years old. In fact, more than a quarter percent of total fuel consumption by all limitations for existing small generating of the units began operation more than motor vehicles. units (50 MW or less) and existing oil- 50 years ago. Based on responses to the EPA also evaluated the effect of the fired generating units. No other, industry survey, fewer than 20 oil-fired BAT effluent limitations on air different requirements were warranted generating units discharged fly ash or emissions generated by all electric for this rule under the factors bottom ash transport water in 2009. This considered. power plants (NOX, sulfur oxides (SOX), is likely because only about 20 percent Oil-Fired Generating Units. For oil- and CO2), solid waste generation, and of oil-fired generating units operate as water usage. Under the final rule, NOX fired generating units, the final rule establishes BAT effluent limitations for baseload units; the rest are either emissions are projected to decrease by cycling/intermediate units (about 45 1.16 percent, SOX emissions are FGD wastewater, fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, FGMC percent) or peaking units (about 35 projected to increase by 0.04 percent, percent). These units also have notably and CO2 emissions are projected to wastewater, and gasification wastewater equal to previously established BPT low capacity utilization. While about 30 decrease by 0.106 percent due to percent of the baseload units report changes in the mix of electricity limitations on TSS in fly ash transport water, bottom ash transport water, and capacity utilization greater than 75 generation (e.g., less electricity from percent, almost half report a capacity coal-fired steam electric generating units low volume waste sources. As defined utilization of less than 25 percent. and more electricity from natural gas- in the rule, oil-fired generating units Eighty percent of the cycling/ fired steam electric generating units). refer to those that use oil as either the intermediate units and all peaking units Moreover, solid waste generation is primary or secondary fuel and do not also report capacity utilization less than projected to increase by less than 0.001 burn coal or petroleum coke. Units that 25 percent. Thirty-five percent of oil- percent of total solid waste generated by use only oil during startup or for flame fired generating units operated for more all electric power plants. Finally, EPA stabilization are not considered oil-fired than six months in 2009; nearly half of estimates that the final rule has a generating units. the units operated for fewer than 30 positive impact on water withdrawal, EPA decided to finalize these days. with steam electric power plants limitations for oil-fired generating units reducing the amount of water they because EPA’s record demonstrates that, While these older and generally withdraw by 57 billion gallons per year in comparison to coal- and petroleum intermittently operated oil-fired (155 million gallons per day). coke-fired units, oil-fired units generate generating units are capable of installing substantially fewer pollutants, are and operating the treatment 11. Impacts on Residential Electricity generally older and operate less technologies that form the bases for this Prices and Low-Income and Minority frequently, and in many cases are more rule, and the costs would be affordable Populations susceptible to early retirement when for most plants, EPA concludes that, EPA examined the effects of the final faced with compliance costs attributable due to the factors described here, rule on consumers as an additional to the final rule. companies may choose to shut down factor that might be appropriate when The amount of ash generated by oil- these oil-fired units instead of making considering what level of control fired units is a small fraction of the new investments to comply with the represents BAT. If all annualized amount produced by coal-fired units. rule. If these units shut down, EPA is compliance costs were passed on to Coal-fired units generate hundreds to concerned about resulting reductions in residential consumers of electricity, thousands of tons of ash each day, with the flexibility that grid operators have instead of being borne by the operators some plants generating more than 2,000 during peak demand due to less reserve and owners of power plants (a very tons per day of ash. In contrast, oil-fired generating capacity to draw upon. But, conservative assumption), the average units generate less than ten tons of ash more importantly, maintaining a diverse monthly increase in electricity bill for a per day. This disparity is also apparent fleet of generating units that includes a typical household would be no more when comparing the ash tonnage to the variety of fuel sources is important to than $0.12 under the final rule. amount of power generated, with coal- the nation’s energy security. Because the EPA also considered the effect of the fired units producing nearly 1,800 times supply/delivery network for oil is rule on minority and low-income more ash than oil-fired units (0.6 tons different from other fuel sources, populations. As explained in Section per MW-hour on average for coal units; maintaining the existence of oil-fired XVII.J, using demographic data 0.000319 tons per MW-hour on average generating units helps ensure reliable regarding who resides closest to steam for oil units). The amount of pollutants electric power generation, as electric power plant discharges and who discharged to surface waters is roughly commenters confirmed. EPA considered consumes the most fish from waters correlated to the amount of ash these potential impacts on electric grid receiving power plant discharges, EPA wastewater discharged; thus, oil-fired reliability and the nation’s energy concluded that low-income and generating units discharge substantially security, under CWA section minority populations benefit to an even fewer pollutants to surface waters than 304(b)(2)(B), in its decision to establish

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67857

different BAT limitations for oil-fired supported EPA’s consideration of the discharges. The record indicates that the generating units. relative magnitude of costs for smaller cost per unit of energy produced Small Generating Units. The final rule units compared to larger units, and increases as the size of the generating also establishes BAT effluent limitations some suggested EPA should increase the unit decreases, and while there is no for FGD wastewater, fly ash transport size threshold to 100 MW because those clear ‘‘knee of the curve’’ at which to water, bottom ash transport water, units also have disproportionate costs establish a size threshold, there is a FGMC wastewater, and gasification per amount of energy produced, and difference between units at 50 MW and water at small generating units equal to they collectively discharge a small below compared to those above 50 MW. previously established BPT limitations fraction of the total pollutants Figure VIII–1, below, shows the on TSS for fly ash transport water, discharged by all steam electric power annualized cost per amount of energy bottom ash transport water, and low plants. produced for existing units under volume waste sources. For purposes of Regulatory Option D. Figure VIII–1 this rule, small generating units refer to EPA reviewed the record and re- evaluated the threshold for small units shows that the cost per amount of those units with a total nameplate energy produced increases as the size of generating capacity of 50 MW or less. in light of comments and the key the generating unit decreases. EPA decided to establish these different changes since proposal discussed in Annualized cost per amount of energy BAT limitations for small units because Section V. EPA considered establishing produced increases gradually as one they are more likely to incur compliance no threshold, as well as several different costs that are significantly and size thresholds, for small units. The moves from the very largest units down disproportionately higher per amount of Agency looked closely at establishing a to 100 MW, and then the cost per energy produced (dollars per MW) than threshold at 50 MW or 100 MW. While amount of energy produced begins to those incurred by larger units. the total amount of pollutants increase more rapidly as one moves Some commenters stated that the cost discharged by units at these thresholds from 100 MW down to 50 MW, until it to a unit in terms of dollars per MW is is relatively small in comparison to increases very rapidly for units at not relevant because BAT should be those discharged by all steam electric 50MW and below. Additionally, Figure established at a level at which the costs power plants, the amount of pollutants VIII–1 shows that nearly all of the ratios are affordable to the industry as a discharged by units smaller than or of cost to amount of energy produced for whole. They noted that EPA’s IPM equal to 100 MW is almost double the units smaller than or equal to 50 MW analysis demonstrates that the most amount of pollutants discharged by are above those for the entire population stringent proposed regulatory option is units smaller than or equal to 50 MW. of remaining units. The same cannot be economically achievable for all units See DCN SE05813 for specific said of the ratio for units smaller than above 50 MW. Other commenters information on these pollutant or equal to 100 MW.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER03NO15.221 67858 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

In light of the fact that the costs per plants that go further than the rule’s has determined for itself, in light of its amount of energy produced are requirements to reduce discharges from own financial information and significantly and disproportionately individual wastestreams. Because the economic outlook, that such limitations higher for units smaller than or equal to final rule already contains zero are economically achievable. Finally, 50 MW compared to larger units, and in discharge limitations for several key EPA analyzed the non-water quality light of the very small fraction of wastestreams, EPA decided that the environmental impacts and energy pollutants discharged by units smaller voluntary incentives program should requirements associated with the than or equal to 50 MW, EPA ultimately focus on FGD wastewater. voluntary incentives program, and it decided to establish different EPA concluded that additional found them acceptable. See DCN requirements for units at this threshold. pollutant reductions could be achieved SE05574. Keeping in mind the statutory directive under a voluntary incentives program The development of this voluntary to set effluent limitations that result in because there are certain reasons a plant incentives program furthers the CWA’s reasonable further progress toward the might opt to treat its FGD wastewater ultimate goal of eliminating the national goal of eliminating the using evaporation rather than chemical discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s discharge of all pollutants (CWA section precipitation plus biological treatment. waters. See CWA section 101(a)(1) and 301(b)(2)(A)), EPA used its best One such reason is the possibility that section 301(b)(2)(A) (specifying that judgment to balance the competing a plant’s NPDES permit may need more BAT will result in ‘‘reasonable further interests. EPA recognizes that any stringent limitations necessary to meet progress toward the national goal of attempt to establish a size threshold for applicable WQS. For example, some eliminating the discharge of generating units will be imperfect due to power plant discharges containing TDS pollutants’’). While the final rule’s BAT individual differences across units and (including bromide) that occur upstream limitations based on chemical firms. EPA concludes, however, that a of drinking water treatment plants can precipitation plus biological treatment threshold of 50 MW or less reasonably negatively impact treatment of source represent ‘‘reasonable further progress,’’ and effectively targets those generating waters at the drinking water treatment the voluntary incentives program is units that should receive different plants. A recent study identified four designed to press further toward treatment based on the considerations drinking water treatment plants that achieving the national goal of the Act, described above, while advancing the experienced increased levels of bromide as wastewater that has been treated CWA’s goals. Furthermore, as shown in in their source water, and corresponding properly using evaporation has very low Section IX.C, EPA’s analysis increases in the formation of pollutant concentrations (also making it demonstrates that the final rule, with a carcinogenic disinfection by-products possible to reuse the wastewater and threshold established at 50 MW, is (brominated DPBs) in the finished completely eliminate the discharge of economically achievable. drinking water, after the installation of any pollutants). In addition, CWA wet FGD scrubbers at upstream steam section 104(a)(1) gives the 13. Voluntary Incentives Program electric power plants (DCN SE04503). Administrator authority to establish As part of the BAT for existing Furthermore, based on trends in the national programs for the prevention, sources, the final rule establishes a industry and experience with this and reduction, and elimination of pollution, voluntary incentives program that other industries, EPA expects that, over and it provides that such programs shall provides the certainty of more time time, the costs of evaporation (and other promote the acceleration of research, (until December 31, 2023) for plants to technologies that could achieve the experiments, and demonstrations implement new BAT requirements, if limitations in the voluntary incentives relating to the prevention, reduction, program, including zero discharge they adopt additional process changes and elimination of pollution. EPA practices) will decrease so as to make it and controls that achieve limitations on anticipates that the voluntary incentives an even more attractive option for mercury, arsenic, selenium, and TDS in program will effectively accelerate the plants. EPA understands that vendors FGD wastewater, based on evaporation research into and demonstration of are already working on changes to this technology (see Section VIII.C.1 for a controls and processes intended to technology to reduce the costs, reduce more complete description of the prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution the amount of solids generated, and evaporation technology basis). This because, under it, plants will opt to improve the solids handling. See TDD optional program offers significant employ control and treatment strategies Section 7.1.4. environmental protections beyond those to significantly reduce discharges of achieved by the final BAT limitations The technology on which the BAT limitations in the voluntary incentives pollutants found in FGD wastewater. for FGD wastewater based on chemical Steam electric power plants agreeing precipitation plus biological treatment program are based, evaporation, is available to steam electric power plants. to meet BAT limitations for FGD because evaporation technology is EPA identified three plants in the U.S. wastewater based on evaporation must capable of achieving significant that have installed, and one plant that comply with those limitations on removals of toxic metals, as well as is in the process of installing, arsenic, mercury, selenium, and TDS in TDS.34 FGD wastewater.35 For such plants, the EPA’s proposal included a voluntary evaporation systems to treat their FGD wastewater. Four coal-fired power BAT limitations based on evaporation incentives program that contained, as apply as of December 31, 2023, to FGD one element, incentives in the form of plants in Italy treat FGD wastewater using evaporation. See TDD Section 7. wastewater generated on and after additional implementation time for Furthermore, the voluntary program is December 31, 2023. Plants opting to plants that eliminate the discharge of all economically achievable because only participate in the voluntary program can process wastewater (except cooling those plants that opt to be subject to the use the period in advance of this date water). Public commenters urged EPA to BAT limitations based on evaporation, to research, engineer, design, procure, consider establishing, instead, a rather than the BAT limitations based construct, and optimize systems capable program that provided incentives for on chemical precipitation plus 35 For some plants, proper pretreatment such as 34 Properly operated evaporation systems are also biological treatment, must achieve them. softening or chemical precipitation is likely capable of achieving the BAT limitations based on Therefore, any plant that chooses to be appropriate to ensure effective and efficient chemical precipitation plus biological treatment. subject to the more stringent limitations operation of evaporation systems.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67859

of meeting the limitations based on combustion residual leachate, based on retrofitting controls for bottom ash evaporation. chemical precipitation (more handling systems. For new sources, For purposes of the voluntary specifically, the technology basis is a however, NSPS based on Option F do incentives program BAT limitations, chemical precipitation system that not present plants with the same choice legacy FGD wastewater is FGD employs hydroxide precipitation, of retrofit versus modification of wastewater generated prior to December sulfide precipitation, and iron existing processes. This is because every 31, 2023. For such legacy FGD coprecipitation to remove heavy new generating unit must install some wastewater, the final rule establishes metals). The final rule also maintains type of bottom ash handling system as BAT limitations on TSS in discharges of the previously established zero the unit is constructed. Establishing a FGD wastewater that are equal to BPT discharge NSPS on discharges of fly ash zero discharge standard for all limitations for low volume waste transport water, based on dry handling. pollutants in bottom ash transport water sources. The record indicates that the as part of the NSPS means that power EPA decided not to make the technologies that serve as the bases for plants will install a dry bottom ash voluntary incentives program available the final NSPS are well demonstrated handling system during construction to plants that send their FGD based on the performance of plants instead of installing a wet-sluicing wastewater to POTWs. Under CWA using the technologies. For example, system. section 307(b)(1), PSES must specify a new steam electric power generating Moreover, EPA assessed the possible time for compliance that does not sources have been meeting the impacts of the final NSPS on new exceed three years from the date of previously established zero discharge sources by comparing the incremental promulgation, and thus the additional standard for fly ash transport water costs of the Option F technologies to the time of up to 2023 cannot be given to since 1982, predominantly through the costs of hypothetical new generating indirect dischargers. Of course, nothing use of dry handling technologies. units. EPA is not able to predict which prohibits an indirect discharger from Moreover, as described in Section plants might construct new units or the using any technology, including VIII.C.13, three plants in the U.S. and exact characteristics of such units. evaporation, to comply with the final four plants in Italy use evaporation Instead, EPA calculated and analyzed PSES and PSNS. technology to treat their FGD compliance costs for a variety of plant EPA expects that any plant interested wastewater, and another U.S. plant is in and unit configurations. EPA developed in the voluntary incentives program the process of installing such NSPS compliance costs for new sources would indicate their intent to opt into technology for that purpose. Of the using a methodology similar to the one the program prior to issuance of its next approximately 50 coal-fired generating used to develop compliance costs for NPDES permit, following the effective units that were built within the last 20 existing sources. EPA’s estimates for date of this rule. A plant can indicate its years, most (83 percent) manage their compliance costs for new sources are intent to opt into the voluntary program bottom ash without using water to based on the net difference in costs on its permit application or through transport the ash and, as a result, do not between wastewater treatment system separate correspondence to the NPDES discharge bottom ash transport water. technologies that would likely have Director, as long as the signatory The technology basis identified as BAT been implemented at new sources under requirements of 40 CFR 122.22 are met. technology for gasification wastewater the previously established regulatory D. Best Available Demonstrated Control represents current industry practice. requirements, and those that would Technology/NSPS Every IGCC power plant currently in likely be implemented under the final operation uses evaporation to treat their rule. EPA estimated that the incremental After considering all of the gasification wastewater, even when the compliance costs for a new generating technologies described in this preamble wastewater is not discharged and is unit (capital and O&M) represent and TDD Section 7, as well as public instead reused at the plant. In the case approximately 3.3 percent of the comments, and in light of the factors of FGMC wastewater, every plant annualized cost of building and specified in CWA section 306 (see currently using post-combustion sorbent operating a new 1,300 MW coal-fired Section IV.B.4), EPA concluded that the injection (e.g., activated carbon plant, with capital costs representing 0.3 technologies described in Option F injection) either handles the captured to 2.8 percent of the overnight represent BADCT for steam electric spent sorbent with a dry process or construction costs, and annual O&M power plants, and the final rule manages the FGMC wastewater so that costs representing 0.3 to 3.9 percent of promulgates NSPS based on that option. it is not discharged to surface waters (or the fuel and other O&M cost of Thus, the final NSPS establish: (1) has the capability to do so). For operating a new plant. Standards on arsenic, mercury, combustion residual leachate, chemical Finally, EPA analyzed the non-water selenium, and TDS in FGD wastewater, precipitation is a well-demonstrated quality environmental impacts and based on evaporation (same basis as for technology for removing metals and energy requirements associated with BAT limitations in voluntary incentives other pollutants from a variety of Option F for both existing and new program); (2) a zero discharge standard industrial wastewaters, including sources. See DCN SE05952 and DCN on all pollutants in bottom ash transport leachate from landfills not located at SE05951. Since there is nothing water, based on dry handling or closed- power plants. Chemical precipitation is inherently different between an existing loop systems (same bases as for BAT also well demonstrated at steam electric and new source, EPA’s analysis with limitations); (3) a zero discharge power plants for treatment of FGD respect to existing sources is instructive. standard on all pollutants in FGMC wastewater that contains the pollutants Using both of these analyses, EPA wastewater, based on dry handling in combustion residual leachate. determined that NSPS based on the (same basis as for BAT limitations); (4) The NSPS in the final rule pose no Option F technologies have acceptable standards on mercury, arsenic, barrier to entry. The cost to install non-water quality environmental selenium, and TDS in gasification technologies at new units is typically impacts and energy requirements. wastewater, based on evaporation less than the cost to retrofit existing In contrast to the BAT effluent technology (same basis as for BAT units. For example, the cost differential limitations, this rule establishes the limitations); and (5) standards on between Options B, C, and D for existing same NSPS for oil-fired generating units mercury and arsenic in discharges of sources is mostly associated with and small generating units as for all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67860 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

other new sources. A key factor that EPA did not select surface the technology basis for FGD wastewater affects compliance costs for existing impoundments as the basis for NSPS for discharges from all existing sources due sources is the need to retrofit new combustion residual leachate because, to the large associated cost, establishing pollution controls to replace existing unlike BAT, NSPS represent the NSPS for FGD wastewater based on pollution controls. New sources do not ‘‘greatest degree of effluent reduction evaporation does not add to the overall incur retrofit costs because the pollution . . . achievable’’ (CWA section 306), estimated cost of the rule because EPA controls (process operations or and (besides ‘‘cost’’ and ‘‘any non-water does not predict any new coal-fired treatment technology) are installed at quality environmental impact and generating units will be installed in the the time of construction. Thus the costs energy requirements,’’ discussed above) foreseeable future. As explained above, for new sources are lower, even if the EPA does not consider ‘‘other factors’’ however, in the event that a new unit is pollution controls are identical. in establishing NSPS. When used to installed, EPA determined that the treat combustion residual leachate, For each of the wastestreams except NSPS compliance costs would not chemical precipitation can achieve present a barrier to entry. combustion residual leachate, EPA substantial pollutant reductions as rejected establishing NSPS based on compared to surface impoundments. E. PSES surface impoundments for the same Thus, EPA has determined that NSPS reasons it rejected establishing BAT for leachate based on chemical Table VIII–2 summarizes the results of based on surface impoundments. For precipitation achieve the ‘‘greatest EPA’s pass-through analysis for the FGD wastewater, EPA also did not degree of effluent reduction’’ as that regulated pollutants (with numeric establish NSPS based on chemical term is used in CWA section 306. limitations) in each wastestream, as precipitation for the same reasons it Similarly, EPA did not select controlled by the relevant BAT and rejected establishing BAT based on that chemical precipitation plus biological NSPS technology bases.36 As explained technology. In particular, these other treatment as the basis for NSPS for FGD in Section VII.C, EPA did not conduct technologies would not achieve as much wastewater because, under CWA section its traditional pass-through analysis for pollutant reduction as the technology 306, NSPS reflect ‘‘the greatest degree of wastestreams with zero discharge bases in Option F—which is effluent reduction . . . achievable.’’ limitations or standards. Zero discharge technologically available and Evaporation systems are capable of limitations and standards achieve 100 economically achievable with achieving extremely low pollutant percent removal of pollutants; therefore, acceptable non-water quality discharge levels, and in fact can be the all pollutants in those wastestreams environmental impacts and energy basis for a plant completely eliminating pass through the POTW. As shown in requirements—and thus do not all discharges associated with FGD the table, all of the pollutants regulated represent best available demonstrated wastewater. Moreover, unlike EPA’s under BAT/NSPS pass through control technology. decision not to identify evaporation as secondary treatment by a POTW.

TABLE VIII–2—SUMMARY OF PASS-THROUGH ANALYSIS RESULTS

Pass through? Technology basis/Wastewater stream Pollutant (yes/no)

Chemical Precipitation for Combustion Residual Leachate (only for NSPS) ...... Arsenic ...... Yes. Mercury ...... Yes. Chemical Precipitation plus Biological Treatment for FGD Wastewater ...... Arsenic ...... Yes. Mercury ...... Yes. Nitrate/Nitrite as N ...... Yes. Selenium ...... Yes. Evaporation for FGD wastewater (only for NSPS) ...... Arsenic ...... Yes. Mercury ...... Yes. Selenium ...... Yes. TDS ...... Yes. Evaporation for Gasification Wastewater ...... Arsenic ...... Yes. Mercury ...... Yes. Selenium ...... Yes. TDS ...... Yes.

After considering all of the relevant discharge standard on all pollutants in EPA selected the Option D factors and technology options in this bottom ash transport water; (4) a zero technologies as the bases for PSES for preamble and in the TDD, as well as discharge standard on all pollutants in the same reasons that EPA selected the public comments, as is the case with FGMC wastewater; (5) standards on Option D technologies as the bases for BAT, EPA decided to establish PSES mercury, arsenic, selenium, and TDS in BAT. EPA’s analysis shows that, for based on the technologies described in gasification wastewater. All of the both direct and indirect dischargers, the Option D. For PSES, the final rule technology bases for the final PSES are Option D technologies are available and establishes: (1) Standards on arsenic, the same as those described for the final economically achievable, and Option D mercury, selenium and nitrate/nitrite as BAT limitations. The final rule does not has acceptable non-water quality N in FGD wastewater; (2) a zero establish PSES for combustion residual environmental impacts, including discharge standard on all pollutants in leachate because TSS does not pass energy requirements (see Sections IX fly ash transport water; (3) a zero through POTWs. and XII). EPA rejected other options for

36 The regulation of TSS in combustion residual the final BAT limitations is not represented here effectively treated by POTWs (it does not pass leachate (based on surface impoundments) under because TSS is a conventional pollutant that is through).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67861

PSES for the same reasons that the legacy wastewater equal to BPT electric power plants from Agency rejected other options for BAT. limitations for fly ash transport water, circumventing the final rule by moving Furthermore, for the same reasons that bottom ash transport water, and low effluent produced by a process apply to EPA’s final BAT limitations for volume waste sources, the final rule operation for which there is an oil-fired generating units and small does not establish PSES for legacy applicable zero discharge effluent generating units, and described in wastewater (see Section VIII.C.8). TSS limitation or standard to another plant Section VIII.C.12, the final rule does not and the pollutants it represents are process operation for discharge.38 EPA establish PSES that apply to oil-fired effectively treated by, and thus do not determined it was appropriate to generating units and small generating pass through, POTWs. include this provision in the final rule units (50 MW or smaller).37 Finally, to make clear that, just because a F. PSNS EPA determined that the final PSES wastestream that is subject to a zero prevent pass through of pollutants from After considering all of the relevant discharge limitation or standard is POTWs into receiving streams and also factors and technology options moved to another plant process, it does help control contamination of POTW described in this preamble and TDD not mean that the wastestream ceases sludge. Section 7, as well as public comments, being subject to the applicable zero As with the final BAT effluent as was the case for NSPS, EPA selected discharge limitation or standard. For limitations, in considering the the Option F technologies as the bases example, using fly ash or bottom ash availability and achievability of the final for PSNS in this rule. As a result, the transport water as makeup water for a PSES, EPA concluded that existing final PSNS establish: (1) Standards on cooling tower does not relieve a plant of indirect dischargers need some time to arsenic, mercury, selenium, and TDS in having to meet the zero discharge achieve the final standards, in part to FGD wastewater; (2) a zero discharge limitations and standards for fly ash and avoid forced outages (see Section standard on all pollutants in bottom ash bottom ash transport water. EPA VIII.C.7). However, in contrast to the transport water; (3) a zero discharge encourages the reuse of wastewater BAT limitations (which apply on a date standard on all pollutants in FGMC where appropriate, but not to the extent determined by the permitting authority wastewater; (4) standards on mercury, that it undermines the zero discharge that is as soon as possible beginning arsenic, selenium, and TDS in effluent limitations and standards in November 1, 2018, but no later than gasification wastewater; and (5) this rule. Plants are free to reuse their December 31, 2023), the new PSES standards on mercury and arsenic in wastewater, so long as the wastewater apply as of November 1, 2018. Under combustion residual leachate. All the ultimately complies with the final CWA section 307(b)(1), pretreatment technology bases for the final PSNS are limitations and standards. standards shall specify a time for the same as those described for the final Some public commenters stated that compliance not to exceed three years NSPS. The final rule also maintains the zero discharge effluent limitations and from the date of promulgation, so EPA previously established zero discharge standards for fly ash and bottom ash cannot establish a longer PSNS on discharges of fly ash transport transport water, together with this anti- implementation period. Moreover, water. As with the final NSPS, this rule circumvention provision, would unlike requirements on direct establishes the same PSNS for oil-fired prohibit water reuse and prevent water discharges, requirements on indirect generating units and small generating withdrawal reduction at steam electric discharges are not implemented through units as for all other new sources. power plants. In general, EPA disagrees an NPDES permit and thus are not EPA selected the Option F with these commenters. Most plants subject to awaiting the next permit technologies as the bases for PSNS for will choose to comply with the issuance before the limitations are the same reasons that EPA selected the requirements for ash transport water by specified clearly for the discharger. EPA Option F technologies as the bases for operating either a dry or closed-loop has determined that all of the existing NSPS (see Section VIII.D). EPA’s record wet-sluicing system to handle their fly indirect dischargers can meet the demonstrates that the technologies and bottom ash, which will eliminate or standards by November 1, 2018, and described in Option F are available and substantially reduce the amount of because there are a handful of indirect demonstrated, and Option F does not water they currently use in the dischargers (who would have pose a barrier to entry and has traditional wet-sluicing system. To the approximately three years from the date acceptable non-water quality extent that a plant currently uses (or of promulgation to achieve the environmental impacts, including was considering using) ash transport standards), implementation of the energy requirements (see Sections IX water, such as the effluent from an standards by that date would not lead to and XII). EPA rejected other options for impoundment, as makeup water for electricity availability concerns. See PSNS for the same reasons that the processes such as make-up cooling RIA. Agency rejected other options for NSPS. water and would be precluded from For purposes of the PSES in this rule, And, as with the final PSES, EPA doing so because of the anti- this preamble uses the term ‘‘legacy determined that the final PSNS prevent circumvention provision in this rule, wastewater’’ to refer to FGD wastewater, pass through of pollutants from POTWs the plant could merely switch to an fly ash transport water, bottom ash into receiving streams and also help alternate source for the makeup water, transport water, FGMC wastewater, or control contamination of POTW sludge. such as the water that was (prior to gasification wastewater generated prior G. Anti-Circumvention Provision implementing the zero discharge to November 1, 2018. For the same The final rule establishes one of the requirement for ash transport water) reasons that EPA decided to establish used to sluice fly ash or bottom ash to BAT limitations on TSS in discharges of three anti-circumvention provisions that EPA proposed. The one anti- the impoundment. In other words, the volume of water that is currently used 37 Whereas the final rule establishes BAT circumvention provision that EPA limitations on TSS in fly ash and bottom ash decided to establish applies only for to sluice ash to an impoundment and transport water, FGMC wastewater, FGD existing sources to those wastestreams wastewater, and gasification wastewater for small 38 The anti-circumvention provision applies only generating units and oil-fired generating units, TSS for which this rule established zero to limitations and standards established in this final and the pollutants that they represent do not pass discharge limitations or standards. In rule. It does not apply to limitations and standards through POTWs. general, this provision prevents steam promulgated previously.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67862 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

subsequently reused as makeup water with certain numeric limitations and sufficiently sensitive analytical test would no longer be needed to sluice the standards. Some public commenters methods when completing any NPDES ash and could instead be directly used argued that the proposed provision was permit application. Moreover, the as makeup water for the cooling water unduly restrictive, and they stated that NPDES permit authority must prescribe system or other processes. Because of EPA already has authority to that only sufficiently sensitive methods this, the zero discharge limitations in accomplish the goal of this particular be used for analyses of pollutants or this rule will not lead to a net increase provision, which is to ensure that pollutant parameters under an NPDES at the plant and in fact could result in wastestreams are being treated rather permit where EPA has promulgated a a decrease in water withdrawal. Lastly, than simply diluted. EPA agrees with CWA method for analysis of that a plant is free to reuse ash transport these commenters and thus decided that pollutant. That rule clarifies that NPDES water, and would be in compliance with existing rules, along with the guidance applicants and permittees must use the anti-circumvention provision, so in Section XVI.A.4 of this preamble and EPA-approved analytical methods that long as it is used in a process that does TDD Section 14, provide appropriate are capable of detecting and measuring not ultimately result in a discharge. flexibility to steam electric power plants the pollutants at, or below, the There is one particular type of plant to combine wastestreams with similar applicable water quality criteria or practice that the final rule’s anti- pollutants and treatability, while permit limits. circumvention provision does not apply adequately addressing EPA’s concern H. Other Revisions to. Many industry commenters noted that plants meet the effluent limitations that they use ash transport water in their and standards in this rule through 1. Correction of Typographical Error for FGD scrubber. They stated that this treatment and control strategies, rather PSNS practice is preferable to using a fresh than through dilution. Furthermore, water source and allows for an overall As EPA proposed to do, the final rule some commenters raised concerns that corrects a typographical error in the reduction in source water withdrawals. the proposed provision would be a They further stated that, under the final previously established PSNS for cooling disincentive for plants to internally re- tower blowdown. As is clear from the rule, any wastewater that passes through use the treated wastewater within the the scrubber would undergo significant development document for the 1982 plant, particularly when the re-use rulemaking, as well as the previously treatment in order to meet the final FGD eliminates the discharge of the wastewater limitations and standards. promulgated NSPS for cooling tower wastewater. For example, they stated blowdown, EPA inadvertently omitted a EPA agrees, in part, with these that some steam electric power plants comments. As explained above, EPA footnote in the table that appeared in 40 might opt to use a wet scrubber’s FGD CFR 423.17(d)(1). The footnote reads does not agree that using wastewater wastewater as reagent make-up for a from one industrial process as makeup ‘‘No detectable amount,’’ and it applies new dry scrubber in an integrated to the effluent standard for 124 of the water in another industrial process design which would essentially necessarily results in a net reduction in 126 priority pollutants contained in evaporate the wet FGD wastewater. EPA chemicals added for cooling tower water withdrawals. EPA does agree, notes that plants that internally reuse however, that using wastewater from an maintenance. See ‘‘Development wastestreams for which EPA is Document for Final Effluent Guidelines, industrial process as makeup water in establishing numeric limitations and another industrial process may be New Source Performance Standards and standards (e.g., FGD wastewater) in a Pretreatment Standards for the Steam preferable to using a fresh water source. way that completely prevents discharge EPA is mindful of the CWA’s pollutant Electric Power Generating Point Source of that wastestream would not be discharge elimination goal, but also Category,’’ Document No. EPA 440/1– subject to the numeric limitations and wants to promote opportunities for 82/029. November 1982. standards because they do not discharge water reuse. Furthermore, as explained the wastewater. EPA is aware of at least 2. Clarification of Applicability in Section V, EPA recognizes the one plant that elected to take such an extensive changes in this industry, and In addition, the final rule contains approach as an alternative to meeting it wants to provide flexibility to plants three minor modifications to the NPDES permit limitations by installing in managing their wastewater and wording of the applicability provision wastewater treatment technology. See operations, as well as preserve the in the steam electric power generating DCN SE06338. In general, EPA supports ability of plants to retain existing ELGs to reflect EPA’s longstanding approaches where it is consistent with such approaches because they result in interpretation and implementation of the CWA’s goals. While EPA would not further progress towards achieving the the rule. These revisions do not alter the choose to promote these considerations pollutant discharge elimination goal of universe of generating units regulated where it resulted in no further progress the CWA. Moreover, such approaches by the ELGs, nor do they impose toward the pollutant discharge are favored because they reduce overall compliance costs on the industry. elimination goal of the Act, in the case water intake needs. Instead, they remove potential of using ash transport water in an FGD The final rule also does not establish ambiguity in the regulations by revising scrubber, since any resulting wastewater an anti-circumvention provision that the text to more clearly reflect EPA’s discharges would still be required to would have required permittees to use longstanding interpretation. meet BAT or PSES requirements based EPA-approved analytical methods that First, the applicability provision in on either chemical precipitation plus are sufficiently sensitive to provide the previous ELGs stated, in part, that biological treatment or chemical reliable, quantified results at levels the ELGs apply to ‘‘an establishment precipitation plus evaporation under necessary to demonstrate compliance primarily engaged in the generation of this final rule, EPA decided not to apply with the final effluent limitations and electricity for distribution and the anti-circumvention provision to this standards because another recently sale. . . .’’ 40 CFR 423.10. The final particular practice. promulgated rule already accomplishes rule revises that phrase to read ‘‘an The final rule does not establish an this. As public commenters pointed out, establishment whose generation of anti-circumvention provision that EPA was conducting a rulemaking on electricity is the predominant source of would have required internal that topic; and, in August 2014, EPA revenue or principal reason for monitoring to demonstrate compliance published a rule requiring the use of operation. . . .’’ The final rule thus

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67863

clarifies that certain facilities, such as turbine portions of a combined cycle permitting authority must establish such generating units owned and operated by generating unit.’’ requirements based on BPJ for any industrial facilities in other sectors (e.g., steam electric power plant discharged I. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Waste petroleum refineries, pulp and paper non-chemical metal cleaning wastes. As mills) that have not traditionally been EPA proposed to establish BAT/ part of this determination, EPA expects regulated by the steam electric ELGs, are NSPS/PSES/PSNS requirements for that the permitting authority would not within the scope of the ELGs. In non-chemical metal cleaning wastes examine the historical permitting record addition, the final rule clarifies that equal to previously established BPT for the particular plant to determine certain municipally owned facilities limitations for metal cleaning wastes.39 how discharges of non-chemical metal that generate and distribute electricity EPA based the proposal on EPA’s cleaning waste had been permitted in within a service area (such as understanding, from industry survey the past, including whether such distributing electric power to responses, that most steam electric discharges had been treated as low municipal-owned buildings), but use power plants manage their chemical and volume waste sources or metal cleaning accounting practices that are not non-chemical metal cleaning wastes in waste. See Section XVI. the same manner. Since then, based in commonly thought of as a ‘‘sale,’’ are J. Best Management Practices subject to the ELGs. Such facilities have part on public comments submitted by traditionally been regulated by the industry groups, the Agency has learned EPA proposed to include BMPs in the steam electric ELGs. that plants refer to the same operation ELGs that would require plant operators Second, the final rule clarifies that using different terminology; some to conduct periodic inspections of classify non-chemical metal cleaning active and inactive surface fuels derived from fossil fuel are within waste as such, while others classify it as impoundments to ensure their structural the scope of the ELGs. The previous low volume waste sources. Because the integrity and to take corrective actions ELGs stated, in part, that they apply to survey responses reflect each plant’s where warranted. The proposed BMPs discharges resulting from the generation individual nomenclature, the survey were largely similar to those proposed of electricity ‘‘which results primarily results for non-chemical metal cleaning for the CCR rule, except for the closure from a process utilizing fossil-type fuels wastes are skewed. Furthermore, EPA requirements. EPA took comments on (coal, oil, or gas) or nuclear fuel. . . .’’ does not know the nomenclature each whether establishment of BMPs was 40 CFR 423.10. Because a number of plant used in responding to the survey, more appropriate under the authority of fuel types are derived from fossil fuels, so it has no way to adjust the results to the Resource Conservation and and thus are fossil fuels themselves, the account for this. Consequently, EPA Recovery Act (RCRA) or the CWA. final rule explicitly mentions and gives does not have sufficient information on While some commenters asked EPA to examples of such fuels. Thus, the rule the extent to which discharges of non- establish BMPs in the final rule, many reads that the ELGs apply to discharges chemical metal cleaning wastes occur, others urged EPA not to do so, arguing resulting from the operation of a or on the ways that industry manages that BMPs are better suited for the CCR generating unit ‘‘whose generation their non-chemical metal cleaning rule. Because EPA promulgated BMPs in results primarily from a process wastes. Moreover, EPA also does not the CCR rule, to avoid unnecessary utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or have information on potential best duplication, this rule does not establish gas), fuel derived from fossil fuel (e.g., available technologies or best available BMPs. petroleum coke, synthesis gas), or demonstrated control technologies, or nuclear fuel. . . .’’ IX. Costs and Economic Impact the potential costs to industry to comply Third, the final rule clarifies the with any new requirements. Due to EPA evaluated the costs and applicability provision to reflect the incomplete data, some public associated impacts of the ELGs on current interpretation that combined commenters urged EPA not to establish existing generating units at steam cycle systems are subject to the ELGs. BAT limitations for non-chemical metal electric power plants, and on new The ELGs apply to electric generation cleaning wastes in this final rule. sources to which the ELGs may apply in processes that utilize ‘‘a thermal cycle Ultimately, EPA decided that it does not the future. See TDD Section 9. This employing the steam water system as have enough information on a national section provides an overview of the the thermodynamic medium.’’ 40 CFR basis to establish BAT/NSPS/PSES/ methodology EPA used to assess the 423.10. EPA’s longstanding PSNS requirements for non-chemical costs and the economic impacts of the interpretation is that the ELGs apply to metal cleaning wastes. The final rule, final ELGs and summarizes the results discharges from all electric generation therefore, continues to ‘‘reserve’’ BAT/ of these analyses. See the RIA for processes with at least one prime mover NSPS/PSES/PSNS for non-chemical additional detail. that utilizes steam (and that meet the metal cleaning wastes, as the previously EPA used certain indicators to assess other applicability factors in 40 CFR promulgated regulations did.40 the economic achievability of the ELGs 423.10). Combined cycle systems, which By reserving limitations and for the steam electric industry as a are generating units composed of one or standards for non-chemical metal whole, as required by CWA section more combustion turbines operating in cleaning waste in the final rule, the 301(b)(2)(A). These values were conjunction with one or more steam compared to a baseline described turbines, are subject to the ELGs. The 39 Under the structure of the previously elsewhere in this document. For combustion turbines for a combined promulgated regulations, non-chemical metal existing sources, EPA considered the cycle system operate in tandem with the cleaning wastes are a subset of metal cleaning number of generating units and plants steam turbines; therefore, the ELGs wastes. expected to close due to the ELGs, and 40 As part of its proposal to establish new BAT/ apply to wastewater discharges PSES/NSPS/PSNS requirements for non-chemical their generating capacity relative to total associated with both the combustion metal cleaning waste equal to BPT limitations for capacity (see Section IX.C.1.b). turbine and steam turbine portions of metal cleaning waste, EPA also proposed an Although not used as the sole criterion the combined cycle system. The final exemption for certain discharges of non-chemical to determine economic achievability, metal cleaning waste, which would be treated as rule, therefore, clarifies that ‘‘[t]his part low volume waste sources. Because the final rule EPA also analyzed the ratio of applies to discharges associated with does not establish these new requirements, EPA compliance costs to revenue to estimate both the combustion turbine and steam also did not finalize the proposed exemption. the number of plants and their owning

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

entities that exceed set thresholds given other existing rules), identified one-time costs, EPA used 20 years. For indicating potential financial strain; equipment and process changes that the O&M costs incurred at intervals greater large numbers of such plants or owning plant would likely make to meet the than one year, EPA used the interval as entities could suggest that the ELGs may final ELGs, and estimated the cost to the annualization period (3 years, 5 not be economically achievable by the implement those changes. As explained years, 6 years, 10 years). EPA added industry (see Section IX.C.1.a). For new in Section V, since proposal, EPA annualized capital, initial one-time sources, EPA considered the magnitude accounted for additional announced costs, and the non-annual portion of of compliance costs relative to the costs unit retirements, conversions, and O&M costs to annual O&M costs to of constructing and operating new coal- relevant operational changes, as well as derive total annualized plant costs. fired generating units (Section IX.C.2). changes plants are likely to make in EPA calculated total industry costs by In addition to the analyses used to response to the CCR and CPP rules. As applying survey weights to the plant- determine economic achievability, EPA a result, the number of plants projected specific annualized costs and summing conducted other analyses to characterize to incur non-zero compliance costs is the potential broader economic impacts them. For the assessment of industry about 50 percent less than that costs, EPA considered costs on both a of the ELGs (e.g., on entities that own estimated at proposal. As appropriate, steam electric power plants, electricity pre-tax and after-tax basis. Pre-tax EPA also accounted for cost savings annualized costs provide insight on the rates, employment) and to enable the associated with these equipment and Agency to meet its requirements under total expenditure as incurred, while process changes (e.g., avoided costs to after-tax annualized costs are a more Executive Orders or other statutes (e.g., manage surface impoundments). EPA Executive Order 12866, Regulatory meaningful measure of impact on thus derived capital and O&M costs at privately owned for-profit plants, and Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates the plant level for control of each Reform Act). incorporate approximate capital wastestream using the technologies that depreciation and other relevant tax A. Plant-Specific and Industry Total form the bases for the final rule for treatments in the analysis. EPA uses Costs existing sources. See the TDD Section 9 pre- and/or after-tax costs in different EPA first estimated plant-specific for a more detailed description of the analyses, depending on the concept costs to control discharges at existing methodology EPA used to estimate appropriate to each analysis (e.g., social generating units at steam electric power plant-level costs. costs discussed in Section IX.B are plants to which the final ELGs apply EPA annualized one-time costs and calculated using pre-tax costs whereas (existing sources). For all applicable costs recurring on other than an annual cost-to-revenue screening-level analyses wastestreams, EPA assessed the basis over a specific useful life, discussed in Section IX.C are conducted operations and treatment system implementation, and/or event using after-tax costs). See Table IX–1 for components in place at a given unit in recurrence period, using a rate of seven estimates of pre- and post-tax industry the baseline (or expected to be in place percent. For capital costs and initial costs.

TABLE IX–1—TOTAL ANNUALIZED INDUSTRY COSTS [In millions, 2013$], 7% Discount Rate

Pre-tax After-tax

Total Annualized Industry Costs ...... $496.2 $339.6

B. Social Costs limitations into NPDES permits (which Social costs include costs incurred by have five-year terms) before they both private entities and the government Social costs are the costs of the rule become applicable, this assumption is a (e.g., in implementing the regulation). from the viewpoint of society as a reasonable estimate. As described in Section XVII.B, EPA whole, rather than regulated facilities EPA performed the social cost estimates that the final rule will not lead only. In calculating social costs, EPA analysis over a 24-year analysis period, to additional costs to permitting tabulated the pre-tax costs in the year which combines the length of the period authorities. Consequently, the only when they are estimated to be incurred. during which plants are anticipated to category of costs necessary to calculate EPA assumed that all plants upgrading install the control technologies and the social costs are those estimated for their systems in order to meet the useful life of the longest-lived steam electric power plants. effluent limitations and standards technology installed at any facility (20 would do so sometime over a five-year years). EPA calculated social cost of the Table IX–2 presents the total period, during the implementation final rule for existing generating units at annualized social cost of the final ELGs period for this rule. Given the steam electric power plants using both on existing generating units at seam implementation dates in this rule, and a three percent discount rate and an electric power plants, calculated using the fact that permitting authorities have alternative discount rate of seven three percent and seven percent to incorporate the final effluent percent.41 discount rates.

41 These discount rate values follow guidance regulatory analysis guidance document, Circular A– from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 4 (OMB, 2003).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67865

TABLE IX–2—TOTAL ANNUALIZED SOCIAL COSTS [In millions, 2013$]

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate

Total Annualized Social Costs ...... $479.5 $471.2

The value presented in Table IX–2 for taking into account the interconnection level, upper-bound estimate of the the seven percent discount rate is of regional and national electricity potential cost impacts. slightly lower than the comparable markets. It also looks at the distribution Plant-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis. industry costs (pre-tax) in Table IX–1 of impacts at the plant level. This EPA developed revenue estimates for (e.g., $471.2 million versus $496.2 second set of analyses provides insight this analysis using EIA data. EPA then million) due to the inclusion of the on the impacts of the final rule on steam calculated the annualized after-tax costs timing of expenditures in the electric power plants, as well as the of the final rule as a percent of baseline annualized social costs calculations. electricity market as a whole, including annual revenues. See Chapter 4 of the C. Economic Impacts generation capacity closure and changes RIA report for a more detailed in generation and wholesale electricity discussion of the methodology used for EPA assessed the economic impacts of prices. the plant-level cost-to-revenue analysis. this rule in two ways: (1) A screening- As noted in the introduction to this level assessment of the cost impacts on section, EPA used results from the Table IX–3 summarizes the plant- existing generating units at steam screening analysis of plant- and entity- level cost-to-revenue analysis results for electric power plants units and the level impacts, together with projected the final rule. The cost-to-revenue ratios entities that own those plants, based on capacity closure from the market model, provide screening-level indicators of comparison of costs to revenue; and (2) to determine that the final rule is potential economic impacts. Plants an assessment of the impact of this rule economically achievable. incurring costs below one percent of within the context of the broader revenue are unlikely to face economic electricity market, which includes an a. Screening-Level Assessment of impacts, while plants with costs assessment of incremental plant Impacts on Existing Units at Steam between one percent and three percent closures attributable to this rule. Electric Power Plants and Parent of revenue have a higher chance of The following sections summarize the Entities facing economic impacts, and plants findings for these analyses. The RIA EPA conducted a screening-level incurring costs above three percent of discusses the methods and results in revenue have a still higher probability of greater detail. analysis of the rule’s potential impact to existing generating units at steam economic impacts. EPA estimates that 1. Summary of Economic Impacts for electric power plants and parent entities the vast majority of steam electric power Existing Sources based on cost-to-revenue ratios. For plants (1,034 plants or 96 percent of the The first set of cost and economic each of the two levels of analysis (plant universe) to which the final rule apply impact analyses—including entity-level and parent entity), the Agency assumed, will incur annualized costs amounting impacts at both the steam electric power for analytic convenience and as a worst- to less than one percent of revenue. In plant and parent company levels— case scenario, that none of the costs fact, most of these plants will incur no reflects baseline operating would be passed on to consumers cost at all. Only four percent of plants characteristics of steam electric power through electricity rate increases and have costs between one percent and plants incurring costs and assumes no would instead be absorbed by the steam three percent of revenue (38 plants), and changes in those baseline operating electric power plants and their parent less than one percent of plants have characteristics (e.g., level of electricity entities. This assumption overstates the costs above three percent of revenue (8 generation and revenue) as a result of impacts of the final rule since steam plants). The small fractions of steam the final rule. They provide screening- electric power plants that operate in a electric power plants with costs to level indicators of the relative cost of regulated market may be able to recover revenue ratios exceeding the one the ELGs to plants, owning entities, or some of the increased production costs percent and three percent thresholds consumers. to consumers through increased suggest that the final limitations and The second set of analyses look at electricity prices. It is, however, an standards are economically achievable broader electricity market impacts appropriate assumption for a screening- for the industry as a whole.

TABLE IX–3—PLANT-LEVEL COST-TO-REVENUE ANALYSIS RESULTS a

Number and fraction of existing steam electric power plants with cost-to-revenue ratio of 0% 0–1% 1–3% >3% # % # % # % # %

Count or Percent of Plants ...... 946 88 88 8 38 4 8 1 a This analysis makes a counterfactual, conservative assumption of zero cost pass through. Plant counts are weighted estimates.

Parent Entity-Level Cost-to-Revenue cost-to-revenue analysis at the parent steam electric power plants. In this Analysis. EPA also assessed the entity level provides insight on the analysis, the domestic parent entity economic impact of the final rule at the impact of the final rule on those entities associated with any given plant is parent entity level. The screening-level that own existing generating units at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

defined as that entity with the largest revenue for the owners of all existing incurring costs and the costs incurred ownership share in the plant. units at steam electric power plants, by any entity owning an existing For each parent entity, EPA compared based on the weights developed from generating unit at a steam electric power the total annualized after-tax costs and the industry survey. These cases, which plant. the total revenue for the entity (see are described in more detail in Chapter Table IX–4 summarizes the results of Chapter 4 of the RIA report for details). 4 of the RIA, provide a range of the entity-level analysis of the final rule EPA considered two approximate estimates for the number of entities bounding cases to analyze costs and for the two analytic cases.

TABLE IX–4—PARENT ENTITY-LEVEL AFTER-TAX ANNUAL COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE a

Not Number and percentage with after tax annual analyzed costs/annual revenue of: due to lack Total number of entities of revenue 3% or information 0% 0–1% 1–3% greater # % # % # % # % # %

Case 1: Lower-bound estimate of number of entities owning steam electric power plants (which also provides an upper-bound estimate of total costs that an entity may incur)

243 ...... 14 6 166 68 53 22 8 3 2 1

Case 2: Upper-bound estimate of number of entities owning steam electric power plants (which also provides a lower-bound estimate of total costs that an entity may incur)

507 ...... 30 6 414 82 53 10 8 2 2 <1 # equals the number of entities. a This analysis makes a counterfactual, conservative assumption of zero cost pass-through.

Similar to the plant-level analysis regional and national electricity embeds a baseline energy demand above, cost-to-revenue ratios provide markets. The model is designed to forecast that is derived from DOE’s screening-level indicators of potential evaluate the effects of changes in ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook 2013’’ (AEO economic impacts, this time to the generating unit-level electric generation 2013). IPM V5.13 also incorporates in its owning entities; higher ratios suggest a costs on the total cost of electricity analytic baseline the expected higher probability of economic impacts. supply, subject to specified demand and compliance response to existing As presented in Table IX–4, EPA emissions constraints. regulatory requirements for air estimated that the number of entities Use of a comprehensive, market regulations affecting the power sector.42 owning existing generating units at analysis system is important in In addition, the Base Case for IPM steam electric power plants ranges from assessing the potential impact of the analyses of the final ELGs accounts for 243 (lower-bound estimate) to 507 regulation because of the the effects of the final CWIS rule and (upper-bound estimate), depending on interdependence of electric generating CCR rule, as well as the CPP rule.43 As the assumed ownership structure of units in supplying power to the electric explained in Section V, because of the plants not surveyed. EPA estimates that transmission grid. Increases in short time between finalizing the CPP 90 percent to 92 percent of parent electricity production costs at some rule and this final rule, EPA’s IPM entities will either incur no costs or the generating units can have a range of analysis for this final rule incorporates annualized cost they incur to meet the broader market impacts affecting other the proposed CPP rule in the baseline. final limitations and standards will generating units, including the EPA concludes the proposed and final represent less than one percent of their likelihood that various units are CPP specifications are similar enough revenues, under the lower- and upper- dispatched, on average. The analysis that using the proposed rather than the bound cases, respectively. also provides important insight on final CPP will not bias the results of the Overall, this screening-level analysis steam electric capacity closures (e.g., shows that the entity-level costs are low retirements of generating units that 42 The Base Case includes the following in comparison to the entity-level become uneconomical relative to other regulations: Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR); Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule; generating units), based on a more revenues; very few entities are likely to regulatory SO2 emission rates arising from State face economic impacts at any level. This detailed analysis of market factors than Implementation Plans (SIP); Acid Rain Program finding supports EPA’s determination in the screening-level analyses above, established under Title IV of the Clean Air Act that the final rule is economically and it further informs EPA’s Amendments; NOX SIP Call trading program for Rhode Island; Clean Air Act Reasonable Available achievable by the steam electric power determination of whether the final ELGs Control Technology requirements and Title IV unit generation industry as a whole. are economically achievable by the specific rate limits for NOX; the Regional industry as a whole. Greenhouse Gas Initiative; Renewable Portfolio b. Assessment of Impacts in the Context EPA used version 5.13 of IPM to Standards; New Source Review Settlements; and several state-level regulations affecting emissions of of the Electricity Market analyze the impacts of the final rule. SO2, NOX, and mercury that are already in place or In analyzing the impacts of regulatory IPM V5.13 is based on an inventory of expected to come into force by 2017. actions affecting the electric power U.S. utility- and non-utility-owned 43 EPA typically includes only final rules in its sector, EPA has used IPM, a boilers and generators that provide base case for its IPM analyses. However, at the time EPA performed the IPM analyses for this rule, it did comprehensive electricity market power to the integrated electric not have details of the final CPP rule. EPA therefore optimization model that can evaluate transmission grid, including plants to used information from the proposed CPP rule as a such impacts within the context of which the ELGs apply. IPM V5.13 proxy for purposes of the ELG analyses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67867

analysis for this rule. This conclusion is In analyzing the final ELGs, EPA effluent limitations and standards. Costs based on a careful evaluation of whether specified additional fixed and variable are reflective of costs in the modeled the population of steam electricity costs that are expected to be incurred by years.44 generating units that would incur costs specific steam electric power plants and Impact on Existing Steam Electric generating units to comply with the under the ELGs in the final CPP differs Power Plants. EPA used IPM V5.13 meaningfully from the proposed CPP ELGs (the costs discussed in Section results for 2030 to assess the potential baseline. The analyses led us to IX.A). EPA then ran IPM including these impact of the final rule on existing conclude that using the proposed CPP additional costs to determine the baseline in lieu of the final CPP baseline dispatch of electric generating units that generating units at steam electric power is acceptable because (1) the number of would meet projected demand at the plants. The purpose of this analysis is steam electric generating units that lowest costs, subject to the same to assess impacts on existing generating would incur costs under the ELGs is constraints as those present in the units at steam electric power plants very similar on either baseline, and (2) analysis baseline. The estimated specifically. EPA used this information where the populations differ, the net changes in plant-specific and unit- in determining whether the ELGs are number of steam electric generating specific production levels and costs— economically achievable by the steam units that are in one baseline and not and, in turn, changes in total electric electric power generating industry as a the other is small relative to the total power sector costs and production whole. population of steam electric generating profile—are key data elements in Table IX–5 reports results for existing units that would incur costs under the evaluating the expected national and generating units at steam electric power ELGs in either baseline. See the RIA for regional effects of the ELGs, including plants, as a group. EPA looked at the additional details. closures of steam electric generating following metrics: (1) Incremental early In contrast to the screening-level units. retirements and capacity closures, analyses, which are static analyses and EPA considered impact metrics of calculated as the difference between do not account for interdependence of interest at three levels of aggregation: (1) capacity under the ELGs and capacity electric generating units in supplying Impact on national and regional power to the electric transmission grid, electricity markets (all electric power under the baseline, which includes both IPM accounts for potential changes in generation, including steam and non- full plant closures and partial plant the generation profile of steam electric steam electric power plants), (2) impact closures (unit closures) in aggregate and other units and consequent changes on steam electric power plants as a capacity terms; (2) incremental capacity in market-level generation costs, as the group, and (3) impact on individual closures as a percentage of baseline electric power market responds to steam electric power plants incurring capacity; (3) post-compliance change in higher generation costs for steam costs. Chapter 5 of the RIA discusses the electricity generation; (4) post- electric units due to the ELGs. first analysis. The sections below compliance changes in variable Additionally, in contrast to the summarize the two analyses focusing on production costs per MWh, calculated screening-level analyses in which EPA steam electric power plants, which are as the sum of total fuel and variable assumed no cost pass through of the further described in Chapter 5 of the O&M costs divided by net generation; final rule costs, IPM depicts production RIA. and (5) changes in annual costs (fuel, activity in wholesale electricity markets All results presented below are variable O&M, fixed O&M, and capital). where some recovery of compliance representative of modeled market Items (1) and (2) provide important costs through increased electricity conditions in the years 2028–2033, by insight for determining the economic prices is possible but not guaranteed. which time all plants will meet the achievability of the ELGs. TABLE IX–5—IMPACT OF FINAL ELGSONSTEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AS A GROUP AT THE YEAR 2030

Incremental early retirements closures a

Change in Change in total variable Change in Region Baseline % of generation production cost annual costs capacity Capacity baseline (GWh or % of (2013$/MWh or % (million 2013$ (MW) (MW) capacity baseline) of baseline) or % of baseline)

Total U.S...... 359,982 843 0.2% ¥3,179 ¥0.2% $0.10 0.3% $496 0.6% a Values for incremental early retirements or closures represent change relative to the baseline run. IPM may show partial (unit) or full plant early retirements (closures). It may also show avoided closures (negative closure values) in which a unit or plant that is projected to close in the baseline is estimated to continue operating in the post-compliance case. Avoided closures may occur among plants that incur no compliance costs or for which compliance costs are low relative to other steam electric power plants.

Under the final rule, variable power plants, total capacity decreases The change in total generation is an production costs at steam electric power by 843 MW or approximately 0.2 indicator of how steam electric power plants increase by approximately 0.3 percent of the 359,982 MW baseline plants fare, relative to the rest of the percent at the national level. The capacity, corresponding to a net closure electricity market. While at the market resulting net change in total capacity for of two units, or when aggregating to the level there is essentially no projected steam electric power plants is very level of steam electric generating plants, change in total electricity generation,45 small. For the group of steam electric one net plant closure.

44 In contrast, the social costs estimated in compliance costs over the entire 24-year period of 45 As discussed in the RIA, at the national level, Section IX.B reflect the discounted value of analysis, as of 2015. the demand for electricity does not change between Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:51 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

for steam electric power plants, total plants experience only slight effects—no several scenarios that represent the available capacity and electricity change, or less than a one percent different types of operations present at generation at the national level are reduction or one percent increase. See existing steam electric power plants or projected to fall by approximately 0.2 Table 5–4 in the RIA. Only 17 plants see typically included at new steam electric percent. their capacity utilization reduced by power plants. These scenarios capture These findings of very small national more than one percent, while 25 plants differences in the plant status (building effects (and similarly very small increase their capacity utilization by a generating unit at a new location regional effects, as described in Chapter more than one percent. The estimated versus adding a new generating unit at 5 of the RIA) in these impact metrics change in variable production costs is an existing power plant), presence of support EPA’s conclusion that the final higher; 43 plants have an increase in on-site impoundments or landfills, type rule will have little economic variable production costs exceeding one of ash handling, type of FGD systems in consequence for the steam electric percent; for seven of these plants, this service, and type of leachate collection power generating industry and the increase exceeds three percent, but and handling. electricity market and is, therefore, again the vast majority of plants EPA assessed the possible impact of economically achievable. experience a less than one percent this final rule on new units by Impact on Individual Steam Electric increase in variable production costs. comparing the incremental costs for Power Plants Incurring Costs under this Results for the subset of plants incurring new units to the overall cost of building Rulemaking. To assess potential plant- costs further support the conclusion that and operating new scrubbed coal units, level effects, EPA also analyzed plant- the effects of the final rule on the steam on an annualized basis. specific changes between the base case electric industry will be small. and the post-compliance cases for the EPA estimated costs of a new coal following metrics: (1) Capacity 2. Summary of Economic Impacts for unit using the overnight 46 capital and utilization (defined as annual generation New Sources O&M costs of building and operating a (in MWh) divided by [capacity (MW) EPA also evaluated the expected costs new scrubbed coal unit from the EIA’s times 8,760 hours]) (2) electricity of meeting the final standards for new Annual Energy Outlook 2014. For generation, and (3) variable production sources. The incremental cost associated purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed costs per MWh, defined as variable with complying with the final NSPS and a new dual-unit plant with a total O&M cost plus fuel cost divided by net PSNS varies depending on the types of generation capacity of 1,300 MW. Table generation. processes, wastestreams, and waste IX–6 shows capital and O&M costs of The analysis of changes in individual management systems that the plant building and operating a new coal unit plants as a result of the final rule is would have installed in the absence of and contrasts these costs with the detailed in Chapter 5 of the RIA. The the new source requirements. EPA incremental costs associated with the results indicate that steam electric estimated capital and O&M costs for final NSPS/PSNS.

TABLE IX–6—COMPARISON OF INCREMENTAL COMPLIANCE COSTS WITH COSTS FOR NEW COAL-FIRED STEAM ELECTRIC UNITS

Costs of new coal Incremental % of new Cost component generation compliance costs generation cost ($2013/MW) b ($2013/MW) a

Capital ...... $3,058,861 $8,328–$87,085 0.3–2.8 Annual Non-Fuel O&M ...... 69,630 620–8,828 0.3–3.9 Annual Fuel c ...... 157,737

Total Annualized Costs ...... 497,213 1,354–16,511 0.3–3.3 a Source: New unit total cost value from Table 8.2 EIA NEMS Electricity Market Module. AEO 2014 Documentation. Available at http://www.eia. gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf. Capital costs are based on the total overnight costs for new scrubbed coal dual-unit plant, 1,300 MW capacity, coming online in 2017. EPA restated costs in 2013 dollars using the construction cost index. Total annual O&M costs as- sume 90% capacity utilization. b Incremental costs for new 1300 MW unit for Option F. Range represents the costs for a new unit at a newly constructed plant (lower bound) and new unit at an existing plant, with evaporation technology (upper bound). c Fuel costs estimated assuming heat rate of 8,800 Btu/kWh (AEO 2014) and coal price delivered to the power sector of 2.27 $/Mbtu (AEO 2015, projected costs in 2017 in 2013$).

The comparison suggests that costs for meeting standards specified in the X. Pollutant Reductions associated with meeting the final NSPS/ final rule are 0.3 to 3.3 percent of EPA took a similar approach to the PSNS represent a relatively small annualized costs for new coal generating one described above for plant-specific fraction of overnight capital costs of a capacity. Based on this assessment, EPA costs in estimating pollutant reductions new unit (less than one percent) and a concludes that the final rule does not associated with the final rule. For each similarly small fraction of non-fuel present a barrier to entry. wastestream 47 and each POC, EPA first O&M and fuel costs (less than one estimated—on an annual, per plant percent). On an annualized basis, costs basis—plant-specific baseline pollutant

the baseline and the analyzed regulatory options constructed assuming that the entire process from 47 EPA estimated pollutant reductions for (generation within the regions is allowed to vary) planning through completion could be wastestreams with numeric and zero pollutant because meeting demand is an exogenous constraint accomplished in a single day. This concept is useful discharge limitations and standards. The reductions imposed by the model. to avoid any impact of project delays and of reflect a reduction in the mass of pollutant 46 As defined by the EIA, ‘‘overnight cost’’ is an financing issues and assumptions on estimated discharged. estimate of the cost at which a plant could be costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67869

loadings taking into account would allow them to comply with the form the bases for the final limitations components in place at the plant (or final rule, the baseline and post- and standards, EPA calculated the expected to be in place given other compliance pollutant loadings are pollutant loadings for plants that existing rules 48) and, where equivalent. EPA then calculated the implement these technologies to appropriate, pollutant removals at the pollutant reduction as the difference estimate the pollutant reductions POTW, since these removals result in between the estimated baseline and associated with the rule. See TDD reduced discharges to receiving waters. post-compliance discharge loadings. For Section 10 for a detailed discussion of EPA similarly estimated plant-specific each wastestream, EPA then calculated EPA’s pollutant loadings and reductions post-compliance pollutant loadings total industry pollutant reductions by methodologies. using the mean concentrations applying survey weights to the plant- specific pollutant reductions and Table X–1 presents estimated associated with the final limitations and summing them. industry-level pollutant reductions for standards. In cases where a plant had While plants are not required to the final rule. already implemented approaches that implement the specific technologies that

TABLE X–1—TOTAL ANNUALIZED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS

Pollutant reductions (pounds per year) Analysis baseline Conventional Priority Nonconventional pollutants a pollutants pollutants b

Final Rule ...... 13,400,000 410,000 371,000,000 a The loadings reduction for conventional pollutants includes BOD and TSS. b The loadings reduction for nonconventional pollutants excludes TDS and COD to avoid double counting removals for certain pollutants that would also be measured by these bulk parameters (e.g., sodium, magnesium).

XI. Development of Effluent Limitations state that the daily maximum limitation near the daily maximum limitation and Standards is the ‘‘highest allowable ‘daily would not be operating its treatment to The final rule establishes a zero discharge’ ’’ and the maximum for achieve the long-term average. Targeting discharge limitation and standard monthly average limitation is the treatment to achieve the daily applicable to all pollutants in fly ash ‘‘highest allowable average of ‘daily limitation, rather than the long-term transport water, bottom ash transport discharges’ over a calendar month, average, may result in values that water, and FGMC wastewater; therefore, calculated as the sum of all ‘daily frequently exceed the limitations due to no effluent concentration data were discharges’ measured during a calendar routine variability in treated effluent. used to set the limitations and standards month divided by the number of ‘daily EPA’s objective in establishing for these wastestreams. The final rule discharges’ measured during that monthly average limitations is to contains new numeric effluent month.’’ Daily discharges are defined to provide an additional restriction to help limitations and standards that apply to be the ‘‘ ‘discharge of a pollutant’ ensure that plants target their average discharges of FGD wastewater and measured during a calendar day or any discharges to achieve the long-term gasification wastewater at new and 24-hour period that reasonably average. The monthly average limitation existing sources, and to discharges of represents the calendar day for purposes requires dischargers to provide ongoing combustion residual leachate at new of sampling.’’ control, on a monthly basis, that sources.49 EPA’s objective in establishing daily supplements controls imposed by the EPA developed the new numeric maximum limitations is to restrict the daily maximum limitation. In order to effluent limitations and standards in discharges on a daily basis at a level that meet the monthly average limitation, a this final rule using long-term average is achievable for a plant that targets its plant must counterbalance a value near effluent values and variability factors treatment at the long-term average. EPA the daily maximum limitation with one that account for variation in acknowledges that variability around or more values well below the daily performance at well-operated facilities the long-term average occurs during maximum limitation. that employ the technologies that normal operations. This variability The TDD provides a detailed constitute the bases for control. EPA’s means that plants occasionally may description of the data and methodology methodology for derivation of discharge at a level that is higher (or used to develop long-term averages, limitations in ELGs is longstanding and lower) than the long-term average. To variability factors, and limitations and has been upheld in court. See, e.g., allow for these possibly higher daily standards for the final rule. As a result Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177 discharges and provide an upper bound of public comments, EPA expanded the (5th Cir. 1989); Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. for the allowable concentration of data set used to calculate the BAT/PSES EPA, 286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002). EPA pollutants that may be discharged, effluent limitations and standards for establishes the final effluent limitations while still targeting achievement of the discharges of FGD wastewater from and standards as ‘‘daily maximums’’ long-term average, EPA has established existing sources. Largely, this expanded and ‘‘maximums for monthly averages.’’ the daily maximum limitation. A plant data set includes additional self- Definitions provided in 40 CFR 122.2 that consistently discharges at a level monitoring data from plants operating

48 As explained elsewhere in this preamble, for the limitations and standards in this rule would rather than the industry survey baseline year of this final rule, EPA adjusted its estimates to, among apply. As such, baseline loadings in this final rule 2009 used in the proposed rule. other things, account for known generating unit reflect closures, conversions, and operational 49 Effluent limitations and standards based on the closures and conversions and known operating changes that will take place prior to previously established BPT limitations on TSS are changes, including those associated with the CCR implementation of the rule in NPDES permits, rule, expected to occur prior to the time in which not discussed in this section.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

the selected technology basis. EPA also samples were collected from a location of control. For these final limitations expanded the data set by including that is not representative of treated and standards, EPA determined that treatment performance data from effluent; or (7) the treatment system was such exceedances can be controlled by another plant that, upon review of operating in a manner that does not diligent process and wastewater comments, EPA determined would be represent BAT/NSPS level of treatment system operational practices, appropriate to use to calculate the performance. The results of EPA’s such as regular monitoring of influent effluent limitations in this rule. The evaluation of the data and reasons for and effluent wastewater characteristics combination of EPA sampling data (both any data exclusions are summarized in and adjusting dosage rates for chemical EPA-collected and CWA section 308 DCN SE05733. additives to target effluent performance samples collected by plants for analysis Tables XI–1 and XI–2 present the for regulated pollutants at the long-term by EPA) and plant self-monitoring data effluent limitations and standards for average concentration for the BAT/ results in data sets characterizing the FGD wastewater, gasification NSPS technology. Additionally, some treatment system performance over wastewater, and combustion residual plants may need to upgrade or replace several years at each of the plants used leachate. For comparison, the tables also existing treatment systems to ensure to develop effluent limitations and present the long-term average treatment that the treatment system is designed to standards for FGD wastewater. performance calculated for these achieve performance that targets the wastestreams. Due to routine variability effluent concentrations at the long-term EPA identified certain data that in treated effluent, a power plant that warranted exclusion from the average. This is consistent with EPA’s targets discharging its wastewater at a costing approach and its engineering calculations of the limitations and level near the values of the daily standards because: (1) The samples were judgment developed over years of maximum limitation or the monthly evaluating wastewater treatment analyzed using an analytical method average limitation may experience that is not approved in 40 CFR part 136 processes for steam electric power frequent values exceeding the plants and other industrial sectors. EPA for NPDES permit purposes; (2) the limitations. For this reason, EPA samples were analyzed using an recognizes that, as a result of the final recommends that plants design and rule, some dischargers, including those insufficiently sensitive analytical operate the treatment system to achieve that are operating technologies method (e.g., use of EPA Method 245.1 the long-term average for the model representing the technology bases for to measure the concentration of mercury technology. In doing so, a system that is the final rule, may need to improve their in effluent samples); (3) the samples designed to represent the BAT/NSPS treatment systems, process controls, were analyzed in a manner which level of control would be expected to and/or treatment system operations in resulted in an unacceptable level of meet the limitations. analytical interferences; (4) the samples EPA expects that plants will be able order to consistently meet the effluent were collected during the initial to meet their effluent limitations or limitations and standards. This is commissioning period for the standards at all times. If an exceedance consistent with the CWA, which wastewater treatment system or the is caused by an upset condition, the requires that discharge limitations and plant decommissioning period and do plant would have an affirmative defense standards reflect the best available not represent BAT/NSPS level of to an enforcement action if the technology economically achievable or performance; (5) the analytical results requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n) are the best available demonstrated control were identified as questionable due to met. Exceedances caused by a design or technology. quality control issues, abnormal operational deficiency, however, are See DCN SE05733 for details of the conditions or treatment system upsets, indications that the plant’s performance calculation of the limitations and or were analytical anomalies; (6) the does not represent the appropriate level standards presented in the tables below.

TABLE XI–1—LONG-TERM AVERAGES AND EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR FGD WASTEWATER AND GASIFICATION WASTEWATER FOR EXISTING SOURCES

Daily Monthly Wastestream Pollutant Long-term maximum average average limitation limitation

FGD Wastewater (BAT & PSES) ...... Arsenic (μg/L) ...... 5.98 11 8 Mercury (ng/L) ...... 159 788 356 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/L) ...... 1.3 17.0 4.4 Selenium (μg/L) ...... 7.5 23 12 Voluntary Incentives Program for FGD Waste- Arsenic (μg/L) ...... a 4.0 b 4 (c) water (BAT only). Mercury (ng/L) ...... 17.8 39 24 Selenium (μg/L) ...... a 5.0 b 5 (c) TDS (mg/L) ...... 14.9 50 24 Gasification Wastewater (BAT & PSES) ...... Arsenic (μg/L) ...... a 4.0 b 4 (c) Mercury (ng/L) ...... 1.08 1.8 1.3 Selenium (μg/L) ...... 147 453 227 TDS (mg/L) ...... 15.2 38 22 a Long-term average is the arithmetic mean of the quantitation limits since all observations were not detected. b Limitation is set equal to the quantitation limit. c Monthly average limitation is not established when the daily maximum limitation is based on the quantitation limit.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67871

TABLE XI–2—LONG-TERM AVERAGES AND STANDARDS FOR FGD WASTEWATER, GASIFICATION WASTEWATER, AND COMBUSTION RESIDUAL LEACHATE FOR NEW SOURCES

Daily Monthly Wastestream Pollutant Long-term maximum average average limitation limitation

FGD Wastewater (NSPS & PSNS) ...... Arsenic (μg/L) ...... a 4.0 b 4 (c) Mercury (ng/L) ...... 17.8 39 24 Selenium (μg/L) ...... a 5.0 b 5 (c) TDS (mg/L) ...... 14.9 50 24 Gasification Wastewater (NSPS & PSNS) ...... Arsenic (μg/L) ...... a 4.0 b 4 (c) Mercury (ng/L) ...... 1.08 1.8 1.3 Selenium (μg/L) ...... 147 453 227 TDS (mg/L) ...... 15.2 38 22 Combustion Residual Leachate (NSPS & PSNS) Arsenic (μg/L) d ...... 5.98 11 8 Mercury (ng/L) d ...... 159 788 356 a Long-term average is the arithmetic mean of the quantitation limits since all observations were not detected. b Limitation is set equal to the quantitation limit. c Monthly average limitation is not established when the daily maximum limitation is based on the quantitation limit. d Long-term average and standards were transferred from performance of chemical precipitation in treating FGD wastewater.

XII. Non-Water Quality Environmental environmental impacts, see TDD TABLE XII–1—INDUSTRY-LEVEL EN- Impacts Section 12. ERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE The elimination or reduction of one Table XII–1 presents the net increases FINAL RULE form of pollution can create or aggravate in energy requirements for the final rule. EPA estimates that energy increases Non-water quality environmental Final other environmental problems. impact rule Therefore, CWA sections 304(b) and 306 associated with this rule are less than require EPA to consider non-water 0.01 percent of the total electricity Electrical Energy Usage (MWh) ..... 237,000 quality environmental impacts generated by all electric power plants Fuel (GPY) ...... 556,000 (including energy requirements) and the fuel consumption increase is associated with ELGs. Accordingly, EPA 0.002 percent of total fuel consumption Table XII–2 presents the estimated net considered the potential impact of this by all motor vehicles in the U.S. change in air emissions for the final rule on energy consumption, air rule. Table XII–2 shows that the emissions, and solid waste generation.50 estimated air emission increases are less In addition, EPA evaluated the effects than 0.04 percent of the total air associated with water withdrawal. For emissions generated in 2009 by the information on the methodologies EPA electric power industry for the three used to estimate the non-water quality pollutants evaluated.

TABLE XII–2—AIR EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH BAT/PSES FOR FINAL RULE

Change in air 2009 emissions emissions Increase in Non-water quality environmental impact by electric associated with emissions for power industry final rule final rule (million tons) (million tons) (%)

NOX ...... 1 ¥0.0114 ¥1.16 SOX ...... 6 0.00243 0.0406 CO2 ...... 2,403 ¥2.58 ¥0.107

EPA compared the estimated increase reduce their water withdrawal by 57 XIII. Environmental Assessment in solid waste generation to the amount billion gallons per year (155 million A. Introduction of solids generated in a year by electric gallons per day). See TDD Section 12. power plants throughout the U.S.— Based on these analyses, EPA Although not required to do so, EPA approximately 134 billion tons. The determined that the final BAT effluent conducted an environmental assessment increase in solid waste generation limitations and PSES have acceptable for the final rule, as it did for the associated with the final rule is less non-water quality environmental proposed rule. The environmental than 0.001 percent of the total solid impacts, including energy impacts. assessment for the final rule reviewed waste generated by all electric power currently available literature on the plants. documented environmental and human EPA estimates that, under the final health impacts of steam electric power rule, steam electric power plants will plant wastewater discharges and

50 Because EPA does not project any new coal or environmental impacts for new generating units to environmental impacts associated with NSPS/PSNS oil-fired generating units, the results presented in be similar to or the same as existing generating would be acceptable. For EPA’s analysis of non- this section reflect existing generating units. units, EPA determined that in the event a new water quality impacts for existing generating units Because EPA expects non-water quality generating unit is built, the non-water quality for Option F, see Section 12 of the TDD.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

conducted modeling to determine the Chronic exposure to cadmium, a impoundments extended beyond the cumulative impacts of pollution from probable carcinogen, can lead to kidney plant boundaries, illustrating the threat the universe of steam electric power failure, lung damage, and weakened to ground water drinking water sources plants to which the final rule applies. bones. Human exposure to elevated (see DCN SE04518). Where this final EPA modeled both the impacts of steam levels of thallium can lead to rule helps to reduce or eliminate the electric power plant discharges at neurological symptoms, hair loss, continued disposal or storage of steam baseline conditions (pre-rule gastrointestinal effects, liver and kidney electric power plant wastewater conditions) and the improvements that damage, and reproductive and pollutants in unlined or leaking surface will likely result after implementation developmental damage. Long-term impoundments, potential impacts to of the rule. exposure to selenium can damage the ground water will also be reduced or EPA’s review of the scientific kidney, liver, and nervous and eliminated. literature; documented cases of the circulatory systems. The ecological impacts of steam extensive impacts of steam electric The pollutants in steam electric electric power plant wastewater power plant wastewater discharges on power plant wastewater can pollutants include both acute (e.g., fish human health and the environment; and bioaccumulate within fish and other kills) and chronic effects (e.g., a full description of EPA’s modeling aquatic wildlife in the receiving waters reproductive failure, malformations, and methodology and results are provided in and subsequently be transferred to metabolic, hormonal, and behavioral the EA. recreational and subsistence fishers who disorders) upon biota within the consume these contaminated fish, receiving water and the surrounding B. Summary of Human Health and potentially resulting in the acute and environment. Recovery of aquatic Environmental Impacts chronic health impacts described above. environments from exposure to these As discussed in the environmental Certain populations are particularly at steam electric power plant pollutants assessment and proposed rule, current risk, including women who are can be extremely slow due to the scientific literature indicates that steam pregnant, nursing, or may become accumulation and continued cycling of electric power plant wastewaters such pregnant, and communities relying on the pollutants within ecosystems, as fly ash transport water, bottom ash consumption of fish from contaminated resulting in the potential to alter transport water, FGD wastewater, and waters as a major food source. ecological processes such as population combustion residual leachate contain Discharges of steam electric power diversity and community dynamics. large amounts of a wide range of plant pollutants to surface waters also Furthermore, many steam electric power harmful pollutants, some of which are have the potential to contaminate plants discharge pollutants to sensitive toxic and bioaccumulative, and which drinking water sources, causing environments such as the Great Lakes, cause significant, widespread potential problems for drinking water valuable estuaries such as the detrimental environmental and human systems and, if left untreated, potential Chesapeake Bay, 303(d) listed impaired health impacts. adverse health effects. A recent study waters, and waters with fish Discharges of steam electric power indicates that pollutants in ash and FGD consumption advisories. EPA identified plant wastewaters present a serious wastewater discharges exceeded MCLs 69 steam electric power plants with public health concern due to the in every surface water that was documented adverse environmental potential human exposure to toxic monitored in North Carolina during the impacts on surface waters (see DCN pollutants through consumption of study (see DCN SE01984). Nitrogen SE04518). contaminated fish and drinking water. discharges from steam electric power Toxic pollutants that detrimentally plants can contribute, along with other C. Environmental Assessment affect human health that are commonly sources, to harmful algal blooms. Methodology found in steam electric power plant Harmful algal blooms can affect As discussed in Section V.G, EPA wastewater discharges include mercury, drinking water sources, such as the updated the environmental assessment lead, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, and recent incident in Toledo, Ohio (see for the final rule to respond to public selenium, along with numerous others DCN SE04517). comments and to better characterize the (see EA Section 3). These pollutants are Bromide discharges from steam environmental and human health associated with a variety of documented electric power plants can contribute to improvements associated with the final adverse human health impacts. For the formation of carcinogenic DBPs in rule. Although not required to do so, example, human exposure to elevated public drinking water systems. A recent EPA conducted an environmental levels of mercury for relatively short study identified four drinking water assessment for the final rule. The periods of time can result in kidney and treatment plants that experienced environmental assessment reviewed brain damage. Pregnant women who are increased levels of bromide in their currently available literature on the exposed to mercury can pass the source water, and in some, a documented environmental and human contaminant to their developing fetus, corresponding increase in the formation health impacts of steam electric power leading to possible toxic injury of the of brominated DBPs in the drinking plant wastewater discharges and fetal brain and damage to other parts of water system, after the installation of conducted modeling to determine the the nervous system. Human exposure to wet FGD scrubbers at upstream steam cumulative impacts of pollution from elevated levels of lead can cause serious electric power plants (see DCN the universe of steam electric power damage to the brain, kidneys, nervous SE04503). plants to which the final rule applies. system, and red blood cells, especially Although not directly addressed by EPA modeled both of the impacts of in children. Arsenic is associated with this final rule, ground water steam electric power plant discharges at an increased risk of liver and bladder contamination from surface baseline conditions and the cancer in humans, as well as non-cancer impoundments containing steam improvements that will likely result impacts including dermal, electric power plant wastewater also after implementation of this rule. The cardiovascular, respiratory, and threatens drinking water sources. EPA final environmental assessment also reproductive effects such as excess identified more than 30 documented incorporates changes to the industry incidences of miscarriages, stillbirths, cases where ground water profile to account for retirements, preterm births, and low birth weights. contamination from surface conversions, and operational changes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67873

that EPA anticipates, given other wastewater discharges. The ecological TABLE XIII–1—KEY ENVIRONMENTAL existing rules, primarily the CCR and risk model accounts for the IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN MODELED CPP rules. bioaccumulation of selenium in aquatic IMMEDIATE RECEIVING WATERS The environmental assessment organisms through dietary exposure (the UNDER THE FINAL RULE 53 modeling for the final rule consisted of food web), as contrasted with exposure (1) a steady-state, national-scale only to dissolved selenium in the water Will improve immediate receiving water (IRW) model Criteria evaluated for column. Dietary exposure plays a more exceedances under the final that evaluated the discharges from significant role in determining the rule? steam electric power plants and focused extent of selenium bioaccumulation in on impacts within the immediate Freshwater Acute National YES aquatic organisms. The ecological risk Recommended WQC. surface water where the discharges model also accounts for the higher rates Freshwater Chronic National YES occur (approximately one to 10 of selenium bioaccumulation that can Recommended WQC. kilometers [km] from the outfall),51 and occur in slow-flowing aquatic systems Human Health Water and Or- YES (2) dynamic case study models with such as lakes and reservoirs, and the ganism National Rec- more extensive, site-specific modeling ommended WQC. of selected waterbodies that receive, or risk model translates selenium tissue Human Health Organism YES are downstream from, steam electric concentrations into the predicted risk of Only National Rec- power plant discharges. EPA also adverse reproductive effects (e.g., ommended WQC. modeled receiving water concentrations reduced egg hatchability, larval Drinking Water MCL ...... YES Fish Ingestion NEHC for YES downstream from steam electric power mortality, and deformities that affect survival) among exposed fish and Mink. plant discharges using EPA’s Risk- Fish Ingestion NEHC for Ea- YES Screening Environmental Indicators waterfowl. EPA applied the ecological gles. (RSEI) model, and improved its risk model to the water quality outputs Adverse Reproductive Effects YES modeling of selenium bioaccumulation from both the national-scale IRW model in Fish due to Selenium. in fish and wildlife. and the case-study models. See EA Adverse Reproductive Effects YES Additionally, for the final rule, EPA Section 5.2 for a more detailed in Mallards due to Sele- updated and improved several input discussion. nium. parameters for the IRW model, Non-Cancer Reference Dose YES including fish consumption rates for D. Outputs From the Environmental for Child (Recreational and Assessment Subsistence fishers). recreational and subsistence fishers, the Non-Cancer Reference Dose YES bioconcentration factor for copper, and EPA focused its quantitative analyses for Adult (Recreational and benchmarks for assessing the potential on the environmental and human health Subsistence fishers). for impacts to benthic communities in impacts associated with exposure to Arsenic Cancer Risk for Child YES receiving waters. toxic bioaccumulative pollutants via the (Recreational and Subsist- The case-study modeling for the final ence fishers). surface water pathway. EPA focused the rule is based on EPA’s Water Quality Arsenic Cancer Risk for Adult YES modeling on discharges of toxic Analysis Simulation Program (WASP), (Recreational and Subsist- bioaccumulative pollutants from a which accounts for fluctuations in ence fishers). subset of evaluated wastestreams from receiving water flow rates by using daily Acronyms: MCL (Maximum Contaminant stream flow monitoring data instead of steam electric power plants (fly ash and Level); NEHC (No Effect Hazard Concentra- one annual average flow rate for the bottom ash transport water, FGD tion); WQC (Water Quality Criteria). wastewater, and combustion residual a The IRW model encompasses a total of receiving water, as used in the IRW. The 163 immediate receiving waters (144 rivers case-study modeling accounts for leachate) into rivers/streams and lakes/ and streams; 19 lakes, ponds, and reservoirs) pollutant transport and accumulation ponds (including reservoirs).52 EPA and loadings from 143 steam electric power within receiving water reaches that are addressed environmental impacts from plants. downstream from the discharge nutrients in a separate analysis 1. Improvements in Surface Water and location, allowing for an assessment of discussed in Section XIII.D.5. Ground Water Quality environmental impacts over a larger The environmental assessment EPA estimates a significant number of portion of the receiving waterbody. The concentrates on impacts to aquatic life environmental and ecological case study modeling also accounts for based on changes in surface water improvements and reduced impacts to pollutant contributions from other quality; impacts to aquatic life based on wildlife and humans from reductions in point, nonpoint, and background changes in sediment quality within pollutant loadings under the final rule. sources, to the extent practical, using surface waters; impacts to wildlife from More specifically, the environmental available data sources. EPA used the consumption of contaminated aquatic assessment evaluated (a) improvements water quality results of the case-study organisms; and impacts to human health in water quality, (b) reduction in modeling to supplement the results of from consumption of contaminated fish impacts to wildlife, (c) reduction in the IRW model (see EA Section 8). and water. Table XIII–1 presents a list EPA improved its selenium number of receiving waters with of the key environmental improvements bioaccumulation modeling for impacts potential human health cancer risks, (d) projected within the immediate on wildlife by developing and using an reduction in number of receiving waters receiving waters due to the pollutant ecological risk model that predicts the with potential to cause non-cancer risk of reproductive impacts among fish loading reductions under the final rule. human health effects, (e) reduction in and waterfowl exposed to selenium These improvements are discussed in nutrient impacts, (f) reduction in other from steam electric power plant detail, with quantified results, in the environmental impacts, and (g) other EA. unquantified environmental 51 The IRW model used for the final rule is improvements. substantially similar to the one used for the 52 EPA did not use the state 303d lists of impaired proposed rule, but with certain updates, as further waters in order to ensure comprehensive coverage 53 See the EA for the details and amounts of the discussed in this section. of all pollutants of concern. projected improvements.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

EPA expects significantly reduced standard exceedances beyond those indicates that the final rule will reduce contamination levels in surface waters reflected in the IRW model. the long-term bioaccumulative impact of and sediments under the final rule. EPA As discussed in the EA, the RSEI selenium (and possibly other estimates that reduced pollutant modeling indicates that surface waters bioaccumulative pollutants) throughout loadings to surface waters will downstream from steam electric power aquatic ecosystems. significantly improve water quality by plant wastewater discharges will also In addition, EPA estimates that the reducing pollutant concentrations by an achieve water quality improvements improvements to water quality, average of 56 percent within the under the final rule. discussed above, will improve aquatic immediate receiving waters of steam This final rule will also potentially and wildlife habitats in the immediate electric power plants where additional help to both reduce ground water and downstream receiving waters from treatment technologies are installed as a contamination and improve the steam electric power plant discharges. result of this final rule. Based on the availability of ground water resources EPA determined that these water quality water quality component of the IRW by complementing the CCR rule. This and habitat improvements will enhance model, which compares modeled rule provides strong incentives for efforts to protect threatened and receiving water concentrations to plants to greatly reduce, if not entirely endangered species. EPA identified four national recommended WQC and MCLs eliminate, disposal and treatment of species with a high vulnerability to to assess changes in receiving water steam electric power plant wastewater changes in water quality whose recovery quality, the pollutants with the greatest in unlined surface impoundments. will be enhanced by the pollutant number of water quality standard 2. Reduced Impacts to Wildlife reductions associated with the final exceedances under baseline pollutant rule. EPA expects that once the rule is loadings include: Total arsenic, total 3. Reduced Human Health Cancer Risk thallium, total selenium, and dissolved implemented the number of immediate cadmium. EPA estimates that almost receiving waterbodies with potential EPA estimates that reductions in half of the immediate receiving waters impacts to wildlife will begin to be arsenic loadings from the final rule will exceed a water quality standard under reduced by more than a half compared result in a reduction in potential cancer baseline loadings. EPA estimates that to baseline conditions under the final risks to humans that consume fish the number of immediate receiving rule. exposed to steam electric power plant waters with aquatic life exceedances, EPA determined that steam electric discharges. In addition, based on the which are driven by high total selenium power plant wastewater discharges into downstream RSEI modeling, EPA and dissolved cadmium concentrations, lakes pose the greatest risk to estimates that numerous river miles will be reduced under the final rule. piscivorous (fish eating) wildlife, with downstream from steam electric EPA also estimates that the number of almost a half of lakes exceeding a discharges contain fish contaminated immediate receiving waters with human protective benchmark for minks or with inorganic arsenic that present health water quality standards eagles under baseline pollutant loadings cancer risks to at least one of the exceedances, primarily driven by high (compared to about a third of rivers). evaluated cohorts. The final rule total arsenic and total thallium Mercury and selenium are the primary substantially reduces this number of concentrations, will be reduced under pollutants with the greatest number of miles. the final rule. receiving waters with benchmark exceedances. EPA estimates that this 4. Reduced Threat of Non-Cancer Selenium is one of the primary Human Health Effects pollutants documented in the literature rule will reduce the number of as causing environmental impacts to immediate receiving waters exceeding Exposure to toxic bioaccumulative fish and wildlife. EPA calculates that the benchmark for minks and eagles by pollutants poses risk of systemic and total selenium receiving water approximately half for mercury and other effects to humans, including concentrations will be reduced by two- selenium. Additionally, as discussed in effects on the circulatory, respiratory, or thirds under the final rule, leading to a the EA, the downstream RSEI modeling digestive systems, and neurological and reduction in the number of immediate indicates that surface waters developmental effects. EPA estimates receiving waters exceeding the downstream from steam electric power the final rule will significantly reduce freshwater chronic criteria for selenium. plant wastewater discharges will also the number of receiving waters with the While the case-study models and IRW achieve improvements in these wildlife potential to cause non-cancer health model produced generally similar benchmarks under the final rule. effects in humans who consume fish results for the five receiving waters For the final rule, EPA also performed exposed to steam electric power plant included in both analyses, the case- modeling to estimate the risk of adverse pollutants. study model reveals additional potential reproductive effects among fish (e.g., Under baseline pollutant loadings, for baseline impacts to water quality, reduced larvae survival) and waterfowl EPA determined that about half of aquatic life, and human health that are (e.g., reduced egg hatchability) with immediate receiving waters present not reflected in the IRW model. Case- dietary exposure to selenium from non-cancer health risks for one or more study modeling also reveals that these steam electric power plant wastewater. of the human cohorts due to elevated potential impacts can extend beyond the Based on the water quality output from pollutant levels in fish. The final rule, immediate receiving water and into the IRW model, EPA determined that once implemented, will begin to reduce downstream waters, leading to the approximately 15 percent of immediate this amount by approximately 50 potential for more widespread receiving waters contain selenium percent for all the human cohorts that environmental and human health effects concentrations that present at least a ten were evaluated. Non-cancer risks are than those shown with the IRW model. percent risk of adverse reproductive caused primarily by mercury (as This is particularly true regarding water effects among fish or waterfowl that methylmercury), total thallium, and quality standard exceedances; in four of consume prey from those waterbodies. total selenium, and to a lesser degree, the five receiving waters included in Under the final rule, EPA estimates that total cadmium pollutant loadings. both analyses, the case-study model the count of immediate receiving waters Additionally, as discussed in the EA, indicates that the final rule will result presenting these reproductive risks will the downstream RSEI modeling in further reductions in water quality be reduced by more than half. This indicates that the final rule substantially

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67875

reduces the prevalence of downstream using the SPARROW (Spatially with pollutants from steam electric waters with contaminated fish that Referenced Regressions On Watershed power plant wastewater, it does not present non-cancer health risks to at attributes) model. capture the full range of exposure least one of the human cohorts. pathways through which E. Unquantified Environmental and In addition to the assessment of non- bioaccumulative pollutants can enter Human Health Improvements cancer impacts described above, EPA the surrounding food web. Wildlife can also evaluated the adverse health effects The environmental assessment encounter toxic bioaccumulative to children who consume fish focused primarily on the quantification pollutants from discharges of the contaminated with lead from steam of environmental improvements within evaluated wastestreams through a electric power plant wastewater. EPA rivers and lakes from post-compliance variety of exposure pathways such as estimates that the final rule will pollutant reductions for toxic direct exposure, drinking water, significantly reduce the associated IQ bioaccumulative pollutants and consumption of contaminated loss among children who live in excessive nutrients. While extensive, vegetation, and consumption of recreational angler and subsistence the environmental improvements contaminated prey other than fish and fisher households. The final rule will quantified do not encompass the full invertebrates. Therefore, the quantified also reduce the incidence of other range of improvements anticipated to improvements underestimate the health effects associated with lead result from the final rule simply because complete loadings of bioaccumulative exposure among children, including some of the improvements have no pollutants that can impact wildlife in slowed or delayed growth, delinquent method for measuring a quantifiable or the ecosystem. The final rule will lower and anti-social behavior, metabolic monetizable improvement. EPA the total amount of toxic effects, impaired heme synthesis, estimates post-compliance pollutant bioaccumulative pollutants entering the anemia, and impaired hearing. The final reductions from the final rule to result food web near steam electric power rule will also reduce IQ loss among in much greater improvements than plants. children exposed in utero to mercury those quantified for wildlife, human EPA also estimates that reductions in from maternal fish consumption. health and the environment by: pollutant loadings will lower the Section XIV.B.1 provides additional • Reducing loadings of occurrence of sub-lethal effects details on the benefits analysis of these bioaccumulative pollutants to the associated with many of the pollutants reduced IQ losses. broader ecosystem, resulting in the in steam electric power plant The final rule will also result in reduction of long-term exposures and wastewater that are not captured by additional non-cancer human health sub-lethal ecological effects; comparisons with national improvements beyond those discussed • Reducing sub-lethal chronic effects recommended WQC for aquatic life. above, including reduced health hazards of toxic pollutants on aquatic life not Chronic effects such as decreased due to exposure to contaminants in captured by the national recommended reproductive success, changes in waters that are used for recreational WQC; purposes (e.g., swimming). • Reducing loadings of pollutants for metabolic rates, decreased growth rates, which EPA did not perform water changes in morphology (e.g., fin erosion, 5. Reduced Nutrient Impacts quality modeling in support of the oral deformities), and changes in The primary concern with nutrients environmental assessment (e.g., boron, behavior (e.g., swimming ability, ability (nitrogen and phosphorus) in steam manganese, aluminum, vanadium, and to catch prey, ability to escape from electric power plant discharges is the iron); predators) that can negatively affect potential for contributing to adverse • Mitigating impacts to aquatic and long-term survival, are well documented impacts in waterbodies that receive aquatic-dependent wildlife population in the literature as occurring in aquatic nutrient discharges from multiple diversity and community structures; environments near steam electric power sources. Excessive nutrient loadings to • Reducing exposure of wildlife to plants. Reductions in organism survival receiving waters can significantly affect pollutants through direct contact with rates from chronic effects such as the ecological stability of freshwater and combustion residual surface abnormalities can alter interspecies saltwater aquatic ecosystems and pose impoundments and constructed relationships (e.g., declines in the health threats to humans from the wetlands built as treatment systems at abundance or quality of prey) and generation of toxins by cyanobacteria, steam electric power plants; and prolong ecosystem recovery. which can thrive in nitrogen driven • Reducing the potential for the Additionally, EPA was unable to algal blooms (DCN SE04505). formation of harmful algal blooms. quantify changes to aquatic and wildlife Nine percent of surface waters Data and analytical limitations population diversity and community receiving steam electric power plant prevent modeling the scale and dynamics; however, population effects wastewater discharges are impaired for complexity of the ecosystem processes (decline in number and type of nutrients. Although the concentration of potentially impacted by steam electric organisms present) caused by exposure nitrogen present in steam electric power power plant wastewater, resulting in the to steam electric power plant plant discharges from any individual inability to quantify all potential wastewater are well documented in the power plant is relatively low, the total improvements. However, documented literature. Changes in aquatic nitrogen loadings from a single plant site-specific impacts in the literature populations can alter the structure and can be significant due to large reinforce that these impacts are common function of aquatic communities and wastewater discharge flow rates. in the environments surrounding steam cause cascading effects within the food EPA projects that the final rule will electric power plants and fully support web that result in long-term impacts to reduce total nutrient loadings by steam the conclusion that reducing pollutant ecosystem dynamics. EPA estimates that electric power plants in their loadings will further reduce risks to post-compliance pollutant loading immediately downstream receiving human health and wildlife and prevent reductions associated with the final rule waters by more than 99 percent. Section damage to the environment. will lower the stressors that can cause XIV provides additional details on the Although the environmental alterations in population and water quality benefits analysis of assessment quantifies impacts to community dynamics and improve the nutrient reductions, as determined wildlife that consume fish contaminated overall function of ecosystems

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

surrounding steam electric power F. Other Improvements inputs and assumptions that reflect plants, as well as help resolve issues Other improvements will occur to updated data and address comments the faced in other national ecosystem other resources that are associated Agency received on the proposed rule, protection programs such as the Great directly or indirectly with the final rule. including additional categories of Lakes program, the National Estuaries These include aesthetic and recreational benefits the Agency analyzed for the program, and the 303(d) impaired improvements, reduced economic final rule. waters program. impacts such as clean up and treatment A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed The post-compliance pollutant costs in response to contamination or Table XIV–1 summarizes benefit reductions associated with the final rule impoundment failures, reduced injury associated with pond failures, reduced categories associated with the final rule will also decrease the environmental and notes which categories EPA was impacts to wildlife exposed to ground water contamination, support for threatened and endangered species, able to quantify and monetize. Analyzed pollutants through direct contact with benefits fall within five broad surface impoundments and constructed reduced water usage and reduced air emissions. Section XIV provides categories: Human health benefits from wetlands at steam electric power plants. surface water quality improvements, Documented site-specific impacts additional details on the monetized benefits of these improvements. ecological conditions and recreational demonstrate that wildlife living in close use benefits from surface water quality proximity to combustion residual XIV. Benefits Analysis improvements, market and productivity impoundments exhibit elevated levels This section summarizes EPA’s benefits, air-related benefits (which of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, estimates of the national environmental include both human health and climate mercury, selenium, and vanadium. benefits expected to result from change-related effects), and water Multiple studies have linked these reduction in steam electric power plant withdrawal benefits. Within these broad ‘‘attractive nuisance’’ areas wastewater discharges described in categories, EPA was able to assess (contaminated impoundments at a Section X and the resultant benefits with varying degrees of steam electric power plant that attract environmental effects summarized in completeness and rigor. Where possible, wildlife for nesting or feeding) to Section XIII. The BCA Report provides EPA quantified the expected effects and diminished reproductive success. EPA additional details on benefits estimated monetary values. However, estimates that the post-compliance methodologies and analyses, including data limitations and gaps in the pollutant reductions will decrease the uncertainties and limitations. The understanding of how society values exposure of wildlife populations to analysis methodology is generally the certain water quality changes prevent toxic pollutants and reduce the risks for same as that used by EPA for analysis EPA from quantifying and/or impacts on reproductive success. of the proposed rule, but with revised monetizing some benefit categories.

TABLE XIV–1—BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL RULE

Neither Benefit category Quantified and Quantified but quantified nor monetized not monetized monetized

1. Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements

Reduced incidence of cancer from arsenic exposure via fish consumption ...... X Reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease from arsenic exposure via fish consumption ..... X Reduced incidence of cardiovascular disease from lead exposure via fish consumption ...... X a Reduced incidence of other cancer and non-cancer adverse health effects (e.g., reproduc- tive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory toxicity) due to exposure to ar- senic, lead, cadmium, and other toxics from fish consumption ...... X Reduced IQ loss in children from lead exposure via fish consumption ...... X Reduced need for specialized education for children from lead exposure via fish consumption X Reduced in utero mercury exposure via maternal fish consumption ...... X Reduced health hazards from exposure to pollutants in waters used recreationally (e.g., swimming) ...... X

2. Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use Benefits from Surface Water Quality Improvements

Benefits from improvements in surface water quality, including: Improved aquatic and wildlife habitat; enhanced water-based recreation, including fishing, swimming, boating, and near- water activities; increased aesthetic benefits, such as enhancement of adjoining site amen- ities (e.g., residing, working, traveling, and owning property near the water b; and non-use value (existence, option, and bequest value from improved ecosystem health) b ...... X Benefits from improved protection of threatened and endangered species ...... X Reduced sediment contamination ...... X

3. Market and Productivity Benefits

Reduced impoundment failures (monetized benefits include avoided cleanup costs, trans- action costs, and environmental damages; non-quantified benefits include avoided injury) .. X X Reduced water treatment costs for municipal drinking water, irrigation water, and industrial process ...... X Improved commercial fisheries yields ...... X Increased tourism and participation in water-based recreation ...... X Increased property values from water quality improvements ...... X Increased ability to market coal combustion byproducts ...... X a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67877

TABLE XIV–1—BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL RULE—Continued

Neither Benefit category Quantified and Quantified but quantified nor monetized not monetized monetized

Reduced maintenance dredging in navigational waterways and reservoirs from reduction in sediment discharges ...... X a

4. Air-Related Benefits

Human health benefits from reduced morbidity and mortality from exposure to NOX, SO2 and particulate matter (PM2.5) ...... X Avoided climate change impacts from CO2 emissions ...... X

5. Benefits from Reduced Water Withdrawals

Increased availability of ground water resources ...... X Reduced impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms ...... X Reduced susceptibility to drought ...... X a Monetized benefit category added for the final rule. b These values are implicit in the total willingness to pay (WTP) for water quality improvements.

The following section summarizes measures of human health-related waterbody-specific fish tissue EPA’s analysis of the benefits that the benefits: Reduced lead-related IQ loss in concentration estimates to calculate Agency was able to quantify and children aged zero to seven from fish exposure to steam electric pollutants. monetize (identified in the second consumption; reduced cardiovascular Cohorts were defined by age, sex, race/ column of Table XIV–1). The final rule disease in adults from lead and arsenic ethnicity, and fishing mode will also provide additional benefits exposure from fish consumption; (recreational/subsistence). EPA used that the Agency was not able to reduced mercury-related IQ loss in these data to quantify and monetize the monetize. The BCA Report further children exposed in utero due to following six categories of human health describes some of these additional non- maternal fish consumption; and reduced benefits, which are further detailed in monetized benefits. cancer risk in adults due to arsenic the BCA Report: • B. Quantification and Monetization of exposure from fish consumption. EPA Benefits from Reduced IQ Loss in Benefits monetized these human health benefits Children from Lead Exposure via Fish by estimating the change in the Consumption. 1. Human Health Benefits From Surface expected number of individuals • Benefits from Reduced Need for Water Quality Improvements experiencing adverse human health Specialized Education for Children from Reduced pollutant discharges from effects in the populations exposed to Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption. steam electric power plants generate steam electric discharges and/or • Benefits from Reduced Incidence of human health benefits in a number of reduced exposure levels, and valuing Cardiovascular Disease from Lead ways. As described in Section XIII, these changes using a variety of Exposure via Fish Consumption. exposure to pollutants in steam electric monetization approaches. • Benefits of Reduced In Utero power plant discharges via consumption These are not the only human health Mercury Exposure via Maternal Fish of fish from affected waters can cause a benefits expected to result from the final Consumption. wide variety of adverse health effects, rule. EPA also estimated additional • Benefits from Reduced Incidence of including cancer, kidney damage, human health benefits derived from Cancer from Arsenic Exposure via Fish nervous system damage, fatigue, changes in air emissions. These Consumption. irritability, liver damage, circulatory additional benefits are discussed • Benefits from Reduced Incidence of damage, vomiting, diarrhea, brain separately in Section XIV.B.4. Cardiovascular Disease from Arsenic Exposure via Fish Consumption. damage, IQ loss, and many others. a. Monetized Human Health Benefits Table XIV–2 summarizes monetized Because the final rule will reduce From Surface Water Quality human health benefits from surface discharges of steam electric pollutants Improvements into waterbodies that receive, or are water quality improvements. EPA downstream from, these discharges, it is EPA estimated health risks from the estimates that the final rule will provide likely to result in decreased incidences consumption of contaminated fish from human health benefits valued at $16.5 of associated illnesses. waterbodies within 50 miles of to $17.9 million annually, using a three Due to data limitations and households. EPA used Census Block percent discount rate, and $11.3 to uncertainties, EPA is able to monetize population data, state-specific average $11.6 million, using a seven percent only a subset of the health benefits fishing rates, and data on fish discount rate. In addition, EPA associated with reductions in pollutant consumption advisories to estimate the estimated health benefits associated discharges from steam electric power exposed population. EPA used cohort- with changes in air emissions, as plants. EPA analyzed the following specific fish consumption rates and discussed in Section XIV.B.4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE XIV–2—HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS FROM SURFACE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS

Annualized benefits Benefit category (million 2013$)

3% Discount Rate

Benefits from Reduced IQ Loss in Children from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption a ...... $1.0 ($0.8 to $1.1) Benefits from Reduced Need for Specialized Education for Children from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption ..... <0.1 Benefits from Reduced Incidence of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption ..... 12.8 Benefits of Reduced In Utero Mercury Exposure via Maternal Fish Consumption a ...... 3.5 (2.9 to 4.0) Benefits from Reduced Incidence of Cancer from Arsenic Exposure via Fish Consumption ...... <0.1 Subtotal b ...... 16.5 to 17.9 (15.2 to 16.7)

7% Discount Rate

Benefits from Reduced IQ Loss in Children from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption a ...... 0.2 (0.1 to 0.2) Benefits from Reduced Need for Specialized Education for Children from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption ..... <0.1 Benefits from Reduced Incidence of CVD from Lead Exposure via Fish Consumption ...... 10.7 Benefits of Reduced In Utero Mercury Exposure via Maternal Fish Consumption a ...... 0.6 (0.5 to 0.7) Benefits from Reduced Incidence of Cancer from Arsenic Exposure via Fish Consumption ...... <0.1 Subtotal b ...... 11.4 (10.7 to 11.0) a Low end is based on the assumption that the loss of one IQ point results in the loss of 1.76% of lifetime earnings (following Schwartz, 1994); high end is based on the assumption that the loss of one IQ point results in the loss of 2.38% of lifetime earnings (following Salkever, 1995). b Totals may not add up due to independent rounding.

2. Improved Ecological Conditions and a. Improvements in Surface Water EPA estimated monetized benefit Recreational Use Benefits From Surface Quality values using a revised version of the Water Quality Improvements meta-regression of surface water EPA expects the final rule will valuation studies used in the benefit- EPA expects the final rule will improve aquatic habitats and human cost analysis of the proposed ELGs provide ecological benefits by welfare by reducing concentrations of (DCN SE03172). Using a meta-dataset of improving ecosystems (aquatic and harmful pollutants such as arsenic, 51 studies published between 1985 and terrestrial) affected by the electric power cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, 2011, EPA developed a meta-regression industry’s discharges. Benefits selenium, nitrogen, phosphorus, and model that predicts how marginal associated with changes in aquatic life suspended sediment. As a result, some willingness to pay (WTP) for water include restoration of sensitive species, of the waters that were not usable for quality improvements depends on a recovery of diseased species, changes in recreation under the baseline discharge variety of methodological, population, taste-and odor-producing algae, changes conditions may become usable resource, and water quality change in dissolved oxygen (DO), increased following the rule, thereby benefiting characteristics. EPA developed two assimilative capacity of affected waters, recreational users. Waters that have versions of the meta-regression model: and improved recreational activities. been used for recreation under the The first model (Model 1) provides a Activities such as fishing, swimming, baseline conditions can become more central estimate of non-market benefits, wildlife viewing, camping, waterfowl attractive by making recreational trips while the second model (Model 2) hunting, and boating may be enhanced even more enjoyable. The final rule is provides a range of estimates to account when risks to aquatic life and also expected to generate nonuse for uncertainty in the resulting WTP perceivable water quality effects benefits from bequest, altruism, and values. Chapter 4 of the BCA provides associated with pollutants are reduced. existence motivations. Individuals may more details on the meta-regression EPA was able to monetize several value knowing that water quality is models and analysis. categories of ecological benefits being maintained, ecosystems are being EPA estimated economic values of associated with this final rule, including protected, and species populations are water quality improvements at the recreational use and nonuse (existence, healthy, independent of any use. Census block group level. Water quality bequest, and altruistic) benefits from EPA estimates that approximately improvements are measured as a length- improvements in the health of aquatic 19,600 reach miles will improve as a weighted average of the changes in WQI environments, and nonuse benefits from result of the final rule, as indicated by for waters within 100 miles of the center increased populations of threatened and a higher post-compliance water quality of each Census block; these waters endangered species. As shown in Table index (WQI) score. The WQI translates includes both waters improving as a XIV–1, the Agency quantified and water quality measurements, gathered result of the final rule and waters not monetized two main benefit for multiple parameters that are affected by steam electric plant subcategories, discussed below: (1) indicative of various aspects of water discharges but which may be substitutes Benefits from improvements in surface quality, into a single numerical for improved waters. water quality, and (2) benefits from indicator that reflects achievement of EPA first estimated annual household improved protection of threatened and quality consistent with the suitability marginal WTP values for a given Census endangered (T&E) species. for certain uses. block group using the meta- regression

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67879

models (Model 1 and Model 2) and wildlife-based national recommended CCR rule. The approach relies on multiplied this marginal WTP by the WQC because of the final rule. estimated failure rates and capacity annual average water quality change for The T&E species expected to benefit factors for two different types of releases the Census block group to obtain the from the rule include one species of (wall breach and other release) and two annual household WTP. sturgeon and two species of minnows. categories of impoundments (big and EPA then estimated total WTP values All of these species have nonuse values, small). For the final steam electric ELG by multiplying the annual household including existence, bequest, altruistic, rule analysis, EPA used baseline release- WTP values by the total number of and ecological service values, apart from rate assumptions that account for households within a Census block human uses or motives. EPA estimated changes projected to result from group. EPA annualized the stream of the economic values of increased T&E implementation of the CCR rule. As future benefits, expressed in 2013 species populations using a benefit detailed in Chapter 6 of the BCA Report, dollars, using both 3 and 7 percent function transfer approach based on a EPA calculated the expected costs of an discount rates. meta-analysis of 31 stated preference impoundment release, including Total national benefits are the sum of studies eliciting WTP for these changes cleanup, natural resource damages estimated Census block group-level (Richardson and Loomis 2009). Because (NRD),55 and transaction costs.56 WTP across all block groups for which the underlying metadata do not include Using the approach above, EPA at least one waterbody within 100 miles amphibian valuation studies, EPA was estimates the annualized benefits of the is improved. unable to monetize any benefits for final rule are $95.6 million to $102.9 Average annual household WTP potential population increases of million using a three percent discount estimates for the final ELGs range from Hellbender salamander. EPA estimates rate, and $77.7 million to $83.7 million $0.32 on the low end to $1.77 on the annualized benefits to T&E species of using a seven percent discount rate. high end, with a central estimate of approximately $0.02 million, using b. Benefits From Increased Marketability $0.45. An estimated 84.5 million either a three percent or seven percent of Coal Combustion Residuals discount rate. households reside in Census block The final rule may enhance the ability groups within 100 miles of affected 3. Market and Productivity Benefits of steam electric power plants to market reaches. The total annualized benefits of coal combustion byproducts for water quality improvements resulting a. Benefits From Reduced Magnitude of Impoundment Failures beneficial use by converting from wet to from reduced metal, nutrient, and dry handling of fly ash, bottom ash and sediment pollution in the approximately Operational changes that plants FGD waste. In particular, EPA evaluated 19,600 reach miles improving under the choose to make to meet requirements in the potential benefits from the increased final ELGs range from $23.2 million to the final rule may cause some plants to marketability of fly ash as a substitute $129.5 million with a central estimate of reduce their reliance on impoundments for Portland cement in concrete $31.3 million using a three percent to handle their waste. EPA expects these production and fly and bottom ashes as discount rate and $18.5 million to changes to reduce the magnitude of substitutes for sand and gravel in fill $103.4 million with a central estimate of impoundment failures and the resulting applications. Based on the change in the $25.1 million using a seven percent accidental, and sometimes catastrophic quantity of CCRs handled dry and state- discount rate. releases, of CCRs. level demand for beneficial use To assess the benefits associated with applications of CCRs, EPA calculated b. Benefits to Threatened and changes in impoundment use, EPA Endangered Species avoided disposal costs and life-cycle estimated the costs associated with benefits from avoiding the production of To assess the potential for impacts on expected releases under baseline virgin materials. Chapter 10 of the BCA T&E species (both aquatic and conditions (assuming no change in Report details the methodology. terrestrial), EPA analyzed the overlap operations relative to expected EPA estimates the annualized benefits between waters currently exceeding operations under the CCR and CPP of the final rule at $30.8 million using wildlife-based national recommended rules) and for projected reductions in a three percent discount rate, and $31.1 WQC, but expected to have no wildlife the amount of CCR waste managed by million using a seven percent discount national recommended WQC impoundments. EPA performed the rate. exceedances as a result of the final rule, calculations for each of the 883 to 925 and the known critical habitat locations impoundments identified at steam 4. Air-Related Benefits (Human Health of approximately 631 T&E species. EPA electric power plants,54 and for each and Avoided Climate Change Impacts) examined the life history traits of year between 2016 and 2042. EPA then EPA expects the final rule to affect air potentially affected T&E species to calculated benefits as the difference pollution through three main categorize species by the potential for between expected release costs for the mechanisms: (1) Additional auxiliary population impacts likely to occur as a final rule and expected release costs electricity use by steam electric power result of changes in water quality. under baseline conditions. Chapter 5 of the BCA Report details the To estimate the number of release 55 NRD include only the resource restoration and methodology. events that may be avoided as a result compensation values; they do not include cleanup of the ELGs, EPA followed the same costs (or legal costs). EPA determined that of 15 species 56 For this analysis, transaction costs include the whose recovery may be enhanced by the approach used by EPA for its RIA for the costs associated with negotiating NRD, determining final rule, three fish species and one responsibility among potentially responsible salamander species may experience 54 The 883 to 925 impoundments represent the parties, and litigating details regarding settlements estimated number of impoundments expected to and remediation. These activities involve services, changes in population growth rates as a operate after accounting for the projected effects of whether performed by the complying entity or other result of the final rule. To quantify the the CCR rule and CPP rule, relative to the initial parties that EPA expects would be needed in the benefits to T&E species, EPA weighted universe of 1,070 impoundments located at 347 absence of this regulation, in the event of an minimal population growth plants (out of the total universe of 1,080 steam impoundment release. Note that the transaction electric plants). The range of impoundments reflects costs do not include fines, cleanup costs, damages, assumptions (0.5, 1, or 1.5 percent) by different assumptions regarding the projected or other costs that constitute transfers or are already the percent of reaches used by T&E effects of the CPP rule on impoundment operations. accounted for in the other categories analyzed species that are expected to meet See Chapter 6 in the BCA for more information. separately.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

plants to operate wastewater treatment, EPA estimated the human health and decline in SO2 emissions during the rest ash handling, and other systems, which other benefits resulting from net of the period. The values are specific to EPA predicts that plants will use to changes in air emissions of three the years 2016, 2020, 2025, and 2030. meet the new effluent limitations and pollutants: NOX, SO2, and CO2. NOX Because they are almost linear as a standards; (2) additional transportation- and SOX are known precursors to fine function of year, EPA interpolated related air emissions due to the particles (PM2.5), a criteria air pollutant benefits per ton values for the increased trucking of CCR waste to that has been associated with a variety intermediate years (e.g., between 2020 landfills; and (3) the change in the of adverse health effects—most notably, and 2025) and projected values for the profile of electricity generation due to premature mortality, non-fatal heart years from 2031 through 2042 by linear the relatively higher cost to generate attacks, hospital admissions, emergency regression. While extrapolating electricity at plants incurring department visits, upper and lower introduces some uncertainty, as it does compliance costs for the final ELGs. respiratory symptoms, acute bronchitis, not account for meteorological and air Changes in the profile of generation can aggravated asthma, lost work days, and quality changes over time, this approach result in lower or higher emissions of air acute respiratory symptoms. CO2 is a is a reasonable one, given available pollutants because of variability in key greenhouse gas that is linked to a information. emission factors for different types of wide range of climate change effects. Chapter 7 of the BCA Report provides electric generating units. For this EPA used average benefit-per-ton the details of this analysis. As shown in analysis, the changes in air emissions estimates to value benefits of changes in Table XIV–3, EPA estimates that the are based on the change in dispatch of NOX and SO2 emissions, and social cost final rule will provide human health generation units projected by IPM of carbon (SCC) estimates to value benefits valued at $144.7 million using V5.13, as a result of overlaying the costs benefits of changes in CO2 emissions. a three percent discount rate, and of meeting the final ELGs onto steam The calculations are based on the net $108.8 million using a seven percent electric generating units’ production changes in air emissions and reflect the discount rate. The rule is expected to costs. As discussed in Section IX.C.1, net reductions in CO2 and NOX provide air-related benefits from the IPM analysis accounts for the effects emissions during the entire period of changes in CO2 emissions valued at of other regulations affecting the electric analysis, and the net increase in SO2 $139.8 million, using a three percent power sector. emissions in 2023–2027, and net discount rate.

TABLE XIV–3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS OF CHANGES IN NOX, SO2, AND CO2 AIR EMISSIONS [Million 2013$]a

Benefit category 3 Percent 7 Percent discount rate discount rate b

Human health benefits from reduced morbidity and mortality from exposure to NOX, SO2 and particulate mat- ter (PM2.5) ...... $144.7 $108.8 b Avoided climate change impacts from CO2 emissions ...... $139.8 $139.8 Total ...... $284.5 $248.6 a Consistent with the assumptions used for the IPM analyses described in Section IX.C, EPA estimated the benefits relative to a baseline that includes the CPP rule. b EPA used the SCC based on a three percent discount rate to estimate values presented for the seven percent discount rate. EPA uses three percent to discount CO2-related benefits and seven percent to discount benefits from changes in NOX and SO2 emissions. See Section 7.1 of the BCA for details on the methodology.

5. Benefits From Reduced Water of plants that rely on ground water monetize the benefits from reduced Withdrawals (Increased Availability of sources. surface water withdrawals. Chapter 8 of Ground Water Resources) EPA estimated the benefits of reduced the BCA Report provides additional ground water withdrawals based on detail on benefits from reducing surface Steam electric power plants use water avoided costs of ground water supply. water withdrawals. for handling waste (e.g., fly ash, bottom For each relevant plant, EPA multiplied C. Total Monetized Benefits ash) and for operating wet FGD the reduction in ground water scrubbers. By eliminating or reducing withdrawal (in gallons per year) by Using the analysis approach described water used in sluicing operations or water costs of about $1,231 per acre- above, EPA estimates annual total prompting the recycling of water in FGD foot. Chapter 8 of the BCA Report benefits of the final rule for the five wastewater treatment systems, the ELGs provides the details of this analysis. monetized categories at approximately are expected to reduce water EPA estimates the annualized benefits $450.6 million to $565.6 million (at a withdrawals from surface waters and of reduced ground water withdrawals three percent discount rate and $387.3 reduce demand on aquifers, in the case are less than $0.1 million annually. Due million to $478.4 million at a seven to data limitations, EPA was not able to percent discount rate) (Table XIV–4).

TABLE XIV–4—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE

Annualized monetized Benefit category benefits (million 2013$)

3 Percent Discount Rate

Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Improvements ad ...... $16.5 to $17.9

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67881

TABLE XIV–4—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE—Continued

Annualized monetized Benefit category benefits (million 2013$)

Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses abd ...... $23.3 to $129.5 Market and Productivity Benefits (impoundment failure and ash marketing) ...... $126.4 to $133.7 Human Health Benefits from Air Quality Improvements ...... $144.7 Other Air-Related Benefits (climate change) ...... $139.8 Reduced Water Withdrawals ...... <$0.1

Total benefits ...... $450.6 to $565.6

7 Percent Discount Rate

Human Health Benefits from Surface Water Improvements a ...... $11.3 to $11.6 Improved Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses ab ...... $18.6 to $103.4 Market and Productivity Benefits (impoundment failure and ash marketing) ...... $108.8 to $114.8 Human Health Benefits from Air Quality Improvements ...... $108.8 Other Air-Related Benefits c (climate change) ...... $139.8 Reduced Water Withdrawals ...... <$0.1

Total benefits ...... $387.3 to $478.4 a Values represent mean benefit estimates. Totals may not add up due to independent rounding. b There may be some, expected to be small, overlap between the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for surface water quality improvements and WTP for benefits to threatened and endangered species. c EPA used the SCC based on a three percent discount rate and discounted CO2-related benefits using a three percent discount rate, as com- pared to benefits in other categories, which are discounted using the seven percent discount rate. d Estimates for this benefit category do not reflect revised pollutant loadings, which could result in lower monetized benefits. See Section 1.4.3 of the Benefit Cost Analysis for this rule for details.

D. Other Benefits different years) per incremental toxic- The result of the cost-effectiveness The monetized benefits of this final weighted pollutant removals for that calculation represents the unit cost (in rule do not account for all benefits option. This definition includes the constant 1981 dollars) of removing the because, as described above, EPA is following concepts: next pound-equivalent of pollutants. unable to monetize some categories. Toxic-weighted removals. The EPA calculates cost-effectiveness Examples of benefit categories not estimated reductions in pollution separately for direct and indirect reflected in these estimates include discharges, or pollutant removals, are dischargers. EPA notes that only three other cancer and non-cancer health adjusted for toxicity by multiplying the steam electric power plants are benefits, reduced cost of drinking water estimated removal quantity for each estimated to incur costs associated with treatment, avoided ground water pollutant by a normalizing toxic weight the final PSES requirements, as contamination corrective action costs, (toxic weighting factor). The toxic compared to 130 plants estimated to reduced vulnerability to drought, and weight for each pollutant measures its incur costs associated with the final reduced aquatic species mortality from toxicity relative to copper, with more BAT requirements. reduced surface water withdrawal. The toxic pollutants having higher toxic Appendix F of the RIA details the BCA Report discusses these benefits weights. The use of toxic weights allows analysis. qualitatively, indicating their potential the removals of different pollutants to B. Results magnitude where possible. be expressed on a constant toxicity basis Collectively, the final BAT as toxic pound-equivalents (lb-eq). In XV. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis requirements have a cost-effectiveness the case of indirect dischargers, the EPA often uses cost-effectiveness ratio of $134/lb-eq ($1981). This cost- removal also accounts for the effectiveness ratio is well within the analysis in the development and effectiveness of treatment at POTWs and revision of ELGs to evaluate the relative range of cost-effectiveness ratios for reflects the toxic-weighted pounds BAT requirements in other industries. A efficiency of alternative regulatory remaining after POTW treatment. The options in removing toxic pollutants review of approximately 25 of the most cost-effectiveness analysis does not recently promulgated or revised BAT from effluent discharges to the nation’s address the removal of conventional waters. Although not required by the limitations shows BAT cost- pollutants (e.g., TSS) or nutrients effectiveness ranging from less than $1/ CWA, and not a determining factor for (nitrogen, phosphorus), nor does it establishing BAT and PSES, cost- lb-eq (Inorganic Chemicals) to $404/lb- address the removal of bulk parameters, eq (Electrical and Electronic effectiveness analysis can be a useful such as COD. tool for describing regulatory options Components), in 1981 dollars. that address toxic pollutants. Annual costs. The costs used in the Collectively, the final PSES cost-effectiveness analysis are the requirements have a cost effectiveness A. Methodology estimated annualized pre-tax costs of $1,228/lb-eq ($1981). This ratio is The cost-effectiveness of a regulatory described in Section IX, restated in 1981 higher than the cost-effectiveness for option is defined as the incremental dollars as a convention to allow PSES of other industries, which range annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars to comparisons with the reported cost from less than $1/lb-eq (Inorganic facilitate comparison to ELGs for other effectiveness of other effluent Chemicals) to $380/lb-eq industrial categories promulgated over guidelines. (Transportation Equipment Cleaning), in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

1981 dollars, based on a review of methodology served to place an upper authority to impose more stringent approximately 25 of the most recently bound on the effect of non-detects on effluent limitations, as necessary, to promulgated or revised categorical the pollutant loading and cost- meet applicable water quality standards. pretreatment standards. As noted above, effectiveness calculations. EPA’s 1. Timing however, very few plants (three) are decision to incorporate this second indirect dischargers and the cost- approach for bottom ash transport water The direct discharge limitations in effectiveness for one of the three in this rulemaking reflects the this rule apply only when implemented indirect dischargers significantly exceptional circumstance in this case in an NPDES permit issued to a elevates the value for all three where there are so few detected discharger after the effective date of this combined. EPA calculated costs for this observations in combination with wide rule. Under the CWA, the permitting plant based on a full conversion of its variability in sample-specific detection authority must incorporate these ELGs bottom ash handling system to dry values for the non-detected observations into NPDES permits as a floor or a handling. However, it is more likely that for 6 analytes. For a full discussion of minimum level of control. While the this plant would choose to implement the analysis method and results, see rule is effective on its effective date (see modifications that would enable it to Section 10.2.2 of the TDD and Section DATES section at the beginning of this completely recycle its bottom ash F–4 of the RIA. EPA found that this preamble), the rule allows a permitting transport water in order to meet the zero second method of treatment of non- authority to determine a date when the discharge standard, rather than detects affects the averaged pollutant new effluent limitations for FGD undertake a full conversion. In that concentrations for 6 out of the 44 wastewater, fly ash transport water, event, the costs to this indirect analytes, alters pollutant loadings and bottom ash transport water, FGMC discharger—and consequently the cost- decreases identified TWPE loadings and wastewater, and gasification wastewater effectiveness value for all indirect removals in comparison to method 1. apply to a given discharger. The dischargers, combined—would be EPA also calculated the cost- permitting authority must make these lower. effectiveness for the bottom ash final effluent limitations applicable on Collectively, cost-effectiveness for the wastestream using the averaged or after November 1, 2018. For any final entire rule (BAT and PSES) is $136/lb- pollutant concentrations derived from effluent limitation that is specified to eq ($1981). method 2, and found in comparison to become applicable after November 1, For the purposes of calculating method 1 the method 2 analysis 2018, the specified date must be as soon pollutant loadings under this action, changed the cost-effectiveness value as possible, but in no case later than EPA’s analysis first handled non-detect from $314/TWPE to $457/TWPE for this December 31, 2023. For dischargers in values in the reported data by replacing wastestream and cost-effectiveness of the voluntary incentives program them with a value of one-half of the the full rule from $136/TWPE to $149/ choosing to meet effluent limitations for detection level for the observation that TWPE. Where appropriate in the TDD, FGD wastewater based on use of yielded the non-detect. This RIA, BCA and certain other documents evaporation technology, the date for methodology is standard procedure for for the rule, EPA has reflected the meeting those limitations is December the ELG program as well as Clean Water results for pollutant loadings and cost 31, 2023. For combustion residual leachate, and Act assessment and permitting, Safe effectiveness under both of these for certain wastestreams (FGD Drinking Water Act monitoring, and approaches. EPA’s determination of wastewater, fly ash transport water, Resource Conservation and Recovery BAT and the standards and rationale bottom ash transport water, FGMC Act and Superfund programs; and this supporting that determination, are approach is consistent with previous wastewater, and gasification discussed in Section VIII; the ELGs. wastewater) at oil-fired generating units differences in loadings and cost In their comments on the proposed and small generating units (50 MW or effectiveness associated with rule, commenters raised the concern less), the final BAT limitations apply on incorporating this second approach to that for some pollutants the loadings the date that a permit is issued to a addressing uncertainty related to non- calculations (particularly for bottom discharger, following the effective date detects do not alter that determination. ash) were biased high as a result of high of this rule. The rule does not build in non-detected values in the reported XVI. Regulatory Implementation an implementation period for meeting data. These high non-detected values these limitations, as the BAT limitation were the result of not using sufficiently A. Implementation of the Limitations and Standards on TSS is equal to the previously sensitive methods. The view was promulgated BPT limitation on TSS. expressed that, should the non-detects The requirements in this rule apply to Pretreatment standards are self- fall significantly outside of the range of discharges from steam electric power implementing, meaning they apply detected values, assigning them one half plants through incorporation into directly, without the need for a permit. of the detection level would not be NPDES permits issued by the EPA or In this rule, the pretreatment standards sufficient to accurately represent authorized states under Section 402 of for existing sources must be met by pollutant loadings and the associated the Act and through local pretreatment November 1, 2018. cost-effectiveness of the rule. programs under Section 307 of the Act. The requirements for new source To assess this concern and provide Permits or control mechanisms issued direct and indirect discharges (NSPS further transparency for this after this rule’s effective date must and PSNS) provide no extended rulemaking, EPA also implemented a incorporate the ELGs, as applicable. implementation period. NSPS apply second method of treating non-detects Also, under CWA section 510, states can when any NPDES permit is issued to a where all attributed non-detects (i.e., require effluent limitations under state new source direct discharger, following one-half of the detection limit) that law as long as they are no less stringent the effective date of this rule; PSNS exceeded the highest detected value for than the requirements of this rule. apply to any new source discharging to a particular pollutant were deleted. Finally, in addition to requiring a POTW, as of the effective date of the Since it is possible that a plant’s actual application of the technology-based final rule. loading fell outside the range of ELGs in this rule, CWA section Regardless of when a plant’s NPDES detected values of all of the plants, this 301(b)(1)(C) requires the permitting permit is ready for renewal, the plant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67883

should immediately begin evaluating Air Act, as well as regulations for the chemical precipitation and biological how it intends to comply with the disposal of coal combustion residuals treatment, without sulfide addition), or requirements of the final ELGs. In cases under subtitle D of the Resource expects that relevant treatment and where significant changes in operation Conservation and Recovery Act; process changes will be in place prior to are appropriate, the plant should (c) For FGD wastewater requirements November 1, 2018, it would not discuss such changes with the only, an initial commissioning period to generally be appropriate to allow permitting authority and evaluate optimize the installed equipment; and additional time beyond that date. appropriate steps and a timeline for the (d) Other factors as appropriate. Regardless, in all cases, the permitting changes, even prior to the permit With respect to the first factor, the authority must make clear in the permit renewal process. permitting authority should evaluate what date the plant must meet the In cases where a plant’s final NPDES what operational changes are expected limitations, and that date may be no permit will be issued after the effective at the plant to meet the new BAT later than December 31, 2023. date of the final ELGs, but before limitations for each wastestream, including the types of new treatment Where a discharger chooses to November 1, 2018, the permitting participate in the voluntary incentives authority should apply limitations technologies that the plant plans to install, process changes anticipated, and program and be subject to effluent based on the previously promulgated limitations for FGD wastewater based on BPT limitations or the plant’s other the timeframe estimated to plan, design, procure, and install any relevant evaporation, the permitting authority applicable permit limitations until at must allow the plant up to December 31, least November 1, 2018. The permitting technologies. As specified in the second factor, the permitting authority must 2023, to meet those limitations; again, authority should also determine what the permit must make clear that the date represents the soonest date, also consider scheduling for installation of equipment, which includes a plant must meet the final limitations by beginning November 1, 2018, that the December 31, 2023. plant can meet the final BAT limitations consideration of plant changes planned in this rule. The permit should require or being made to comply with certain 2. Applicability of NSPS/PSNS compliance with the final BAT other key rules that affect the steam limitations by that date, making clear electric power generating industry. As In 1982, EPA promulgated NSPS/ that in no case shall the limitations specified in the third factor, for the FGD PSNS for certain discharges from new apply later than December 31, 2023. wastewater requirements only, the sources. Those sources that were subject Then, for permits that might be permitting authority must consider to the 1982 NSPS/PSNS will continue to whether it is appropriate to allow more administratively continued, the final be subject to such standards under this time for implementation, in addition to date will apply, even if that date is at final rule. In addition, sources to which the three years before implementation of the end of the implementation period. the 1982 NSPS/PSNS apply are also the rule begins on November 1, 2018, in For permits that are issued on or after subject to the final BAT/PSES order to ensure that the plant has November 1, 2018, the permitting requirements in this rule because they appropriate time to optimize any authority should determine the earliest will be existing sources with respect to relevant technologies. EPA’s record possible date that the plant can meet the such new requirements. See 40 CFR demonstrates that plants installing the limitations in this rule (but in no case 423.15(a) and 40 CFR 423.17(a). FGD technology basis spent several later than December 31, 2023), and months optimizing its operation (initial 3. Legacy Wastewater apply the final limitations as of that date commissioning period). Without (BPT limitations or the plant’s other For purposes of the BAT limitations allowing additional time for in this rule, legacy wastewater is FGD applicable permit limitations would optimization, the plant would likely not apply until such date). wastewater, fly ash transport water, be able to meet the limitations because bottom ash transport water, FGMC As specified by the rule, the ‘‘as soon they are based on the operation of as possible’’ date determined by the wastewater, and gasification wastewater optimized systems. See TDD Section 14 generated prior to the date established permitting authority is November 1, for additional discussion and examples by the permitting authority that is as 2018, unless the permitting authority regarding implementation of the final soon as possible beginning November 1, determines another date after receiving ELGs into NPDES permits. information submitted by the The ‘‘as soon as possible’’ date 2018, but no later than December 31, discharger.57 Assuming that the 2023 (see Section VIII.C.7 and Section determined by the permitting authority 58 permitting authority receives relevant may or may not be different for each VIII.C.8). Direct discharges of legacy information from the discharger, in wastestream. EPA recommends that the wastewater are, under this rule, subject order to determine what date is ‘‘as soon permitting authority provide a well- to BAT effluent limitations on TSS in as possible’’ within the implementation documented justification of how it such wastewater, which are equal to the period, the permitting authority must determined the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ existing BPT effluent limitations on TSS then consider the following factors: date in the fact sheet or administrative in fly ash transport water, bottom ash (a) Time to expeditiously plan transport water, and low volume waste record for the permit. If the permitting 59 (including to raise capital), design, authority determines a date later than sources. See TDD Section 14 for procure, and install equipment to November 1, 2018, the justification additional information regarding the comply with the requirements of the should explain why allowing additional legacy wastewater BAT limitations and final rule; time to meet the limitations is (b) Changes being made or planned at appropriate, and why the discharger 58 For plants in the voluntary incentives program, legacy FGD wastewater is FGD wastewater the plant in response to greenhouse gas cannot meet the final effluent regulations for new or existing fossil generated prior to December 31, 2023 (see Section limitations as of November 1, 2018. In VIII.C.13). fuel-fired power plants under the Clean cases where the plant is already 59 The final rule does not establish PSES operating the BAT technology basis for standards for legacy wastewater for these 57 Even after the permitting authority receives wastestreams because TSS and the pollutants they information from the discharger, it still may be a specific wastestream (e.g., dry fly ash represent are effectively treated by POTWs; and, appropriate to determine that November 1, 2018, is handling system), operates the majority therefore, EPA has determined that they do not pass ‘‘as soon as possible’’ for that discharger. of the BAT technology basis (e.g., FGD through the POTW (see Section VIII.E).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

guidance on implementing them into same pollutant, but that are not derived using the building block NPDES permits. regulated for that pollutant (e.g., legacy approach or CWF, may be impractical or wastewater contained in a surface infeasible for some combined 4. Combined Wastestreams impoundment). In these cases, based on wastestreams because the resulting Most steam electric power plants the information in its record, EPA limitation or standard for any of the combine various wastewaters (e.g., FGD strongly recommends that in applying regulated pollutants in the combined wastewater, fly ash and bottom ash the building block approach or CWF to wastestream would fall below analytical transport water) and cooling water the regulated pollutant (selenium or detection levels. In such cases, the either before or after treatment. In such mercury, in the example above), permitting authority should establish cases, to derive effluent limitations or permitting authorities either treat the internal limitations on the regulated standards at the point of discharge, the wastestream that does not have a wastestream, prior to mixing of the permitting authority typically combines limitation or standard for the pollutant wastestream with others, as authorized the allowable pollutant concentrations (legacy wastewater contained in a pursuant to 40 CFR 122.45(h) and 40 loadings for each set of requirements to surface impoundment, in the example CFR 403.6.62 See TDD Section 14 for arrive at a specific limitation or above) as a dilution flow or determine more examples and details about this standard, per pollutant, for the a concentration for that pollutant based guidance. combined wastestream, using the on representative samples of that 5. Non-Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes building block approach or combined wastestream.61 waste stream formula (CWF). See In all cases where the permitting By reserving BAT and NSPS for non- NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual and 40 authority is applying the building block chemical metal cleaning wastes in this CFR 403.6. For concentration-based approach or CWF, except where a final rule, the permitting authority must limitations, rather than mass-based regulated wastestream is mixed with a continue to establish such requirements limitations, the effluent limitation or dilution wastestream, the permitting based on BPJ for any steam electric standard for the mixed wastestream is a authority must also determine the flow power plant discharging this flow-weighted combination of the rate for use in the building block wastestream. As explained in Section appropriate concentration–based approach or CWF. EPA strongly VIII.I, in permitting this wastestream, limitations or standards for each recommends that the permitting some permitting authorities have applicable wastestream. Such a authority calculate the flow rate based classified it as non-chemical metal calculation is relatively straightforward on representative flow rates for each cleaning wastes (a subset of metal if the individual wastestreams are wastestream. cleaning wastes), while others have subject to limitations or standards for EPA recommends that, where a steam classified it as a low volume waste the same pollutants and the flows of the electric power plant chooses to combine source; NPDES permit limitations for wastestreams are relatively consistent. two or more wastestreams that would this wastestream thus reflect that This, however, is not the case for all call for the use of the building block classification. In making future BPJ BAT wastestreams at steam electric power approach or CWF to determine the determinations, EPA recommends that plants. appropriate limitations or standards for the permitting authority examine the Because EPA anticipates that the combined wastestream, the plant historical permitting record for the permitting authorities will apply should be responsible for providing particular plant to determine how concentration-based limitations or sufficient data that reflect representative discharges of non-chemical metal standards, rather than mass-based samples of each of the individual cleaning wastes have been permitted in limitations or standards, in NPDES wastestreams that make up the the past. Using historical information permits for steam electric power plants, combined wastestream. EPA strongly and its best professional judgment, the proper application of the building block recommends that the representative permitting authority could determine approach or CWF is necessary to ensure samples reflect a study of each of the that the BPJ BAT limitations should be that the reduced pollutant applicable wastestreams that covers the set equal to existing BPT limitations or concentrations observed in a combined full range of variability in concentration it could determine that more stringent discharge reflect proper treatment and and flow for each wastestream. BPJ BAT limitations should apply. In control strategies rather than dilution. EPA anticipates that proper making a BPJ determination for new Where a regulated wastestream is application of the building block sources, EPA recommends that the combined with a well-known dilution approach or CWF will result in permitting authority consider whether it flow, such as cooling water, combined wastestream limitations and would be appropriate to base standards uncontaminated stormwater, or cooling standards that will enable steam electric on BPT limitations for metal cleaning tower blowdown, the concentration- power plants to combine certain wastes or on a technology that achieves based limitation for the regulated wastestreams, while also ensuring that greater pollutant reductions. the plant is actually treating its wastestream is reduced by multiplying B. Upset and Bypass Provisions it by a factor.60 This factor is the total wastewater as intended by the Act and flow for the combined wastestream this rule, rather than simply diluting it. A ‘‘bypass’’ is an intentional diversion minus the dilution flow divided by the EPA’s record demonstrates, however, of wastestreams from any portion of a total flow for the combined that combined wastestream limitations treatment facility. An ‘‘upset’’ is an wastestream. In some cases, a and standards at the point of discharge, exceptional incident in which there is wastestream (e.g., FGD wastewater) unintentional and temporary containing a regulated pollutant (e.g., 61 EPA does not recommend that the permitting selenium or mercury) combines with authority assume that the pollutant is present at a 62 As described earlier for wastestreams with zero significant level in the wastestream that does not discharge limitations or standards, just because a other wastestreams that contain the have a relevant limitation or standard and just wastestream with a numeric limitation or standard apply the same limitation or standard for the is moved, prior to discharge, for use in another 60 As is the case with a single regulated pollutant to the mixed wastestream. This will not plant process, that does not mean that the wastestream, if the combined wastestream is not ensure that treatment and control strategies are wastestream ceases to be subject to the applicable discharged, then the limitations and standards are being employed to achieve the limitations or numeric limitation or standard, assuming that the not applicable. standards, rather than simply dilution. wastestream is eventually discharged.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67885

noncompliance with technology-based requirements. Under Section 301(n), an to NSPS or PSNS. DuPont v. Train, 430 permit effluent limitations because of application for approval of a FDF U.S. 112 (1977). factors beyond the reasonable control of variance must be based solely on (1) 2. Economic Variances the permittee. EPA’s regulations information submitted during concerning bypasses and upsets for rulemaking raising the factors that are Section 301(c) of the CWA authorizes direct dischargers are set forth at 40 CFR fundamentally different or (2) a variance from the otherwise applicable 122.41(m) and (n) and for indirect information the applicant did not have BAT effluent guidelines for dischargers at 40 CFR 403.16 and an opportunity to submit. The alternate nonconventional pollutants due to 403.17. limitation must be no less stringent than economic factors. See also CWA section C. Variances and Modifications justified by the difference and must not 301(l). The request for a variance from result in markedly more adverse non- effluent limitations developed from The CWA requires application of water quality environmental impacts BAT guidelines must normally be filed effluent limitations or pretreatment than the national limitation. by the discharger during the public standards established pursuant to CWA EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 125, notice period for the draft permit. Other section 301 to all direct and indirect subpart D, authorizing the Regional filing periods can apply, as specified in dischargers. The statute, however, Administrators to establish alternative 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2). Specific guidance provides for the modification of these limitations, further detail the for this type of variance is provided in national requirements in a limited substantive criteria used to evaluate ‘‘Draft Guidance for Application and number of circumstances. The Agency Review of Section 301(c) Variance has established administrative FDF variance requests for direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d) Requests,’’ dated August 21, 1984, mechanisms to provide an opportunity available on EPA’s Web site at http:// for relief from the application of the identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and size of a www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ national effluent limitations guidelines OWM0469.pdf. for categories of existing sources for discharger’s facility) that can be toxic, conventional, and considered in determining if a 3. Water Quality Variances nonconventional pollutants. discharger is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine whether, Section 301(g) of the CWA authorizes 1. Fundamentally Different Factors based on one or more of these factors, a variance from BAT effluent guidelines Variance the discharger in question is for certain nonconventional pollutants EPA can develop, with the fundamentally different from the (ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, and concurrence of the state, effluent dischargers and factors considered by total phenols) due to localized limitations or standards different from EPA in developing the nationally environmental factors. As this final rule the otherwise applicable requirements applicable effluent guidelines. The does not establish limitations or for an individual existing discharger if regulation also lists four other factors standards for any of these pollutants, that discharger is fundamentally (e.g., inability to install equipment this variance is not applicable to this different with respect to factors within the time allowed or a particular rule. considered in establishing the effluent discharger’s ability to pay) that cannot 4. Removal Credits limitations guidelines or standards. provide a basis for an FDF variance. In Such a modification is known as a addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b) (3), a Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) request for limitations less stringent establishes a discretionary program for variance. than the national limitation can be POTWs to grant ‘‘removal credits’’ to EPA, in its initial implementation of approved only if compliance with the their indirect dischargers. Removal the effluent guidelines program, national limitations will result in either credits are a regulatory mechanism by provided for the FDF modifications in (a) a removal cost wholly out of which industrial users can discharge a regulations, which were variances from proportion to the removal cost pollutant in quantities that exceed what the BPT effluent limitations, BAT considered during development of the would otherwise be allowed under an limitations for toxic and national limitations, or (b) a non-water applicable categorical pretreatment nonconventional pollutants, and BCT quality environmental impact standard because it has been determined limitations for conventional pollutants (including energy requirements) that the POTW to which the industrial for direct dischargers. FDF variances for fundamentally more adverse than the user discharges consistently treats the toxic pollutants were challenged impact considered during development pollutant. EPA has promulgated judicially and ultimately sustained by of the national limits. The legislative removal credit regulations as part of its the Supreme Court in Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n history of CWA section 301(n) pretreatment regulations. See 40 CFR v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 470 U.S. underscores the necessity for the FDF 403.7. These regulations provide that a 116, 124 (1985). variance applicant to establish POTW can give removal credits if Subsequently, in the Water Quality eligibility for the variance. EPA’s prescribed requirements are met. The Act of 1987, Congress added a new regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) and POTW must apply to and receive section to the CWA, section 301(n). This 40 CFR 403.13 impose this burden upon authorization from the Approval provision explicitly authorizes the applicant. The applicant must show Authority. To obtain authorization, the modifications of the otherwise that the factors relating to the discharge POTW must demonstrate consistent applicable BAT effluent limitations, if a controlled by the applicant’s permit that removal of the pollutant for which discharger is fundamentally different are claimed to be fundamentally approval authority is sought. with respect to the factors specified in different are, in fact, fundamentally Furthermore, the POTW must have an CWA section 304 or 403 (other than different from those factors considered approved pretreatment program. costs) from those considered by EPA in by EPA in establishing the applicable Finally, the POTW must demonstrate establishing the effluent limitations and guidelines and standards. In practice, that granting removal credits will not standards. CWA section 301(n) also very few FDF variances have been cause the POTW to violate applicable defined the conditions under which granted for past ELGs. An FDF variance federal, state, or local sewage sludge EPA can establish alternative is not available to a new source subject requirements. 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the exceed concentration levels established Bromide can react with the ozone, Third Circuit interpreted the CWA as in 40 CFR part 403, appendix G, Table chlorine, or chlorine-based disinfectants requiring EPA to promulgate the II. For sewage sludge that is land to form bromate and brominated and comprehensive sewage sludge applied, removal credits can be mixed chloro-bromo DBPs, such as regulations pursuant to CWA section available for an additional two metals trihalomethanes (THMs) or haloacetic 405(d)(2)(A)(ii) before any removal and 14 organic pollutants. For sewage acids (HAAs) (see DCN SE01920). credits could be authorized. See Natural sludge that is placed on a surface Studies indicate that exposure to THMs Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 790 F.2d 289, disposal unit, removal credits can be and other DBPs from chlorinated water 292 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. available for an additional seven metals is associated with human bladder 1084 (1987). Congress made this explicit and 13 organic pollutants. For sewage cancer (see DCN SE01981 and DCN in the Water Quality Act of 1987, which sludge that is incinerated in a sewage SE01983). EPA has established the provided that EPA could not authorize sludge incinerator, removal credits can following MCLs for DBPs: any removal credits until it issued the be available for three other metals 40 • 0.010 mg/L for bromate due to sewage sludge use and disposal CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B). increased cancer risk from long-term regulations. On February 19, 1993, EPA (3) When a POTW disposes of its exposure; promulgated Standards for the Use or sewage sludge in a municipal solid • 0.060 for HAAs due to increased Disposal of Sewage Sludge, which are waste landfill that meets the criteria of cancer risk from long-term exposure; codified at 40 CFR part 503 (58 FR 40 CFR part 258, removal credits can be and 9248). EPA interprets the Court’s available for any pollutant in the • 0.080 mg/L for TTHMs due to decision in Natural Res. Def. Council v. POTW’s sewage sludge. 40 CFR increased cancer risk and liver, kidney EPA as only allowing removal credits 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C). or central nervous system problems for a pollutant if EPA has either D. Site-Specific Water Quality-Based from long-term exposure (see DCN regulated the pollutant in part 503 or Effluent Limitations SE01909). established a concentration of the The record indicates that steam pollutant in sewage sludge below which Depending on site-specific conditions and applicable state water quality electric power plant FGD wastewater public health and the environment are discharges occur near more than 100 protected when sewage sludge is used standards, it may be appropriate for permitting authorities to establish water public drinking water intakes on rivers or disposed. and other waterbodies, and there is The part 503 sewage sludge quality-based effluent limitations on evidence that these discharges are regulations allow four options for bromide,63 especially where steam already having adverse effects on the sewage sludge disposal: (1) Land electric power plants are located quality of drinking water sources. A application for beneficial use, (2) upstream from drinking water intakes. 2014 study by McTigue et. al. identified placement on a surface disposal unit, (3) Bromides (a component of TDS) are firing in a sewage sludge incinerator, not directly controlled by the numeric four drinking water treatment plants and (4) disposal in a landfill which effluent limitations and standards for that experienced increased levels of complies with the municipal solid existing sources under this final rule 64 bromide in their source water, and waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part (although they would be controlled by corresponding increases in the 258. Because pollutants in sewage the NSPS/PSNS for new sources and by formation of brominated DBPs, after the sludge are regulated differently the BAT effluent limitations for existing installation of wet FGD scrubbers at depending upon the use or disposal sources who choose to participate in the upstream steam electric power plants method selected, under EPA’s voluntary program and are subject to the (see DCN SE04503). pretreatment regulations the availability final FGD wastewater limitations based Drinking water utilities are concerned of a removal credit for a particular on use of evaporation technology). as well, noting that the bromide pollutant is linked to the POTW’s Bromide discharges from coal-fired concentrations have made it method of using or disposing of its steam electric power plants can occur increasingly difficult for them to meet sewage sludge. The regulations provide because bromide is naturally found in SDWA requirements for total that removal credits can be potentially coal and is released as particulates trihalomethanes (TTHMs) (see DCN available for the following situations: when the coal is burned, or by the SE01949). And, bromide loadings into (1) If a POTW applies its sewage addition of bromide compounds to the surface waters from coal-fired steam sludge to the land for beneficial uses, coal prior to burning, or to the flue gas electric power plants could potentially disposes of it in a surface disposal unit, scrubbing process, to reduce the amount increase in the future as more plant or incinerates it in a sewage sludge of mercury air pollution that is also operators use bromide addition to incinerator, removal credits can be created when coal is burned. improve the control of mercury available for the pollutants for which While bromide itself is not thought to emissions. The American Water Works EPA has established limits in 40 CFR be toxic at levels present in the Association requested that EPA part 503. EPA has set ceiling limitations environment, its reaction with other ‘‘instruct NPDES permit writers to for nine metals in sludge that is land constituents in water may be a cause for adequately consider downstream applied, three metals in sludge that is concern now and into the future. The drinking water supplies in establishing placed on a surface disposal unit, and bromide ion in water can form permit requirements for power plant seven metals and 57 organic pollutants brominated DBPs when drinking water discharges’’ and take other steps to limit in sludge that is incinerated in a sewage plants treat the incoming source water adverse consequences for downstream sludge incinerator. 40 CFR using certain disinfection processes drinking water treatment plants. EPA 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A). including chlorination and ozonation. agrees that permitting authorities should (2) Additional removal credits can be carefully consider whether water available for sewage sludge that is land 63 Some may establish limitations on TDS as an quality-based effluent limitations on applied, placed in a surface disposal indicator of bromide because bromide is a bromide or TDS would be appropriate component of TDS. unit, or incinerated in a sewage sludge 64 TDS, like all pollutants, are controlled where for FGD wastewater discharges from incinerator, so long as the concentration there are zero discharge effluent limitations and steam electric power plants upstream of of these pollutants in sludge do not standards. drinking water intakes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67887

EPA regulations at 40 CFR drinking water because the presence of Table IV of Appendix D discharged 122.44(d)(1) require that each NPDES bromides in drinking water can result in which is not limited in an applicable permit shall include any requirements, exceedances of drinking water MCLs as effluent limitations guideline, the in addition to or more stringent than a result of interactions during drinking applicant must either report quantitative effluent limitations guidelines or water treatment and disinfection data or briefly describe the reasons the standards promulgated pursuant to processes. The limitation would be pollutant is expected to be discharged as sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 developed for the purpose of attaining set forth in 40 CFR 122.2l(g)(7)(vi)(A), of the CWA, necessary to achieve water and maintaining the state’s applicable made applicable to the States at 40 CFR quality standards established under narrative water quality criterion or 123.25(a)(4). section 303 of the CWA, including state criteria and protecting the state’s In addition to requiring the permit narrative criteria for water quality. designated use(s), including the applicant to provide a complete Furthermore, those same regulations protection of human health. See 40 CFR application, including proper require that limitations must control all 122.44(d)(1)(vi). wastewater characterization, when pollutants, or pollutant parameters For the reasons described above, issuing the permit, the permitting (either conventional, nonconventional, during development of the NPDES authority can incorporate appropriate or toxic pollutants) which the Director permit for the steam electric power monitoring and reporting requirements, determines are or may be discharged at plant, the permitting authority should as authorized under section 402(a)(2), a level which will cause, have the provide notification to any downstream 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(2), and implementing reasonable potential to cause, or drinking water treatment plants of the regulations at 40 CFR 122.48, 122.44(i), contribute to an excursion above any discharge of bromide. EPA recommends 122.43 and 122.41(1)(4). These state water quality standard, including that the permitting authority collaborate requirements apply to all dischargers state narrative criteria for water quality. with drinking water utilities and their and include plants that have identified Where the DBP problem described regulators to determine what the presence of bromide in effluent in above may be present, water quality- concentration of bromides at the PWS significant quantities and that are in based effluent limitations for steam intake is needed to ensure that levels of proximity to downstream water electric power plant discharges may be bromate and DPBs do not exceed treatment plants. required under the regulations at 40 applicable MCLs. The maximum level of CFR 122.44(d)(1), where necessary to bromide in source waters at the intake XVII. Related Acts of Congress, meet either numeric criteria (e.g., for that does not result in an exceedance of Executive Orders, and Agency bromide, TDS or conductivity) or the MCL for DBPs is the numeric Initiatives narrative criteria in state water quality interpretation of the narrative criterion A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory standards. All states have narrative for protection of human health and may Planning and Review and Executive water quality criteria that are designed vary depending on the treatment Order 13563: Improving Regulation and to prevent contamination and other processes employed at the drinking Regulatory Review adverse impacts to the states’ surface water treatment facility. The permitting waters. These are often referred to as authority would then determine the This action is an economically ‘‘free from’’ standards. For example, a level of bromide that may be discharged significant regulatory action that was state narrative water quality criterion for from the steam electric power plant, submitted to the Office of Management protecting drinking water sources may taking into account other sources of and Budget (OMB) for review. Any require discharges to protect people bromide that may occur, such that the changes made in response to OMB from adverse exposure to chemicals via level of bromide downstream at the recommendations have been drinking water. These narrative criteria intake to the drinking water utility is documented in the docket. EPA may be used to develop water quality- below a level that would result in an prepared an analysis of the potential based effluent limitations on a site- exceedances of the applicable MCLs for costs and benefits associated with this specific basis for the discharge of DBPs. In addition, applicants for NPDES action. This analysis is contained in pollutants that impact drinking water permits must, as part of their permit Chapter 13 of the BCA Report, available sources, such as bromide. application, indicate whether they know in the docket. To translate state narrative water or have reason to believe that Table XVII–1 (drawn from Table 13– quality criteria and inform the conventional and/or nonconventional 1 of the BCA Report) provides the development of a water quality-based pollutants listed in Table IV of results of the benefit-cost analysis with limitation for bromide, it may be Appendix D to 40 CFR part 122, (which both costs and benefits annualized over appropriate for permitting authorities to includes bromide), are discharged from 24 years and discounted using a three use EPA’s established MCLs for DBPs in each outfall. For every pollutant in percent discount rate.

TABLE XVII–1—TOTAL MONETIZED ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE FINAL BAT AND PSES [Millions, 2013$, three percent discount rate] a

Total social Total monetized costs b benefits

Annualized Value ...... $479.5 $450.6 to $565.6 a All costs and benefits were annualized over 24 years and using a three percent discount rate. b Total social costs include compliance costs to facilities.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act contained in the existing regulations 40 control number 2040–0281. The OMB CFR part 423 under the provisions of control numbers for EPA’s regulations OMB has previously approved the the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. information collection requirements 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

EPA estimated small changes in establish site-specific requirements decrease) in the cost burden to federal monitoring costs at steam electric power based on information submitted by the or state governments or dischargers plants for metals in the final rule; EPA discharger. Permitting authorities that associated with this final rule. accounted for these costs as part of its establish technology-based effluent analysis of the economic impacts. limitations on a BPJ basis often spend C. Regulatory Flexibility Act Plants, however, will also realize certain significant time, effort, and resources The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) savings by no longer monitoring effluent doing so, and dischargers may expend generally requires an agency to prepare that would cease to exist under the final significant resources providing a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule. The net changes in monitoring and associated data and information. rule subject to notice-and-comment reporting are expected to be minimal, Establishing nationally applicable BAT rulemaking requirements under the and EPA determined that the existing requirements that eliminate the need to Administrative Procedure Act or any burden estimates appropriately reflect develop BPJ-based limitations makes other statute, unless the agency certifies any final rule burden associated with permitting easier and less costly in this that the rule will not have a significant monitoring. respect. economic impact on a substantial Based on the information in its As explained in Section XVI.A, under record, EPA does not expect the final this rule, after the permitting authority number of small entities. Small entities rule to increase costs to permitting receives information from the include small businesses, small authorities. The rule will not change discharger, it must determine, on a organizations, and small governmental permit application requirements or the facility-specific basis, what date is ‘‘as jurisdictions. associated review; it will not increase soon as possible’’ during the period I certify that this action will not have the number of permits issued to steam beginning November 1, 2018, and a significant economic impact on a electric power plants; nor does it ending December 31, 2023. This one- substantial number of small entities increase the efforts involved in time burden to the discharger and the under the RFA. The basis for this developing or reviewing such permits. permitting authority, however, is no finding is documented in Chapter 8 of In fact, the final rule will reduce the more excessive than the existing burden the RIA included in the docket and burden to permitting authorities. In the associated with developing technology- summarized below. EPA estimates that absence of nationally applicable BAT based effluent limitations on a BPJ basis; 243 to 507 entities own steam electric requirements, as appropriate, permitting in fact, it is very likely less burdensome. power plants to which the ELGs apply, authorities must establish technology- Nevertheless, EPA conservatively of which 110 to 191 entities are small based effluent limitations using BPJ to estimated no net change (increase or (see Table XVII–2).

TABLE XVII–2—NUMBER OF ENTITIES OWNING STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS BY SECTOR AND SIZE [Assuming two different ownership cases] a

Lower bound estimate of number of Upper bound estimate of number of entities owning steam electric power entities owning steam electric power Ownership type plants b plants b

Total Small c % Small Total Small c % Small

Investor-Owned Utilities ...... 97 28 28.9 244 66 27.1 Nonutilities ...... 36 19 52.8 77 35 46.1 Cooperatives ...... 29 26 89.7 49 46 93.9 Municipality ...... 65 36 55.4 101 43 42.1 Other Political Subdivision ...... 12 1 8.3 30 1 3.3 Federal ...... 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A State ...... 2 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 Tribal ...... 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A

All Entity Types ...... 243 110 45.3 507 191 37.6 a In 19 instances, a plant is owned by a joint venture of two entities; in one instance, the plant is owned by a joint venture of three entities. b Of these, 75 entities, 21 of which are small, own steam electric power plants that are expected to incur compliance costs under the final rule under both Case 1 and Case 2. c EPA was unable to determine size for 16 parent entities; for this analysis, these entities are assumed to be small.

To assess whether small entities’ percent and three percent impact discussed in Section VIII.C.12) reduces compliance costs might constitute a thresholds were identified as potentially the potential impacts of the rule on significant impact, EPA summed incurring a significant impact. small entities and municipalities. The annualized compliance costs for the EPA notes that setting the BAT rulemaking record indicates that steam electric power plants determined limitations for FGD wastewater, fly ash establishing a size threshold of 50 MW to be owned by a given small entity and transport water, bottom ash transport or less preferentially minimizes some of calculated these costs as a percentage of water, FGMC wastewater, and the expected economic impacts on entity revenue (cost-to-revenue test). gasification wastewater equal to the BPT municipalities and small entities. EPA compared the resulting percentages limitations on TSS in fly ash transport to impact criteria of one percent and water, bottom ash transport water, and Table XVII–3 presents the estimated three percent of revenue. Small entities low volume waste sources at existing numbers of small entities incurring estimated to incur compliance costs generating units with a total nameplate costs exceeding one percent and three exceeding one or more of the one generating capacity of 50 MW or less (as percent of revenue, by ownership type.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67889

TABLE XVII–3—ESTIMATED COST-TO-REVENUE IMPACT ON SMALL ENTITIES OWNING STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS, BY OWNERSHIP TYPE

Lower bound estimate of number of entities owning Upper bound estimate of number of entities owning steam electric power plants steam electric power plants Cost ≥1% of revenue Cost ≥3% of revenue Cost ≥1% of revenue Cost ≥3% of revenue % of % of % of % of Number Number Number Number small small of small small of small small of small of small affected affected affected affected entities entities a entities entities a entities b entities b entities b entities b

Ownership Type ...... Out of total 110 small entities Out of total 191 small entities

Cooperative ...... 1 3.8 0 0.0 1 2.2 0 0.0 Investor-Owned ...... 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Municipality ...... 4 11.1 1 2.8 4 9.4 1 2.3 Nonutility ...... 1 5.3 0 0.0 1 2.8 0 0.0 Other Political Subdivision 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total ...... 6 5.5 1 0.9 6 3.1 1 0.5 a The number of entities with cost-to-revenue ratios exceeding three percent is a subset of the number of entities with such ratios exceeding one percent. b Percentage values were calculated relative to the total of 110 (Case 1) and 191 (Case 2) small entities owning steam electric power plants. EPA expects that Case 2 is a more likely ownership scenario for small entities (e.g., small municipalities) as small entities may be less likely to own multiple non-surveyed steam electric power plants. See RIA Chapter 8 for details.

As reported in Table XVII–3, EPA governmental entities affected by this does not significantly or uniquely affect estimates that six small entities owning rule. EPA described the government-to- small governments. steam electric power plants (one government dialogue leading to the E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism cooperative, one nonutility, and four proposed rule in its preamble to the municipalities) will incur costs proposed rulemaking. EPA received Under Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, exceeding one percent of revenue as a comments from state and local EPA may not issue an action that has result of the final rule, and one small government representatives in response federalism implications, that imposes municipality owning steam electric to the proposed rule and considered this substantial direct compliance costs, and power plants will incur costs exceeding input in developing the final rule. that is not required by statute, unless three percent of revenue. The numbers Consistent with UMRA section 205, the federal government provides the of small entities incurring costs EPA identified and analyzed a funds necessary to pay the direct exceeding either the one or three reasonable number of regulatory compliance costs incurred by state and percent of revenue impact threshold are alternatives to determine BAT/BADCT. local governments or EPA consults with small in the absolute and represent Section VIII of this preamble describes state and local officials early in the small percentages of the total estimated the options. process of developing the action. number of small entities, which This action is not subject to the This action has federalism supports EPA’s finding of no significant requirements of UMRA section 203 implications because it may impose impact on a substantial number of small because it contains no regulatory substantial direct compliance costs on entities (No SISNOSE). requirements that might significantly or state or local governments, and the uniquely affect small governments. For federal government will not provide the D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act its assessment of the impact of funds necessary to pay those costs. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates compliance requirements on small EPA anticipates that this final rule Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. governments (governments for will not impose incremental 1531–1538, requires federal agencies, populations of less than 50,000), EPA administrative burden on states from unless otherwise prohibited by law, to compared total costs and costs per plant issuing, reviewing, and overseeing assess the effects of their regulatory estimated to be incurred by small compliance with discharge actions on state, local, and tribal governments with the costs estimated to requirements. However, EPA has governments and the private sector. be incurred by large governments. EPA identified 168 steam electric power This action contains a federal mandate also compared costs for small plants owned by state or local that may result in expenditures of $100 government-owned plants with those of government entities, out of which 16 million or more (annually, adjusted for non-government-owned facilities. The plants are estimated to incur costs to inflation) for state, local, and tribal Agency evaluated both the average and meet the limitations. EPA estimates that governments, in the aggregate, or the maximum annualized cost per plant. the maximum aggregate compliance cost private sector in any one year ($141 Chapter 9 of the RIA report provides in any one year to governments million in 2013). Accordingly, EPA details of these analyses. In all of these (excluding the federal government) is prepared a written statement required comparisons, both for the cost totals $171.4 million (see Chapter 9 of the RIA under section 202 of UMRA. The and, in particular, for the average and report for details). Based on this statement is included in the docket for maximum cost per plant, the costs for information, this action may impose this action (see Chapter 9 in the RIA small government-owned facilities were substantial direct compliance costs on report) and briefly summarized here. less than those for large government- state or local governments. Accordingly, Consistent with the intergovernmental owned facilities and for small non- EPA provides the following federalism consultation provisions of UMRA government-owned facilities. On this summary impact statement as required section 204, EPA consulted with basis, EPA concluded that the final rule by section 6(b) of E.O. 13132.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

EPA consulted with elected state and wastewater. EPA considered these mailing a consultation notification letter local officials or their representative comments in developing the final rule. to tribal leaders, and on March 28, 2012, national organizations early in the A list of the state and local government held a tribal consultation conference process of developing the rule to ensure commenters has been provided to OMB call with tribal representatives about the their meaningful and timely input into and has been placed in the docket for rulemaking process and objectives, with its development. The preamble to the this rulemaking. In addition, the a focus on identifying specific ways that proposed rule described these detailed response to comments from the rulemaking may affect tribes. consultations, which included a briefing these entities is contained in EPA’s Representatives from one tribe provided on October 11, 2011, attended by response to comments document on this input to the rule. EPA considered input representatives from the National final rulemaking, which has also been from tribal representatives in League of Cities, the National placed in the docket for this rulemaking. developing this final rule. As explained in Section VIII, the final Conference of State Legislatures, the G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of National Association of Counties, the rule establishes different BAT/PSES requirements for oil-fired generating Children From Environmental Health National Association of Towns and Risks and Safety Risks Townships, the U.S. Conference of units and units of 50 MW or less. These Mayors, the Council of State different requirements alleviate some of This action is not subject to E.O. Governments, the County Executives of the concerns raised by state and local 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) America, and the Environmental government representatives by reducing because the EPA does not expect that Council of the States. Policy and the number of government entities the environmental health risks or safety professional groups such as the National incurring costs to meet the ELG risks addressed by this action present a Rural Electric Cooperative Association, requirements. The implementation disproportionate risk to children. This America’s Clean Water Agencies, and schedule described in Section XVI gives action’s health and risk assessments are the American Public Power Association time to facilities to make changes to contained in Chapter 3 of the BCA also participated in the briefing, as did their operations to meet the final Report and summarized below. As described in Section XIV.B.1, EPA environmental and natural resource effluent limitations. Moreover, the rule assessed whether the final rule will policy staff representing nine state does not rely on BPJ determinations for benefit children by reducing health risk agencies and approximately 25 local establishment of FGD wastewater from exposure to steam electric governments and/or utilities. The limitations or standards. Finally, as pollutants from consumption of participants asked questions and raised explained in Section IX, EPA’s analysis contaminated fish and improving comments during the meeting. In demonstrates that the requirements are recreational opportunities. The Agency response to the Agency’s request for pre- economically achievable for the steam was able to quantify two categories of proposal written submittals within eight electric industry as a whole, including benefits specific to children: (1) weeks of the briefing, EPA received plants owned by state or local Avoided neurological damage to separate written submittals regarding government entities. preschool age children from reduced the technology options, pollutant F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation exposure to lead and (2) avoided removal effectiveness, costs of specific and Coordination With Indian Tribal neurological damages from in utero technologies and overall costs, impacts Governments exposure to mercury. on small generating units and on small This action does not have tribal This analysis considered several governments, among others. EPA implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 measures of children’s health benefits carefully considered these comments in (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will associated with lead exposure for developing the proposed rule. not have substantial direct effects on children up to age six. Avoided EPA received comment on the tribal governments, on the relationship neurological and cognitive damages proposed ELGs from 31 state and local between the federal government and the were expressed as changes in three officials or their representatives. Some Indian tribes, or on the distribution of metrics: (1) Overall IQ levels; (2) the state and local officials expressed power and responsibilities between the incidence of low IQ scores (<70); and (3) concerns EPA had underestimated the Federal government and Indian tribes, the incidence of levels of lead in the costs and overstated the pollutant as specified in E.O. 13175. EPA’s blood above 20 mg/dL. removals of the technology options. analyses show that tribal governments EPA estimated the IQ-related benefits They stated that the ELGs would impose do not own any facility to which the associated with reduced in utero significant costs on small entities, and ELGs apply. Thus, E.O. 13175 does not mercury exposure from maternal fish would result in electricity rate increases apply to this action. consumption in exposed populations. that are unaffordable for households. Although E.O. 13175 does not apply Among approximately 418,953 babies They also stated that small municipal to this action, EPA consulted with born per year who are potentially systems typically operate smaller units federally recognized tribal officials exposed to discharges of mercury from with disproportionally greater under EPA’s Policy on Consultation and steam electric power plants, the final compliance costs as compared to larger Coordination with Indian tribes early in rule reduces total IQ point losses over units. Commenters also expressed the process of developing this rule to the period of 2019 through 2042 by concern about coordination of the CCR enable them to have meaningful and about 7,219 points. The monetary and ELG rules, the potential premature timely input into its development. EPA benefits associated with the avoided IQ retirement of coal-fired units with initiated consultation and coordination point losses are $3.5 million per year limited remaining life, and potential with federally recognized tribal (mean estimate, at three percent downtime during retrofits. Finally, some governments in August 2011. EPA discount rate). commenters asked that EPA allow more shared information about the steam EPA’s analysis also shows annualized time to phase-in the requirements. Other electric effluent guidelines rulemaking benefits to children from reduced lead state and local officials supported in discussions with the National Tribal discharges of approximately $1.0 revisions of the ELGs and generally Caucus and the National Tribal Water million (at three percent discount rate). opposed reliance on BPJ as a basis for Council. EPA continued this EPA identified additional benefits to establishing limitations for FGD government-to-government dialogue by children, such as reduced exposure to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67891

lead and the resultant neurological and potential environmental justice K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) cognitive damages in children over the concerns in the areas affected by steam This action is subject to the CRA, and age of seven, as well as other adverse electric power plant discharges. The the EPA will submit a rule report to health effects. Agency analyzed the demographic each House of the Congress and to the H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That characteristics of the populations who Comptroller General of the United Significantly Affect Energy Supply, live in proximity to steam electric States. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as Distribution, or Use power plants and who may be exposed defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). to pollutants in steam electric power Appendix A to the Preamble: This action is not a ‘‘significant plant discharges (populations who Definitions, Acronyms, and energy action,’’ as defined by E.O. 13211 consume recreationally caught fish from (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it Abbreviations Used in This Preamble affected reaches) to determine whether is not likely to have a significant minority and or low-income The following acronyms and abbreviations adverse effect on the supply, populations are subject to are used in this preamble. distribution, or use of energy. disproportionally high environmental Administrator. The Administrator of the The Agency analyzed the potential U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. energy effects of these ELGs. The impacts. Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection potentially significant effects of this rule EPA conducted the analysis in two Agency. on energy supply, distribution, or use ways. First, EPA compared demographic BAT. Best available technology concern the electric power sector. EPA data for populations living in proximity economically achievable, as defined by CWA sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B). found that the final rule will not cause to steam electric power plants to BCT. The best conventional pollutant effects in the electric power sector that demographic characteristics at the state control technology applicable to discharges constitute a significant adverse effect and national levels. This analysis of conventional pollutants from existing under E.O. 13211. Namely, the Agency focuses on the spatial distribution of industrial point sources, as defined by found that this rule does not reduce minority and low-income groups to sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) of the electricity production in excess of 1 determine whether these groups are CWA. Bioaccumulation. General term describing billion kilowatt hours per year or in more or less represented in the excess of 500 megawatts of installed a process by which chemicals are taken up populations that are expected to benefit by an organism either directly from exposure capacity, and therefore does not from the final rule, based on their to a contaminated medium or by constitute a significant regulatory action proximity to steam electric power consumption of food containing the under E.O. 13211. plants. This analysis shows that chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of For more detail on the potential approximately 450,000 people reside the chemical by an organism due to uptake energy effects of this final rule, see within one mile of a steam electric from all routes of exposure. Chapter 10 in the RIA report. BMP. Best management practice. power plant currently discharging to Bottom ash. The ash, including boiler slag, I. National Technology Transfer and surface waters and 2.7 million people which settles in the furnace or is dislodged Advancement Act reside within three miles. A greater from furnace walls. Economizer ash is This rulemaking does not involve fraction of the populations living in included when it is collected with bottom technical standards. such proximity to the plants has income ash. below the poverty threshold (16.4 and BPT. The best practicable control J. Executive Order 12898: Federal technology currently available as defined by 15.3 percent, respectively for sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1) of the CWA. Actions To Address Environmental populations within one and three miles) Justice in Minority Populations and CBI. Confidential Business Information. than the national average (13.9 percent). CCR. Coal Combustion Residuals. Low-Income Populations Second, EPA conducted analyses of Clean Water Act (CWA). The Federal Water E.O. 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, populations exposed to steam electric Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 1994) establishes federal executive (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by power plant discharges through the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–217), policy on environmental justice. Its consumption of recreationally caught main provision directs federal agencies, and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. fish by estimating exposure and health 100–4). to the greatest extent practicable and effects by demographic cohort. Where Combustion residuals. Solid wastes permitted by law, to make possible, EPA used analytic associated with combustion-related power environmental justice part of their assumptions specific to the plant processes, including fly and bottom ash mission by identifying and addressing, demographic cohorts—e.g., fish from coal-, petroleum coke-, or oil-fired as appropriate, disproportionately high units; FGD solids; FGMC wastes; and other consumption rates specific to different and adverse human health or wastewater treatment solids associated with racial groups. The results show that this environmental effects of their programs, combustion wastewater. In addition to the policies, and activities on minority final rule will not have residuals that are associated with coal disproportionately high and adverse combustion, this also includes residuals populations and low-income associated with the combustion of other populations in the U.S. human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations fossil fuels. EPA determined that the human Combustion residual leachate. Leachate health or environmental risk addressed because, in fact, it increases the level of from landfills or surface impoundments by this action will not have potential environmental protection (reduces containing combustion residuals. Leachate is disproportionately high and adverse adverse human health and composed of liquid, including any human health or environmental effects environmental effects) for all affected suspended or dissolved constituents in the on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations, including minority and liquid, that has percolated through waste or populations. The results of this low-income populations. Furthermore, other materials emplaced in a landfill, or that EPA estimated that minority and low- passes through the surface impoundment’s evaluation are contained in Chapter 14 containment structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, of the BCA Report, available in the income populations will receive, and berms). Combustion residual leachate docket. proportionately, more of the human includes seepage and/or leakage from a To meet the objectives of E.O. 12898, health benefits associated with the final combustion residual landfill or EPA examined whether the rule creates rule. impoundment unit. Combustion residual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67892 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

leachate includes wastewater from landfills from cleaning the FGD scrubber, cleaning specific limitations or standards are and surface impoundments located on non- FGD solids separation equipment, cleaning otherwise established in this part. Low adjoining property when under the FGD solids dewatering equipment, or that is volume waste sources include, but are not operational control of the permitted facility. collected in floor drains in the FGD process limited to, the following: Wastewaters from Direct discharge. (a) Any addition of any area is not considered FGD wastewater. ion exchange water treatment systems, water ‘‘pollutant’’ or combination of pollutants to FGD gypsum. Gypsum generated treatment evaporator blowdown, laboratory ‘‘waters of the United States’’ from any specifically from the wet FGD scrubber and sampling streams, boiler blowdown, ‘‘point source,’’ or (b) any addition of any system, including any solids separation or floor drains, cooling tower basin cleaning pollutant or combination of pollutant to solids dewatering processes. wastes, recirculating house service water waters of the ‘‘contiguous zone’’ or the ocean FGMC. Flue gas mercury control. systems, and wet scrubber air pollution from any point source other than a vessel or FGMC System. An air pollution control control systems whose primary purpose is other floating craft which is being used as a system installed or operated for the purpose particulate removal. Sanitary wastes, air means of transportation. This definition of removing mercury from flue gas. conditioning wastes, and wastewater from includes additions of pollutants into waters Flue Gas Mercury Control Wastewater. carbon capture or sequestration systems are of the United States from: Surface runoff Wastewater generated from an air pollution not included in this definition. which is collected or channeled by man; control system installed or operated for the MDS. Mechanical drag system. discharges though pipes, sewers, or other purpose of removing mercury from flue gas. Mechanical drag system. Bottom ash conveyances owned by a State, municipality, This includes fly ash collection systems handling system that collects bottom ash or other person which do not lead to a when the particulate control system follows from the bottom of the boiler in a water-filled treatment works; and discharges through sorbent injection or other controls to remove trough. The water bath in the trough pipes, sewers, or other conveyances, leading mercury from flue gas. FGD wastewater quenches the hot bottom ash as it falls from into privately owned treatment works. This generated at plants using oxidizing agents to the boiler and seals the boiler gases. A drag term does not include an addition of remove mercury in the FGD system and not chain operates in a continuous loop to drag pollutants by any ‘‘indirect discharger.’’ in a separate FGMC system is not included bottom ash from the water trough up an Direct discharger. A facility that discharges in this definition. incline, which dewaters the bottom ash by treated or untreated wastewaters into waters Fly Ash. The ash that is carried out of the gravity, draining the water back to the trough of the U.S. furnace by a gas stream and collected by a as the bottom ash moves upward. The DOE. Department of Energy. capture device such as a mechanical dewatered bottom ash is often conveyed to a Dry bottom ash handling system. A system precipitator, electrostatic precipitator, and/or nearby collection area, such as a small that does not use water as the transport fabric filter. Economizer ash is included in bunker outside the boiler building, from medium to convey bottom ash away from the this definition when it is collected with fly which it is loaded onto trucks and either sold boiler. It includes systems that collect and ash. Ash is not included in this definition or transported to a landfill. The MDS is convey the ash without any use of water, as when it is collected in wet scrubber air considered a dry bottom ash handling system well as systems in which bottom ash is pollution control systems whose primary because the ash transport mechanism is quenched in a water bath and then purpose is particulate removal. mechanical removal by the drag chain, not mechanically or pneumatically conveyed Gasification Wastewater. Any wastewater the water. away from the boiler. Dry bottom ash generated at an integrated gasification Metal cleaning wastes. Any wastewater handling systems do not include wet sluicing combined cycle operation from the gasifier or resulting from cleaning [with or without systems (such as remote MDS or complete the syngas cleaning, combustion, and cooling chemical cleaning compounds] any metal recycle systems). processes. Gasification wastewater includes, process equipment including, but not limited Dry fly ash handling system. A system that but is not limited to the following: Sour/grey to, boiler tube cleaning, boiler fireside does not use water as the transport medium water; CO2/steam stripper wastewater; sulfur cleaning, and air preheater cleaning. to convey fly ash away from particulate recovery unit blowdown, and wastewater Mortality. Death rate or proportion of collection equipment. resulting from slag handling or fly ash deaths in a population. Effluent limitation. Under CWA section handling, particulate removal, halogen NAICS. North American Industry 502(11), any restriction, including schedules removal, or trace organic removal. Air Classification System. of compliance, established by a state or the separation unit blowdown, noncontact NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Administrator on quantities, rates, and cooling water, and runoff from fuel and/or Elimination System. concentrations of chemical, physical, byproduct piles are not considered NSPS. New Source Performance Standards. biological, and other constituents which are gasification wastewater. Wastewater that is Oil-fired unit. A generating unit that uses discharged from point sources into navigable collected intermittently in floor drains in the oil as the primary or secondary fuel source waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or gasification process areas from leaks, spills and does not use a gasification process or any the ocean, including schedules of and cleaning occurring during normal coal or petroleum coke as a fuel source. This compliance. operation of the gasification operation is not definition does not include units that use oil EIA. Energy Information Administration. considered gasification wastewater. only for start up or flame-stabilization ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and Ground water. Water that is found in the purposes. standards. saturated part of the ground underneath the ORCR. Office of Resource Conservation EO. Executive Order. land surface. and Recovery. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection IGCC. Integrated gasification combined Point source. Any discernable, confined, Agency. cycle. and discrete conveyance, including but not ESP. Electrostatic precipitator. Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, Facility. Any NPDES ‘‘point source’’ or any or otherwise introduced to a POTW. conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, other facility or activity (including land or IPM. Integrated Planning Model. rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding appurtenances thereto) that is subject to Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a operation, or vessel or other floating craft regulation under the NPDES program. facility where solid waste, sludges, or other from which pollutants are or may be FGD. Flue gas desulfurization. process residuals are placed in or on any discharged. The term does not include FGD Wastewater. Wastewater generated natural or manmade formation in the earth agricultural stormwater discharges or return specifically from the wet flue gas for disposal and which is not a storage pile, flows from irrigated agriculture. See CWA desulfurization scrubber system that comes a land treatment facility, a surface section 502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 40 CFR into contact with the flue gas or the FGD impoundment, an underground injection 122.2. solids, including but not limited to, the well, a salt dome or salt bed formation, an POTW. Publicly owned treatment works. blowdown or purge from the FGD scrubber underground mine, a cave, or a corrective See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 system, overflow or underflow from the action management unit. CFR 122.2, 403.3 solids separation process, FGD solids wash Low Volume Waste Sources. Taken Primary particulate collection system. The water, and the filtrate from the solids collectively as if from one source, wastewater first place in the process where fly ash is dewatering process. Wastewater generated from all sources except those for which collected, such as collection at an ESP or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67893

baghouse. For example, a coal combustion Wet FGD system. Wet FGD systems capture established in this part. Low volume particulate collection system may include sulfur dioxide from the flue gas using a waste sources include, but are not multiple steps including a primary sorbent that has mixed with water to form a limited to, the following: Wastewaters particulate collection step such as ESP wet slurry, and that generates a water stream from ion exchange water treatment followed by other processes such as a fabric that exits the FGD scrubber absorber. filter which would constitute a secondary Wet fly ash handling system. A system that systems, water treatment evaporator particulate collection system. conveys fly ash away from particulate blowdown, laboratory and sampling PSES. Pretreatment Standards for Existing removal equipment using water as a transport streams, boiler blowdown, floor drains, Sources. medium. Wet fly ash systems typically cooling tower basin cleaning wastes, PSNS. Pretreatment Standards for New dispose of the ash slurry in a surface recirculating house service water Sources. impoundment. systems, and wet scrubber air pollution Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Any List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423 control systems whose primary purpose device or system, owned by a state or is particulate removal. Sanitary wastes, municipality, used in the treatment Environmental protection, Electric air conditioning wastes, and wastewater (including recycling and reclamation) of power generation, Power plants, Waste municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a from carbon capture or sequestration liquid nature that is owned by a state or treatment and disposal, Water pollution systems are not included in this municipality. This includes sewers, pipes, or control. definition. other conveyances only if they convey Dated: September 30, 2015. * * * * * wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. Gina McCarthy, (e) The term fly ash means the ash See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 that is carried out of the furnace by a gas CFR 122.2, 403.3. Administrator. RCRA. The Resource Conservation and stream and collected by a capture device Therefore, 40 CFR Chapter I is such as a mechanical precipitator, Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. amended as follows: Remote MDS. Bottom ash handling system electrostatic precipitator, or fabric filter. that collects bottom ash at the bottom of the PART 423—STEAM ELECTRIC POWER Economizer ash is included in this boiler, then uses transport water to sluice the GENERATING POINT SOURCE definition when it is collected with fly ash to a remote MDS that dewaters bottom CATEGORY ash. Ash is not included in this ash using a similar configuration as the MDS. definition when it is collected in wet The remote MDS is considered a wet bottom ■ 1. The authority citation for part 423 scrubber air pollution control systems ash handling system because the ash whose primary purpose is particulate transport mechanism is water. is revised to read as follows: RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act. removal. Authority: Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), (f) The term bottom ash means the SBA. Small Business Administration. and (g); 306; 307; 308 and 501, Clean Water Sediment. Particulate matter lying below Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act ash, including boiler slag, which settles water. Amendments of 1972, as amended; 33 U.S.C. in the furnace or is dislodged from Steam electric power plant wastewater. 1251; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 1316; furnace walls. Economizer ash is Wastewaters associated with or resulting 1317; 1318 and 1361). included in this definition when it is from the combustion process, including ash ■ collected with bottom ash. transport water from coal-, petroleum 2. Section 423.10 is revised as follows: * * * * * coke-, or oil-fired units; air pollution control § 423.10 Applicability. wastewater (e.g., FGD wastewater, FGMC (n) The term flue gas desulfurization wastewater, carbon capture wastewater); and The provisions of this part apply to (FGD) wastewater means any leachate from landfills or surface discharges resulting from the operation wastewater generated specifically from impoundments containing combustion of a generating unit by an establishment the wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber residuals. whose generation of electricity is the system that comes into contact with the Surface water. All waters of the United predominant source of revenue or flue gas or the FGD solids, including but States, including rivers, streams, lakes, principal reason for operation, and not limited to, the blowdown from the reservoirs, and seas. whose generation of electricity results FGD scrubber system, overflow or Toxic pollutants. As identified under the underflow from the solids separation CWA, 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants, primarily from a process utilizing fossil- of which 126 specific substances have been type fuel (coal, oil, or gas), fuel derived process, FGD solids wash water, and the designated priority toxic pollutants. See from fossil fuel (e.g., petroleum coke, filtrate from the solids dewatering appendix A to 40 CFR part 423. synthesis gas), or nuclear fuel in process. Wastewater generated from Transport water. Wastewater that is used to conjunction with a thermal cycle cleaning the FGD scrubber, cleaning convey fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer employing the steam water system as FGD solids separation equipment, ash from the ash collection or storage the thermodynamic medium. This part cleaning FGD solids dewatering equipment, or boiler, and has direct contact applies to discharges associated with equipment, or that is collected in floor with the ash. Transport water does not both the combustion turbine and steam drains in the FGD process area is not include low volume, short duration considered FGD wastewater. discharges of wastewater from minor leaks turbine portions of a combined cycle (e.g., leaks from valve packing, pipe flanges, generating unit. (o) The term flue gas mercury control or piping) or minor maintenance events (e.g., ■ 3. Section 423.11 is amended by: wastewater means any wastewater replacement of valves or pipe sections). ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (e), and (f). generated from an air pollution control UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. ■ b. Adding paragraphs (n) through (t). system installed or operated for the Wet bottom ash handling system. A system The revisions and additions read as purpose of removing mercury from flue in which bottom ash is conveyed away from follows: gas. This includes fly ash collection the boiler using water as a transport medium. systems when the particulate control Wet bottom ash systems typically send the § 423.11 Specialized definitions. system follows sorbent injection or ash slurry to dewatering bins or a surface * * * * * other controls to remove mercury from impoundment. Wet bottom ash handling systems include systems that operate in (b) The term low volume waste flue gas. FGD wastewater generated at conjunction with a traditional wet sluicing sources means, taken collectively as if plants using oxidizing agents to remove system to recycle all bottom ash transport from one source, wastewater from all mercury in the FGD system and not in water (remote MDS or complete recycle sources except those for which specific a separate FGMC system is not included system). limitations or standards are otherwise in this definition.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(p) The term transport water means landfill, or that passes through the fuel-fired electric generating units, any wastewater that is used to convey surface impoundment’s containment under sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d) fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash structure (e.g., bottom, dikes, berms). of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 from the ash collection or storage Combustion residual leachate includes U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d); or equipment, or boiler, and has direct seepage and/or leakage from a (iii) Regulations that address the contact with the ash. Transport water combustion residual landfill or disposal of coal combustion residuals as does not include low volume, short impoundment unit. Combustion solid waste, under sections 1006(b), duration discharges of wastewater from residual leachate includes wastewater 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 4004, and minor leaks (e.g., leaks from valve from landfills and surface 4005(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or impoundments located on non- of 1970, as amended by the Resource minor maintenance events (e.g., adjoining property when under the Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, replacement of valves or pipe sections). operational control of the permitted as amended by the Hazardous and Solid (q) The term gasification wastewater facility. Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. means any wastewater generated at an (s) The term oil-fired unit means a 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and integrated gasification combined cycle generating unit that uses oil as the 6945(a). operation from the gasifier or the syngas primary or secondary fuel source and (3) For FGD wastewater requirements cleaning, combustion, and cooling does not use a gasification process or only, an initial commissioning period processes. Gasification wastewater any coal or petroleum coke as a fuel for the treatment system to optimize the includes, but is not limited to the source. This definition does not include installed equipment. following: Sour/grey water; CO2/steam units that use oil only for start up or ■ (4) Other factors as appropriate. stripper wastewater; sulfur recovery flame-stabilization purposes. ■ 4. Section 423.12 is amended by: unit blowdown, and wastewater (t) The phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(11) and resulting from slag handling or fly ash means November 1, 2018, unless the (12). handling, particulate removal, halogen permitting authority establishes a later ■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(13). removal, or trace organic removal. Air date, after receiving information from The revisions and addition read as separation unit blowdown, noncontact the discharger, which reflects a follows: cooling water, and runoff from fuel and/ consideration of the following factors: or byproduct piles are not considered (1) Time to expeditiously plan § 423.12 Effluent limitations guidelines gasification wastewater. Wastewater that (including to raise capital), design, representing the degree of effluent is collected intermittently in floor procure, and install equipment to reduction attainable by the application of drains in the gasification process area comply with the requirements of this the best practicable control technology from leaks, spills, and cleaning part. currently available (BPT). occurring during normal operation of (2) Changes being made or planned at * * * * * the gasification operation is not the plant in response to: (b) * * * considered gasification wastewater. (i) New source performance standards (11) The quantity of pollutants (r) The term combustion residual for greenhouse gases from new fossil discharged in FGD wastewater, flue gas leachate means leachate from landfills fuel-fired electric generating units, mercury control wastewater, or surface impoundments containing under sections 111, 301, 302, and combustion residual leachate, or combustion residuals. Leachate is 307(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as gasification wastewater shall not exceed composed of liquid, including any amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, the quantity determined by multiplying suspended or dissolved constituents in 7607(d)(1)(C); the flow of the applicable wastewater the liquid, that has percolated through (ii) Emission guidelines for times the concentration listed in the waste or other materials emplaced in a greenhouse gases from existing fossil following table:

BPT Effluent limitations Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0

(12) At the permitting authority’s controlled in paragraphs (b)(1) through § 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines discretion, the quantity of pollutant (b)(12) of this section attributable to representing the degree of effluent allowed to be discharged may be each controlled waste source shall not reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically expressed as a concentration limitation exceed the specified limitations for that achievable (BAT). instead of the mass-based limitations waste source. * * * * * specified in paragraphs (b)(3) through ■ 5. Section 423.13 is amended by: (g)(1)(i) FGD wastewater. Except for (b)(7), and (b)(11), of this section. ■ a. Revising paragraphs (g) and (h). those discharges to which paragraph Concentration limitations shall be those (g)(2) or (g)(3) of this section applies, the ■ concentrations specified in this section. b. Adding paragraphs (i) through (n). quantity of pollutants in FGD (13) In the event that wastestreams The revisions and additions read as wastewater shall not exceed the from various sources are combined for follows: quantity determined by multiplying the treatment or discharge, the quantity of flow of FGD wastewater times the each pollutant or pollutant property concentration listed in the table

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67895

following this paragraph (g)(1)(i). possible beginning November 1, 2018, permitting authority for meeting the Dischargers must meet the effluent but no later than December 31, 2023. effluent limitations, as specified in this limitations for FGD wastewater in this These effluent limitations apply to the paragraph. paragraph by a date determined by the discharge of FGD wastewater generated permitting authority that is as soon as on and after the date determined by the

BAT Effluent limitations Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 11 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 788 356 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 23 12 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/L) ...... 17.0 4.4

(ii) For FGD wastewater generated than or equal to 50 megawatts or that is wastewater shall not exceed the before the date determined by the an oil-fired unit, the quantity of quantity determined by multiplying the permitting authority, as specified in pollutants discharged in FGD flow of FGD wastewater times the paragraph (g)(1)(i), the quantity of wastewater shall not exceed the concentration listed in the table pollutants discharged in FGD quantity determined by multiplying the following this paragraph (g)(3)(i). wastewater shall not exceed the flow of FGD wastewater times the Dischargers who choose to meet the quantity determined by multiplying the concentration listed for TSS in effluent limitations for FGD wastewater flow of FGD wastewater times the § 423.12(b)(11). in this paragraph must meet such concentration listed for TSS in (3)(i) For dischargers who voluntarily limitations by December 31, 2023. These § 423.12(b)(11). choose to meet the effluent limitations effluent limitations apply to the (2) For any electric generating unit for FGD wastewater in this paragraph, discharge of FGD wastewater generated with a total nameplate capacity of less the quantity of pollutants in FGD on and after December 31, 2023.

BAT Effluent limitations Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 39 24 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 5 ...... TDS (mg/L) ...... 50 24

(ii) For discharges of FGD wastewater water is used in any other plant process capacity of less than or equal to 50 generated before December 31, 2023, the or is sent to a treatment system at the megawatts or that is an oil-fired unit, quantity of pollutants discharged in plant (except when it is used in the FGD the quantity of pollutants discharged in FGD wastewater shall not exceed the scrubber), the resulting effluent must fly ash transport water shall not exceed quantity determined by multiplying the comply with the discharge limitation in the quantity determined by multiplying flow of FGD wastewater times the this paragraph. When the fly ash the flow of fly ash transport water times concentration listed for TSS in transport water is used in the FGD the concentration listed for TSS in § 423.12(b)(11). scrubber, the quantity of pollutants in § 423.12(b)(4). (h)(1)(i) Fly ash transport water. fly ash transport water shall not exceed (i)(1)(i) Flue gas mercury control Except for those discharges to which the quantity determined by multiplying wastewater. Except for those discharges paragraph (h)(2) of this section applies, the flow of fly ash transport water times to which paragraph (i)(2) of this section or when the fly ash transport water is the concentration listed in the table in applies, there shall be no discharge of used in the FGD scrubber, there shall be paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. pollutants in flue gas mercury control no discharge of pollutants in fly ash (ii) For discharges of fly ash transport wastewater. Dischargers must meet the transport water. Dischargers must meet water generated before the date discharge limitation in this paragraph the discharge limitation in this determined by the permitting authority, by a date determined by the permitting paragraph by a date determined by the as specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this authority that is as soon as possible permitting authority that is as soon as section, the quantity of pollutants beginning November 1, 2018, but no possible beginning November 1, 2018, discharged in fly ash transport water later than December 31, 2023. This but no later than December 31, 2023. shall not exceed the quantity limitation applies to the discharge of This limitation applies to the discharge determined by multiplying the flow of flue gas mercury control wastewater of fly ash transport water generated on fly ash transport water times the generated on and after the date and after the date determined by the concentration listed for TSS in determined by the permitting authority permitting authority for meeting the § 423.12(b)(4). for meeting the discharge limitation, as discharge limitation, as specified in this (2) For any electric generating unit specified in this paragraph. Whenever paragraph. Whenever fly ash transport with a total nameplate generating flue gas mercury control wastewater is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

used in any other plant process or is (2) For any electric generating unit flow of gasification wastewater times sent to a treatment system at the plant, with a total nameplate generating the concentration listed in the table the resulting effluent must comply with capacity of less than or equal to 50 following this paragraph (j)(1)(i). the discharge limitation in this megawatts or that is an oil-fired unit, Dischargers must meet the effluent paragraph. the quantity of pollutants discharged in limitations in this paragraph by a date (ii) For discharges of flue gas mercury flue gas mercury control wastewater determined by the permitting authority control wastewater generated before the shall not exceed the quantity that is as soon as possible beginning date determined by the permitting determined by multiplying the flow of November 1, 2018, but no later than authority, as specified in paragraph flue gas mercury control wastewater December 31, 2023. These effluent (i)(1)(i) of this section, the quantity of times the concentration for TSS listed in limitations apply to the discharge of pollutants discharged in flue gas § 423.12(b)(11). mercury control wastewater shall not (j)(1)(i) Gasification wastewater. gasification wastewater generated on exceed the quantity determined by Except for those discharges to which and after the date determined by the multiplying the flow of flue gas mercury paragraph (j)(2) of this section applies, permitting authority for meeting the control wastewater times the the quantity of pollutants in gasification effluent limitations, as specified in this concentration for TSS listed in wastewater shall not exceed the paragraph. § 423.12(b)(11). quantity determined by multiplying the

BAT Effluent limitations Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 1.8 1.3 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 453 227 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) ...... 38 22

(ii) For discharges of gasification transport water is used in any other multiplying the flow of combustion wastewater generated before the date plant process or is sent to a treatment residual leachate times the determined by the permitting authority, system at the plant (except when it is concentration for TSS listed in as specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this used in the FGD scrubber), the resulting § 423.12(b)(11). section, the quantity of pollutants effluent must comply with the discharge (m) At the permitting authority’s discharged in gasification wastewater limitation in this paragraph. When the discretion, the quantity of pollutant shall not exceed the quantity bottom ash transport water is used in allowed to be discharged may be determined by multiplying the flow of the FGD scrubber, the quantity of expressed as a concentration limitation gasification wastewater times the pollutants in bottom ash transport water instead of any mass based limitations concentration for TSS listed in shall not exceed the quantity specified in paragraphs (b) through (l) of § 423.12(b)(11). determined by multiplying the flow of this section. Concentration limitations (2) For any electric generating unit bottom ash transport water times the shall be those concentrations specified with a total nameplate generating concentration listed in the table in in this section. capacity of less than or equal to 50 paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this section. (n) In the event that wastestreams megawatts or that is an oil-fired unit, (ii) For discharges of bottom ash from various sources are combined for the quantity of pollutants discharged in transport water generated before the treatment or discharge, the quantity of gasification wastewater shall not exceed date determined by the permitting each pollutant or pollutant property the quantity determined by multiplying authority, as specified in paragraph controlled in paragraphs (a) through (m) the flow of gasification wastewater (k)(1)(i) of this section, the quantity of of this section attributable to each times the concentration listed for TSS in pollutants discharged in bottom ash controlled waste source shall not exceed § 423.12(b)(11). transport water shall not exceed the the specified limitation for that waste (k)(1)(i) Bottom ash transport water. quantity determined by multiplying the source. Except for those discharges to which flow of bottom ash transport water times ■ 6. Section 423.15 is revised to read as paragraph (k)(2) of this section applies, the concentration for TSS listed in follows: or when the bottom ash transport water § 423.12(b)(4). is used in the FGD scrubber, there shall (2) For any electric generating unit § 423.15 New source performance be no discharge of pollutants in bottom with a total nameplate generating standards (NSPS). ash transport water. Dischargers must capacity of less than or equal to 50 (a) 1982 NSPS. Any new source as of meet the discharge limitation in this megawatts or that is an oil-fired unit, November 19, 1982, subject to paragraph by a date determined by the the quantity of pollutants discharged in paragraph (a) of this section, must permitting authority that is as soon as bottom ash transport water shall not achieve the following new source possible beginning November 1, 2018, exceed the quantity determined by performance standards, in addition to but no later than December 31, 2023. multiplying the flow of the applicable the limitations in § 423.13 of this part, This limitation applies to the discharge wastewater times the concentration for established on November 3, 2015. In the of bottom ash transport water generated TSS listed in § 423.12(b)(4). case of conflict, the more stringent on and after the date determined by the (l) Combustion residual leachate. The requirements apply: permitting authority for meeting the quantity of pollutants discharged in (1) pH. The pH of all discharges, discharge limitation, as specified in this combustion residual leachate shall not except once through cooling water, shall paragraph. Whenever bottom ash exceed the quantity determined by be within the range of 6.0–9.0.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67897

(2) PCBs. There shall be no discharge wastewater, combustion residual leachate, and gasification wastewater of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds leachate, and gasification wastewater. shall not exceed the quantity such as those commonly used for The quantity of pollutants discharged in determined by multiplying the flow of transformer fluid. low volume waste sources, FGD low volume waste sources times the (3) Low volume waste sources, FGD wastewater, flue gas mercury control concentration listed in the following wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, combustion residual table:

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0

(4) Chemical metal cleaning wastes. not exceed the quantity determined by cleaning wastes times the concentration The quantity of pollutants discharged in multiplying the flow of chemical metal listed in the following table: chemical metal cleaning wastes shall

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0 Copper, total ...... 1.0 1.0 Iron, total ...... 1.0 1.0

(5) [Reserved] bottom ash transport water shall not transport water times the concentration (6) Bottom ash transport water. The exceed the quantity determined by listed in the following table: quantity of pollutants discharged in multiplying the flow of the bottom ash

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0

(7) Fly ash transport water. There generating capacity of 25 or more multiplying the flow of once through shall be no discharge of pollutants in fly megawatts, the quantity of pollutants cooling water from each discharge point ash transport water. discharged in once through cooling times the concentration listed in the (8)(i) Once through cooling water. For water from each discharge point shall following table: any plant with a total rated electric not exceed the quantity determined by

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentrations (mg/l)

Total residual chlorine ...... 0.20

(ii) Total residual chlorine may only is required for macroinvertebrate quantity of pollutants discharged in be discharged from any single control. Simultaneous multi-unit once through cooling water shall not generating unit for more than two hours chlorination is permitted. exceed the quantity determined by per day when the discharger (9)(i) Once through cooling water. For multiplying the flow of once through demonstrates to the permitting authority any plant with a total rated generating cooling water sources times the that discharge for more than two hours capacity of less than 25 megawatts, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

concentration listed in the following table:

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration Average concentration (mg/l) (mg/l)

Free available chlorine ...... 0.5 0.2

(ii) Neither free available chlorine nor utility can demonstrate to the Regional (10)(i) Cooling tower blowdown. The total residual chlorine may be Administrator or state, if the state has quantity of pollutants discharged in discharged from any unit for more than NPDES permit issuing authority, that cooling tower blowdown shall not two hours in any one day and not more the units in a particular location cannot exceed the quantity determined by than one unit in any plant may operate at or below this level of multiplying the flow of cooling tower discharge free available or total residual chlorination. blowdown times the concentration chlorine at any one time unless the listed below:

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration Average concentration (mg/l) (mg/l)

Free available chlorine ...... 0.5 0.2

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

The 126 priority pollutants (appendix A) contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance, ex- cept: ...... (1) (1) Chromium, total ...... 0.2 0.2 zinc, total ...... 1.0 1.0 1 No detectable amount.

(ii) Neither free available chlorine nor discharged in coal pile runoff shall not treatment or discharge, the quantity of total residual chlorine may be exceed the standards specified below: each pollutant or pollutant property discharged from any unit for more than controlled in paragraphs (a)(1) through two hours in any one day and not more Pollutant or pollutant NSPS for any time (13) of this section attributable to each than one unit in any plant may property controlled waste source shall not exceed discharge free available or total residual TSS ...... not to exceed 50 mg/ the specified limitation for that waste chlorine at any one time unless the l. source. utility can demonstrate to the Regional (b) 2015 NSPS. Any new source as of Administrator or state, if the state has (12) Coal pile runoff. Any untreated November 17, 2015, subject to NPDES permit issuing authority, that overflow from facilities designed, paragraph (b) of this section, must the units in a particular location cannot constructed, and operated to treat the achieve the following new source operate at or below this level of coal pile runoff which results from a 10 performance standards: chlorination. (1) pH. The pH of all discharges, (iii) At the permitting authority’s year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not be except once through cooling water, shall discretion, instead of the monitoring in subject to the standards in paragraph be within the range of 6.0–9.0. 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the (a)(11) of this section. standards for the 126 priority pollutants (13) At the permitting authority’s (2) PCBs. There shall be no discharge in paragraph (a)(10)(i) of this section discretion, the quantity of pollutant of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds may be determined by engineering allowed to be discharged may be such as those commonly used for calculations which demonstrate that the expressed as a concentration limitation transformer fluid. regulated pollutants are not detectable instead of any mass based limitations (3) Low volume waste sources. The in the final discharge by the analytical specified in paragraphs (a)(3) through quantity of pollutants discharged from methods in 40 CFR part 136. (10) of this section. Concentration limits low volume waste sources shall not (11) Coal pile runoff. Subject to the shall be based on the concentrations exceed the quantity determined by provisions of paragraph (a)(12) of this specified in this section. multiplying the flow of low volume section, the quantity or quality of (14) In the event that wastestreams waste sources times the concentration pollutants or pollutant parameters from various sources are combined for listed in the following table:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67899

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0

(4) Chemical metal cleaning wastes. not exceed the quantity determined by cleaning wastes times the concentration The quantity of pollutants discharged in multiplying the flow of chemical metal listed in the following table: chemical metal cleaning wastes shall

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

TSS ...... 100.0 30.0 Oil and grease ...... 20.0 15.0 Copper, total ...... 1.0 1.0 Iron, total ...... 1.0 1.0

(5) [Reserved] (7) Fly ash transport water. There generating capacity of 25 or more (6) Bottom ash transport water. There shall be no discharge of pollutants in fly megawatts, the quantity of pollutants shall be no discharge of pollutants in ash transport water. Whenever fly ash discharged in once through cooling bottom ash transport water. Whenever transport water is used in any other water from each discharge point shall plant process or is sent to a treatment bottom ash transport water is used in not exceed the quantity determined by system at the plant, the resulting any other plant process or is sent to a multiplying the flow of once through effluent must comply with the discharge treatment system at the plant, the cooling water from each discharge point standard in this paragraph. resulting effluent must comply with the times the concentration listed in the (8)(i) Once through cooling water. For following table: discharge standard in this paragraph. any plant with a total rated electric

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration (mg/l)

Total residual chlorine ...... 0.20

(ii) Total residual chlorine may only is required for macroinvertebrate once through cooling water shall not be discharged from any single control. Simultaneous multi-unit exceed the quantity determined by generating unit for more than two hours chlorination is permitted. multiplying the flow of once through per day when the discharger (9)(i) Once through cooling water. For cooling water sources times the demonstrates to the permitting authority any plant with a total rated generating concentration listed in the following that discharge for more than two hours capacity of less than 25 megawatts, the table: quantity of pollutants discharged in

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration Average concentration (mg/l) (mg/l)

Free available chlorine ...... 0.5 0.2

(ii) Neither free available chlorine nor utility can demonstrate to the Regional (10)(i) Cooling tower blowdown. The total residual chlorine may be Administrator or state, if the state has quantity of pollutants discharged in discharged from any unit for more than NPDES permit issuing authority, that cooling tower blowdown shall not two hours in any one day and not more the units in a particular location cannot exceed the quantity determined by than one unit in any plant may operate at or below this level of multiplying the flow of cooling tower discharge free available or total residual chlorination. blowdown times the concentration chlorine at any one time unless the listed below:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

NSPS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum concentration Average concentration (mg/l) (mg/l)

Free available chlorine ...... 0.5 0.2

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days (mg/l) shall not exceed (mg/l)

The 126 priority pollutants (appendix A) contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance, except: ...... (1) (1) Chromium, total ...... 0.2 0.2 zinc, total ...... 1.0 1.0 1 No detectable amount.

(ii) Neither free available chlorine nor in paragraph (b)(10)(i) of this section (12) Coal pile runoff. Any untreated total residual chlorine may be may be determined by engineering overflow from facilities designed, discharged from any unit for more than calculations demonstrating that the constructed, and operated to treat the two hours in any one day and not more regulated pollutants are not detectable coal pile runoff which results from a 10 than one unit in any plant may in the final discharge by the analytical year, 24 hour rainfall event shall not be discharge free available or total residual methods in 40 CFR part 136. subject to the standards in paragraph chlorine at any one time unless the (11) Coal pile runoff. Subject to the (b)(11) of this section. utility can demonstrate to the Regional provisions of paragraph (b)(12) of this Administrator or state, if the state has section, the quantity or quality of (13) FGD wastewater. The quantity of NPDES permit issuing authority, that pollutants or pollutant parameters pollutants discharged in FGD the units in a particular location cannot discharged in coal pile runoff shall not wastewater shall not exceed the operate at or below this level of exceed the standards specified below: quantity determined by multiplying the chlorination. flow of FGD wastewater times the (iii) At the permitting authority’s Pollutant or pollut- NSPS for any time concentration listed in the following discretion, instead of the monitoring in ant property table: 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the TSS ...... not to exceed 50 mg/l. standards for the 126 priority pollutants

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 39 24 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 5 ...... TDS (mg/L) ...... 50 24

(14) Flue gas mercury control plant process or is sent to a treatment gasification wastewater shall not exceed wastewater. There shall be no discharge system at the plant, the resulting the quantity determined by multiplying of pollutants in flue gas mercury control effluent must comply with the discharge the flow of gasification wastewater wastewater. Whenever flue gas mercury standard in this paragraph. times the concentration listed in the control wastewater is used in any other (15) Gasification wastewater. The following table: quantity of pollutants discharged in

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 1.8 1.3 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 453 227 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) ...... 38 22

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67901

(16) Combustion residual leachate. exceed the quantity determined by concentration listed in the following The quantity of pollutants discharged in multiplying the flow of combustion table: combustion residual leachate shall not residual leachate times the

NSPS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 11 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 788 356

(17) At the permitting authority’s (The information collection (e) FGD wastewater. For any electric discretion, the quantity of pollutant requirements contained in paragraphs generating unit with a total nameplate allowed to be discharged may be (a)(8)(ii), (a)(9)(ii), and (a)(10)(ii), generating capacity of more than 50 expressed as a concentration limitation (b)(8)(ii), (b)(9)(ii), and (b)(10)(ii) were megawatts and that is not an oil-fired instead of any mass based limitations approved by the Office of Management unit, the quantity of pollutants in FGD specified in paragraphs (b)(3) through and Budget under control number 2040– wastewater shall not exceed the (16) of this section. Concentration limits 0040. The information collection quantity determined by multiplying the shall be based on the concentrations requirements contained in paragraphs flow of FGD wastewater times the specified in this section. (a)(10)(iii) and (b)(10)(iii) were approved concentration listed in the table (18) In the event that wastestreams under control number 2040–0033.) following this paragraph (e). Dischargers from various sources are combined for treatment or discharge, the quantity of ■ 7. Section 423.16 is amended by must meet the standards in this each pollutant or pollutant property adding paragraphs (e) through (i) to read paragraph by November 1, 2018. These controlled in paragraphs (b)(1) through as follows: standards apply to the discharge of FGD (16) of this section attributable to each wastewater generated on and after controlled waste source shall not exceed § 423.16 Pretreatment standards for November 1, 2018. the specified limitation for that waste existing sources (PSES). source. * * * * *

PSES Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 11 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 788 356 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 23 12 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/L) ...... 17.0 4.4

(f) Fly ash transport water. Except (g) Bottom ash transport water. Except listed in the table in paragraph (e) of when the fly ash transport water is used when the bottom ash transport water is this section. in the FGD scrubber, for any electric used in the FGD scrubber, for any (h) Flue gas mercury control generating unit with a total nameplate electric generating unit with a total wastewater. For any electric generating generating capacity of more than 50 nameplate generating capacity of more unit with a total nameplate generating megawatts and that is not an oil-fired than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil- capacity of more than 50 megawatts and unit, there shall be no discharge of fired unit, there shall be no discharge of that is not an oil-fired unit, there shall pollutants in fly ash transport water. pollutants in bottom ash transport be no discharge of pollutants in flue gas This standard applies to the discharge of water. This standard applies to the mercury control wastewater. This fly ash transport water generated on and discharge of bottom ash transport water standard applies to the discharge of flue after November 1, 2018. Whenever fly generated on and after November 1, gas mercury control wastewater ash transport water is used in any other 2018. Whenever bottom ash transport generated on and after November 1, plant process or is sent to a treatment water is used in any other plant process 2018. Whenever flue gas mercury system at the plant (except when it is or is sent to a treatment system at the control wastewater is used in any other used in the FGD scrubber), the resulting plant (except when it is used in the FGD plant process or is sent to a treatment effluent must comply with the discharge scrubber), the resulting effluent must system at the plant, the resulting standard in this paragraph. When the fly comply with the discharge standard in effluent must comply with the discharge ash transport water is used in the FGD this paragraph. When the bottom ash standard in this paragraph. scrubber, the quantity of pollutants in transport water is used in the FGD (i) Gasification wastewater. For any fly ash transport water shall not exceed scrubber, the quantity of pollutants in electric generating unit with a total the quantity determined by multiplying bottom ash transport water shall not nameplate generating capacity of more the flow of fly ash transport water times exceed the quantity determined by than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil- the concentration listed in the table in multiplying the flow of bottom ash fired unit, the quantity of pollutants in paragraph (e) of this section. transport water times the concentration gasification wastewater shall not exceed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 67902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

the quantity determined by multiplying table following this paragraph (i). These standards apply to the discharge the flow of gasification wastewater Dischargers must meet the standards in of gasification wastewater generated on times the concentration listed in the this paragraph by November 1, 2018. and after November 1, 2018.

PSES Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (μg/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 1.8 1.3 Selenium, total (μg/L) ...... 453 227 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) ...... 38 22

■ 8. Section 423.17 is revised to read as pollutants into a publicly owned (1) PCBs. There shall be no discharge follows: treatment works, must comply with 40 of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds CFR part 403, the following such as those used for transformer fluid. § 423.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). pretreatment standards for new sources, (2) Chemical metal cleaning wastes. (a) 1982 PSNS. Except as provided in and the PSES in § 423.16, established on The pollutants discharged in chemical 40 CFR 403.7, any new source as of November 3, 2015. In the case of metal cleaning wastes shall not exceed October 14, 1980, subject to paragraph conflict, the more stringent standards the concentration listed in the following (a) of this section, which introduces apply: table:

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any 1 day (mg/L)

Copper, total ...... 1.0

(3) [Reserved] blowdown shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following (4)(i) Cooling tower blowdown. The table: pollutants discharged in cooling tower

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any time (mg/L)

The 126 priority pollutants (appendix A) contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance, except: .. (1) Chromium, total ...... 0.2 zinc, total ...... 1.0 1 No detectable amount.

(ii) At the permitting authority’s (5) Fly ash transport water. There following pretreatment standards for discretion, instead of the monitoring in shall be no discharge of wastewater new sources: 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the pollutants from fly ash transport water. (1) PCBs. There shall be no discharge standards for the 126 priority pollutants (b) 2015 PSNS. Except as provided in of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section may 40 CFR 403.7, any new source as of June such as those used for transformer fluid. be determined by engineering (2) Chemical metal cleaning wastes. 7, 2013, subject to this paragraph (b), calculations which demonstrate that the The pollutants discharged in chemical which introduces pollutants into a regulated pollutants are not detectable metal cleaning wastes shall not exceed in the final discharge by the analytical publicly owned treatment works must the concentration listed in the following methods in 40 CFR part 136. comply with 40 CFR part 403 and the table:

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for 1 day (mg/L)

Copper, total ...... 1.0

(3) [Reserved] blowdown shall not exceed the concentration listed in the following (4)(i) Cooling tower blowdown. The table: pollutants discharged in cooling tower

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 67903

PSNS Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for any time (mg/L)

The 126 priority pollutants (appendix A) contained in chemicals added for cooling tower maintenance, except: .. (1) Chromium, total ...... 0.2 zinc, total ...... 1.0 1 No detectable amount.

(ii) At the permitting authority’s in the final discharge by the analytical effluent must comply with the discharge discretion, instead of the monitoring in methods in 40 CFR part 136. standard in this paragraph. 40 CFR 122.11(b), compliance with the (5) Fly ash transport water. There (6) FGD wastewater. The quantity of standards for the 126 priority pollutants shall be no discharge of pollutants in fly pollutants discharged in FGD in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section may ash transport water. Whenever fly ash wastewater shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the be determined by engineering transport water is used in any other flow of FGD wastewater times the calculations which demonstrate that the plant process or is sent to a treatment regulated pollutants are not detectable concentration listed in the following system at the plant, the resulting table:

PSNS

Pollutant or pollutant property Average of daily Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (μg/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 39 24 Selenium, total (μg/L) ...... 5 ...... TDS (mg/L) ...... 50 24

(7) Flue gas mercury control (8) Bottom ash transport water. There (9) Gasification wastewater. The wastewater. There shall be no discharge shall be no discharge of pollutants in quantity of pollutants discharged in of pollutants in flue gas mercury control bottom ash transport water. Whenever gasification wastewater shall not exceed wastewater. Whenever flue gas mercury bottom ash transport water is used in the quantity determined by multiplying control wastewater is used in any other any other plant process or is sent to a the flow of gasification wastewater plant process or is sent to a treatment treatment system at the plant, the times the concentration listed in the system at the plant, the resulting resulting effluent must comply with the following table: effluent must comply with the discharge discharge standard in this paragraph. standard in this paragraph.

PSNS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (μg/L) ...... 4 ...... Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 1.8 1.3 Selenium, total (μg/L) ...... 453 227 Total dissolved solids (mg/L) ...... 38 22

(10) Combustion residual leachate. exceed the quantity determined by concentration listed in the following The quantity of pollutants discharged in multiplying the flow of combustion table: combustion residual leachate shall not residual leachate times the

PSNS Average of daily Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for values for 30 any 1 day consecutive days shall not exceed

Arsenic, total (μg/L) ...... 11 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 788 356

[FR Doc. 2015–25663 Filed 11–2–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:03 Nov 02, 2015 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\03NOR2.SGM 03NOR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2