64650 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Although listed in the index, some • Supplemental Environmental AGENCY information is not publicly available, Assessment for Revisions to the Effluent e.g., Confidential Business Information Limitations Guidelines and Standards 40 CFR Part 423 (CBI) or other information whose for the Steam Electric Power Generating [EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–10014–41– disclosure is restricted by statute. Point Source Category (Supplemental OW] Certain other material, such as EA), Document No. EPA–821–R–20– copyrighted material, is not placed on 002. The Supplemental EA summarizes RIN 2040–AF77 the internet and will be publicly the potential environmental and human Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule available only in hard copy form. health impacts that are estimated to Publicly available docket materials are result from implementation of this final AGENCY: Environmental Protection available electronically through http:// rule. Agency. www.regulations.gov. • Benefit and Cost Analysis for ACTION: Final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Revisions to the Effluent Limitations technical information, contact Richard Guidelines and Standards for the Steam SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Benware, Engineering and Analysis Electric Power Generating Point Source Agency (EPA or the Agency) is Category (BCA Report), Document No. finalizing a regulation to revise the Division, Telephone: 202–566–1369; Email: [email protected]. For EPA–821–R–20–003. The BCA Report technology-based effluent limitations summarizes estimates of the societal guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the economic information, contact James Covington, Engineering and Analysis benefits and costs resulting from steam electric power generating point implementation of this final rule. source category applicable to flue gas Division, Telephone: 202–566–1034; • Email: [email protected]. Regulatory Impact Analysis for desulfurization (FGD) wastewater and Revisions to the Effluent Limitations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: bottom ash (BA) transport water. This Guidelines and Standards for the Steam final regulation is estimated to save Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple Electric Power Generating Point Source approximately $140 million annually in Category (RIA), Document No. EPA– after tax compliance costs as a result of acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to 821–R–20–004. The RIA presents a less costly FGD wastewater technologies profile of the steam electric power that could be used with the ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, EPA defines terms generating industry, a summary of modification of the Steam Electric estimated costs and impacts associated Power Generating Effluent Guidelines and acronyms in Appendix A. Supporting Documentation. Today’s with this final rule, and an assessment 2015 rule (the 2015 rule) limitations; final rule is supported by numerous of the potential impacts on employment less costly BA transport water and small businesses. documents including: • technologies made possible by the • Supplemental Technical Response to Public Comments for revision of the 2015 rule’s zero Development Document for Revisions to Revisions to the Effluent Limitations discharge limitations; a two-year the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Guidelines and Standards for the Steam extension of compliance time frames for Standards for the Steam Electric Power Electric Power Generating Point Source meeting FGD wastewater and BA Generating Point Source Category Category. This document provides transport water limitations, and (Supplemental TDD), Document No. EPA’s responses to substantive public additional subcategories for both FGD EPA–821–R–20–001. The Supplemental comments received on the 2019 wastewater and BA transport water. TDD summarizes the technical and proposed rule. • Participation in the voluntary incentive engineering analyses supporting the Docket Index for the Revisions to program would contribute to the final rule. It presents EPA’s updated the Steam Electric ELGs. This document reduction in pollutant discharges by analyses supporting the revisions to provides a list of the additional these steam electric power plants in FGD wastewater and BA transport memoranda, references, and other FGD wastewater by approximately 26.7 water. These updates include additional information relied upon by EPA for this million pounds per year. data collected since the signature of the final rule. DATES: This final rule is effective on 2015 rule, updates to the industry (e.g., Organization of this Document. The December 14, 2020. In accordance with retirements, updates to FGD treatment information in this preamble is 40 CFR part 23, this regulation shall be and BA handling), cost methodologies, organized as follows: considered issued for purposes of pollutant removal estimates, I. Executive Summary judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time corresponding non-water quality II. Public Comments and Online Public on October 27, 2020. Under section environmental impacts associated with Hearing 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of updated FGD and BA methodologies, III. General Information this regulation can be had only by filing and explanations of the calculations of A. Does this action apply to me? a petition for review in the U.S. Court B. What action is EPA taking? the effluent limitations and standards. C. What is EPA’s authority for taking this of Appeals within 120 days after the Except for the updates described in the regulation is considered issued for action? Supplemental TDD, the Technical D. What are the monetized incremental purposes of judicial review. Under Development Document for the Effluent costs and benefits of this action? section 509(b)(2), the requirements in Limitations Guidelines and Standards IV. Background this regulation may not be challenged for the Steam Electric Power Generating A. Clean Water Act (CWA) later in civil or criminal proceedings Point Source Category (2015 TDD, B. Relevant Effluent Guidelines brought by EPA to enforce these Document No. EPA–821–R–15–007) is 1. Best Practicable Control Technology requirements. still applicable and provides a more Currently Available (BPT) 2. Best Available Technology Economically ADDRESSES: EPA has established a complete summary of EPA’s data Achievable (BAT) docket for this action under Docket ID collection, description of the industry, 3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing No. EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819. All and underlying analyses supporting the Sources (PSES) documents in the docket are listed on ELGs established for other wastestreams C. 2015 Steam Electric Power Generation the http://www.regulations.gov website. in the 2015 rule. Point Source Category Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64651

D. Legal Challenges, Administrative B. Air Pollution H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Petitions, Section 705 Action, C. Solid Waste Generation and Beneficial Children From Environmental Health Postponement Rule, and Reconsideration Use Risks and Safety Risks of Certain Limitations and Standards D. Changes in Water Use I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That E. Other Ongoing Rules Affecting the A. Introduction Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Steam Electric Sector B. Updates to the Environmental Distribution, or Use 1. Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule Assessment Methodology J. National Technology Transfer and 2. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) C. Outputs From the Environmental Advancement Act F. Scope of the Final Rule Assessment K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions V. Steam Electric Power Generating Industry XII. Benefits Analysis To Address Environmental Justice in Description A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed Minority Populations and Low-Income A. General Description of Industry B. Quantification and Monetization of Populations B. Current Market Conditions in the Benefits L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) Electricity Generation Sector 1. Changes in Human Health Effects From Appendix A to the Preamble: Definitions, C. Control and Treatment Technologies Surface Water Quality Changes Acronyms, and Abbreviations Used in 1. FGD Wastewater 2. Ecological Condition and Recreational This Preamble 2. BA Transport Water Use Effects From Changes in Surface VI. Data Collection Since the 2015 Rule Water Quality I. Executive Summary A. Information From the Electric Utility 3. Effects on Threatened and Endangered Industry Species A. Purpose of Rule 1. Engineering Site Visits 4. Changes in Ability To Market Coal 2. Data Requests, Responses, and Meetings Combustion Byproducts Coal-fired plants are affected by 3. Voluntary BA Transport Water Sampling 5. Changes in Dredging Costs several environmental regulations. One 4. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 6. Changes in Air Quality-Related Effects of these regulations, the Steam Electric Voluntary Submission 7. Changes in Water Withdrawals Power Generating ELGs, was 5. Meetings With Trade Associations C. Total Monetized Benefits promulgated in 2015 (80 FR 67838; B. Information From the Drinking Water D. Unmonetized Benefits November 3, 2015) and applies to the Utility Industry and States XIII. Development of Effluent Limitations subset of the electric power industry in C. Information From Technology Vendors and Standards which ‘‘generation of electricity is the and Engineering, Procurement, and A. FGD Wastewater Construction (EPC) Firms 1. Overview of the Limitations and predominant source of revenue or D. Other Data Sources Standards principal reason for operation, and VII. Final Regulation 2. Criteria Used to Select Data whose generation of electricity results A. Description of the Main BAT/PSES 3. Data Used to Calculate Limitations and primarily from a process utilizing fossil- Options Standards type fuel (coal, oil, gas), fuel derived 1. FGD Wastewater 4. Long-Term Averages and Effluent from fossil fuel (e.g., petroleum coke, 2. BA Transport Water Limitations and Standards for FGD synthesis gas), or nuclear fuel in B. Rationale for the Final BAT Wastewater conjunction with a thermal cycle 1. FGD Wastewater B. BA Transport Water Limitations employing the steam-water system as 2. BA Transport Water 1. Maximum 10 Percent 30-Day Rolling 3. Voluntary Incentives Program (VIP) Average Purge Rate the thermodynamic medium’’ (40 CFR C. Additional Subcategories 2. Best Management Practices Plan 423.10). The 2015 rule addressed 1. Plants With High FGD Flows XIV. Regulatory Implementation discharges from FGD wastewater, fly ash 2. Low Utilization EGUs A. Implementation of the Limitations and (FA) transport water, BA transport 3. EGUs Permanently Ceasing Coal Standards water, flue gas mercury control Combustion by 2028 1. Timing wastewater, gasification wastewater, D. Availability Timing of New 3. Implementation for the Low Utilization combustion residual leachate, and non- Requirements Subcategory chemical metal cleaning wastes. E. Additional Rationale for the Final PSES 4. Transitioning Between Limitations F. Economic Achievability 5. Addressing Unexpected Changes in Since the Steam Electric Power G. Non-Water Quality Environmental Generation Generating ELGs were revised in 2015, Impacts a. Involuntary Retirement Delays steam electric power plants have H. Impacts on Residential Electricity Prices b. Emergencies and Major Disasters Under installed more affordable technologies and Low-Income and Minority the Stafford Act that can remove similar amounts of Populations c. Voluntary Retirement Withdrawals and pollution as those operating in 2015. VIII. Costs, Economic Achievability, and Delays This final rule revises limitations and Other Economic Impacts B. Reporting and Recordkeeping A. Plant-Specific and Industry Total Costs Requirements standards for two of the wastestreams B. Social Costs C. Site-Specific Water Quality-Based addressed in the 2015 rule: BA transport C. Economic Impacts Effluent Limitations water and FGD wastewater. Today’s rule 1. Screening-Level Assessment XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive does not revise the other wastestreams a. Plant-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis Orders, and Agency Initiatives covered by the 2015 rule. b. Parent Entity-Level Cost-to-Revenue A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Analysis Planning and Review) and 13563 B. Summary of Final Rule 2. Electricity Market Impacts (Improving Regulation and Regulatory a. Impacts on Existing Steam Electric Review) For existing sources that discharge Power Plants B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing directly to surface water, with the b. Impacts on Individual Plants Incurring Regulation and Controlling Regulatory subcategories discussed below excepted, Costs Costs) the final rule establishes the following IX. Pollutant Loadings C. Paperwork Reduction Act effluent limitations based on Best A. FGD Wastewater D. Regulatory Flexibility Act Available Technology Economically B. BA Transport Water E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Achievable (BAT): C. Summary of Incremental Changes of F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Pollutant Loadings From Final Rule G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation • For FGD wastewater, the final rule X. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts and Coordination With Indian Tribal establishes numeric BAT effluent A. Energy Requirements Governments limitations on mercury, arsenic,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64652 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

selenium, and nitrate/nitrite as additional process changes and controls announced retirements and fuel nitrogen.1 that achieve more stringent limitations conversions, impacts of relevant final • For BA transport water, the final on mercury, arsenic, selenium, nitrate/ rules such as the Coal Combustion rules establishes as BAT a high recycle nitrite, bromide, and TSS in FGD Residuals (CCR) Part A final rule that rate system with a site-specific wastewater. The optional program offers the Agency promulgated in August 2020 volumetric purge (defined in the final environmental protections beyond those and the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule as BA purge water) which cannot achieved by the final BAT limitations, rule that the Agency promulgated in exceed 10 percent of the BA transport while providing plants that opt into the 2019, and full implementation of the water system’s volume where the purge program more flexibility when permeate 2015 rule. EPA has also provided an volume and associated effluent or distillate is used as boiler makeup assessment of the economic impacts of limitations are established by the water, and additional time to meet the the final revised Steam Electric ELGs permitting authority. limitations established for BAT in this relative to an alternative baseline The final rule includes separate final rule. including the CCR Part B Rule, which requirements for the following For indirect discharges (i.e., EPA is working on but which has not subcategories: High FGD flow plants, discharges to publicly owned treatment been issued at this time (see DCN electric generating units (EGUs) that works (POTWs)), the final rule SE09360). EPA understands that these will permanently cease the combustion establishes pretreatment standards for modeled results have uncertainty and of coal by 2028, and low utilization existing sources that are the same as the that the actual costs for individual EGUs (LUEGUs). The 2015 rule’s BAT limitations, except for TSS, there is plants could be higher or lower than subcategories for oil-fired EGUs and no pass through of pollutants at POTWs. estimated. The current estimate reflects small generating units (50 MW or less) Where BAT limitations in this rule are the best data and analysis available at were not reopened in this rulemaking more stringent than previously this time. For additional information, and remain in effect. For high FGD flow established BPT limitations applicable see Sections V and VIII. plants (FGD wastewater flows over four to the relevant wastestreams, those million gallons per day, after accounting limitations do not apply until the II. Public Comments and Online Public for the plant’s ability to recycle the permitting authority determines a date Hearing wastewater to the maximum limits of that is as soon as possible on or after the FGD system’s materials of October 13, 2021, but no later than During the 60-day public comment construction) and LUEGUs (those with a December 31, 2025. period for the 2019 proposed rule capacity utilization rating (CUR) of less (November 22, 2019 to January 21, C. Summary of Costs and Benefits than 10 percent), the final rule 2020), EPA received more than 7,400 establishes BAT limitations in the EPA estimates that the final rule will public comment submissions from discharged FGD wastewater as numeric save $127 million per year in social private citizens, industry members, effluent limitations on mercury and costs and result in between $¥1.7 technology vendors, government arsenic. For LUEGUs, the final rule million and $43 million in benefits, entities, environmental groups, and establishes BAT limitations for BA using a three percent discount rate, and trade associations. EPA also hosted an transport water for total suspended will save $153 million per year in social online public hearing on December 19, solids (TSS) and also includes standards costs and between $6.5 million and $46 2019 (during the public comment for implementing a best management million in benefits, using a seven period). The hearing had 110 attendees, practices (BMP) plan. For EGUs percent discount. Table XV–1 32 of whom spoke about the proposed permanently ceasing the combustion of summarizes the benefits and social costs rule. Available documents from the coal by 2028, the final rule establishes for the four regulatory options that EPA public hearing include the presentation BAT limitations for total suspended analyzed at a three percent discount given by EPA and a transcript (DCN solids (TSS) in FGD wastewater and rate. EPA’s analysis reflects the SE08497 and DCN SE08498). bottom ash transport water. Agency’s understanding of the actions The final rule establishes a voluntary steam electric power plants are expected III. General Information incentives program that provides the to take to meet the limitations and A. Does this action apply to me? certainty of more time (until December standards in the final rule. EPA based 31, 2028) for plants to meet new its analysis on a modeled baseline that Entities potentially regulated by the standards and limitations, if they adopt reflects the expected effects of final rule include:

North American industry Category Example of regulated entity classification system (NAICS) code

Industry ...... Electric Power Generation Plants—Electric Power Generation ...... 22111 Electric Power Generation Plants—Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation ...... 221112

This section is not intended to be final rule. Other types of entities that do plant is regulated by the final rule, you exhaustive, but to provide a guide to not meet the above criteria could also be should carefully examine the entities likely to be regulated by the regulated. To determine whether your applicability criteria listed in 40 CFR

1 While the proposed rule described ‘‘two sets’’ of standards that were new and more stringent than these wastestreams promulgated in the 2015 rule BAT limitations for both FGD wastewater and BA previously established BPT limitations and (the ‘‘first set’’ of limitations), which have since transport water, this rulemaking has been focused standards (the ‘‘second set’’ of limitations). It was been vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the on revisions to the 2015 rule limitations and not intended to address the TSS BAT limitations for Fifth Circuit, see Section IV.D, below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64653

423.10 and the definitions in 40 CFR flowing to POTWs, as outlined in B. Relevant Effluent Guidelines 423.11 of the 2015 rule, as amended by sections 307(b) and (c) of the CWA, 33 EPA establishes ELGs based on the this final rule. If you still have questions U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c). EPA establishes performance of well-designed and well- regarding the applicability of the final national pretreatment standards for operated control and treatment rule to a particular entity, consult the those pollutants in wastewater from technologies. The legislative history also person listed for technical information indirect dischargers that pass through, supports that EPA need not consider FOR in the preceding section, titled interfere with, or are otherwise water quality impacts on individual FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. incompatible with POTW operations. water bodies as the guidelines are B. What action is EPA taking? Pretreatment standards are designed to developed; see Statement of Senator ensure that wastewaters from direct and EPA is revising certain BAT ELGs and Muskie (principal author) (October 4, pretreatment standards for existing indirect industrial dischargers are 1972), reprinted in Legislative History of sources in the Steam Electric Power subject to similar levels of treatment. the Water Pollution Control Act Generating point source category that See CWA section 301(b), 33 U.S.C. Amendments of 1972, at 170. (U.S. apply to FGD wastewater and BA 1311(b). In addition, POTWs are Senate, Committee on Public Works, transport water. required to implement local treatment Serial No. 93–1, January 1973). limitations applicable to their industrial There are various levels of control C. What is EPA’s authority for taking indirect dischargers to satisfy any local applicable to direct and indirect this action? requirements. See 40 CFR 403.5. dischargers, based on the type of EPA is finalizing this rule under the Direct dischargers (those discharging pollutant controlled. The three standards relevant to this rulemaking authority of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, to waters of the U.S. rather than to a are described in detail below. 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water POTW) must comply with effluent Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, limitations in NPDES permits. Indirect 1. Best Practicable Control Technology 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361. dischargers, who discharge through Currently Available (BPT) D. What are the monetized incremental POTWs, must comply with pretreatment Traditionally, EPA establishes costs and benefits of this action? standards. Technology-based effluent effluent limitations based on BPT by This action is estimated to save $127 limitations and standards in NPDES reference to the average of the best million per year in social costs and permits are derived from ELGs (CWA performances of facilities within the result in between ¥$1.7 million and sections 301 and 304, 33 U.S.C. 1311 industry, grouped to reflect various $43 million in benefits, using a 3 and 1314) and NSPS (CWA section 306, ages, sizes, processes, or other common percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent 33 U.S.C. 1316) promulgated by EPA, or characteristics. EPA promulgates BPT discount rate, the estimated savings are are based on best professional judgment effluent limitations for conventional, $153 million per year and benefits are (BPJ) where EPA has not promulgated toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. between $6.5 million and $46 million. an applicable ELG or new source In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a IV. Background performance standard (CWA section number of factors. EPA first considers 402(a)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a)(1)(B)). the cost of achieving effluent reductions A. Clean Water Act (CWA) Additional limitations are also required in relation to the effluent reduction Among its core provisions, the CWA in the permit where necessary to meet benefits. The Agency also considers the prohibits the discharge of pollutants WQS. CWA section 301(b)(1)(C), 33 age of equipment and facilities, the from a point source to waters of the U.S.C. 1311(b)(1)(C). The ELGs are processes employed, engineering U.S., except as authorized under the established by EPA regulation for aspects of the control technologies, any CWA. Under section 402 of the CWA, 33 categories of industrial dischargers and required process changes, non-water U.S.C. 1342, discharges may be are based on the degree of control that quality environmental impacts authorized through a National Pollutant can be achieved using various levels of (including energy requirements), and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pollution control technology, as such other factors as the Administrator permit. The CWA establishes a dual specified in the CWA (e.g., BPT, BCT, deems appropriate. CWA section approach for these permits: (1) BAT; see below). 304(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B). If, Technology-based controls that however, existing performance is EPA promulgates national ELGs for establish a floor of performance for all uniformly inadequate, EPA may industrial categories for three classes of dischargers, and (2) water quality-based establish limitations based on higher pollutants: (1) Conventional pollutants effluent limitations, where the levels of control than those currently in technology-based effluent limitations (TSS), oil and grease, biochemical place in an industrial category, when are insufficient to meet applicable water oxygen demand (BOD5), fecal coliform, based on an Agency determination that quality standards (WQS). As the basis and pH), as outlined in CWA section the technology is available in another for the technology-based controls, the 304(a)(4), 33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(4), and 40 category or subcategory and can be CWA authorizes EPA to establish CFR 401.16; (2) toxic pollutants (e.g., practically applied. national technology-based ELGs and toxic metals such as arsenic, mercury, 2. Best Available Technology new source performance standards selenium, and chromium; toxic organic Economically Achievable (BAT) (NSPS) for discharges into waters of the pollutants such as benzene, benzo-a- United States from categories of point pyrene, phenol, and naphthalene), as BAT represents the second level of sources (such as industrial, commercial, outlined in CWA section 307(a), 33 control for direct discharges of toxic and and public sources). U.S.C. 1317(a); 40 CFR 401.15 and 40 nonconventional pollutants. As the The CWA also authorizes EPA to CFR part 423, appendix A; and (3) statutory phrase intends, EPA considers promulgate nationally applicable nonconventional pollutants, which are the technological availability and the pretreatment standards that control those pollutants that are not categorized economic achievability in determining pollutant discharges from sources that as conventional or toxic (e.g., ammonia- what level of control represents BAT. discharge wastewater indirectly to N, phosphorus, and total dissolved CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. waters of the U.S., through sewers solids (TDS)). 1311(b)(2)(A). Other statutory factors

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64654 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

that EPA must consider in assessing pretreatment standards are technology- that range, except for indirect BAT are the cost of achieving BAT based and are analogous to BPT and dischargers, the NPDES permitting effluent reductions, the age of BAT effluent limitations guidelines, and authority (typically a state equipment and facilities involved, the thus the Agency typically considers the environmental agency) would determine process employed, potential process same factors in promulgating PSES as it the particular compliance date(s) for changes, non-water quality considers in promulgating BPT and each plant in the NPDES permit. environmental impacts (including BAT. Legislative history indicates that On an annual basis, the 2015 rule was energy requirements), and such other Congress intended for the combination projected to reduce the amount of factors as the Administrator deems of pretreatment and treatment by the metals defined in the Act as toxic appropriate. CWA section 304(b)(2)(B), POTW to achieve the level of treatment pollutants, nutrients, and other 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B); Texas Oil and that would be required if the industrial pollutants that steam electric power gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928 (5th source were discharging to a water of plants are allowed to discharge by 1.4 Cir. 1998). The Agency retains the U.S. Conf. Rep. No. 95–830, at 87 billion pounds and reduce water considerable discretion in assigning the (1977), reprinted in U.S. Congress. withdrawal by 57 billion gallons. At the weight to be accorded each of the factors Senate Committee on Public Works time, EPA estimated annual compliance it is required to consider. Weyerhaeuser (1978), A Legislative History of the costs for the final rule to be $480 Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. CWA of 1977, Serial No. 95–14 at 271 million (in 2013$) and estimated Cir. 1978). Generally, EPA determines (1978). The General Pretreatment benefits associated with the rule to be economic achievability based on the Regulations, which set forth the $451 million to $566 million (in 2013$). effect of the cost of compliance with framework for the implementation of D. Legal Challenges, Administrative BAT limitations on overall industry and categorical pretreatment standards, are Petitions, Section 705 Action, subcategory (if applicable) financial found at 40 CFR 403. These regulations Postponement Rule, and conditions. BAT may reflect the highest establish pretreatment standards that Reconsideration of Certain Limitations performance in the industry, and it may apply to all non-domestic dischargers. and Standards reflect a higher level of performance See 52 FR 1586 (January 14, 1987). than is currently being achieved based Seven petitions for review of the 2015 C. 2015 Steam Electric Power on technology transferred from a rule were filed in various circuit courts Generation Point Source Category Rule different subcategory or category, bench by the electric utility industry, scale or pilot studies, or foreign EPA, on September 30, 2015, finalized environmental groups, and drinking facilities. Am. Paper Inst. v. Train, 543 a rule revising the regulations for the water utilities. These petitions were F.2d 328, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1976); Am. Steam Electric Power Generating point consolidated in the U.S. Court of Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d source category (40 CFR part 423) Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 107, 132 (D.C. Cir. 1976). BAT may be (hereinafter the ‘‘2015 rule’’). The rule Southwestern Electric Power Co., et al. based upon process changes or internal set the first federal limitations on the v. EPA.2 On March 24, 2017, the Utility controls, even when these technologies levels of toxic metals in wastewater that Water Act Group (UWAG) submitted to are not common industry practice. See can be discharged from steam electric EPA an administrative petition for Am. Frozen Food Inst., 539 F.2d at 132, power plants, based on technology reconsideration of the 2015 rule. Also, 140; Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA, 760 improvements in the steam electric on April 5, 2017, the Small Business F.2d 549, 562 (4th Cir. 1985); Cal. & power industry over the preceding three Administration (SBA) submitted an Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d decades. Prior to the 2015 rule, administrative petition for 280, 285–88 (2nd Cir. 1977). regulations for the industry had last reconsideration of the final rule. One way that EPA may take into been updated in 1982. On April 25, 2017, EPA responded to account differences within an industry New technologies for generating these petitions by publishing a when establishing BAT limitations is electric power and the widespread postponement of the 2015 rule through subcategorization. The Supreme implementation of air pollution controls compliance deadlines that had not yet Court has recognized that the over the last several decades have passed, under Section 705 of the substantive test for subcategorizing an altered wastewater streams or created Administrative Procedure Act (APA). industry is whether the plants are new wastewater streams at many steam This Section 705 Action drew multiple different with respect to relevant electric power plants, particularly coal- legal challenges.3 The Administrator statutory factors. See Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n fired plants. Discharges in these then signed a letter on August 11, 2017, v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 214 n.134 (5th Cir. wastestreams include arsenic, lead, announcing his decision to conduct a 1989) (citing Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. mercury, selenium, chromium, and rulemaking to potentially revise the NRDC, 470 U.S. 116, 119–22, 129–34 cadmium. Many of these toxic new, more stringent BAT effluent (1985)). Courts have stated that there pollutants can be persistent, meaning limitations and pretreatment standards need only be a rough basis for once in the environment they can for existing sources in the 2015 rule that subcategorization. See Chem. Mfrs. remain there for years. apply to FGD wastewater and BA Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 215 n.137 The 2015 rule addressed effluent transport water. The Fifth Circuit (summarizing cases). limitations and standards for multiple subsequently granted EPA’s request to wastestreams generated by new and sever and hold in abeyance aspects of 3. Pretreatment Standards for Existing existing steam electric facilities: BA the litigation related to those limitations Sources (PSES) transport water, combustion residual and standards. With respect to the Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. leachate, FGD wastewater, flue gas remaining claims related to limitations 1317(b), authorizes EPA to promulgate mercury control wastewater, FA applicable to legacy wastewater and pretreatment standards for discharges of transport water, and gasification pollutants to POTWs. PSES are designed wastewater. The rule required most 2 Case No. 15–60821. to prevent the discharge of pollutants steam electric power plants to comply 3 See Clean Water Action. v. EPA, No. 17–0817 (D.D.C.), appeal dismissed, No. 18–5149 (D.C. Cir.); that pass through, interfere with, or are with the effluent limitations ‘‘as soon as see also Clean Water Action. v. EPA, No. 18–60619 otherwise incompatible with the possible’’ after November 1, 2018, and (5th Cir.) (case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on operation of POTWs. Categorical no later than December 31, 2023. Within October 18, 2018).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64655

leachate, which are not at issue in this which are applicable to and at the Enhancing Public Access to Information final rule, the Fifth Circuit issued a source.6 For each candidate technology, on July 29 (CCR Part A). In particular, decision on April 12, 2019, vacating EPA has provided the extent of four amendments to the CCR rule were those limitations as arbitrary and achievable emissions limitations finalized which could impact plants’ capricious under the APA and unlawful through application of the BSER as decisions under this final ELG rule. under the CWA, respectively. EPA plans ranges of expected improvements and First, the CCR Part A rule establishes a to address this vacatur in a subsequent costs. States are required to submit new deadline of April 11, 2021, for all action. plans by July 8, 2022 that establish unlined surface impoundments, as well In September 2017, EPA finalized a standards of performance for their EGUs as those surface impoundments that rule, using notice-and-comment that are subject to the ACE rule. The failed the location restriction for procedures, postponing the earliest standards of performance must reflect placement above the uppermost aquifer, compliance dates for the new, more the degree of emissions limitation to stop receiving waste and begin stringent BAT effluent limitations and through application of the BSER, and closure or retrofit. EPA determined this PSES for FGD wastewater and BA states may take into account remaining date after evaluating the steps that transport water in the 2015 rule, from useful life and other factors in applying owners and operators need to take for November 1, 2018 to November 1, 2020. a standard to a particular EGU. Multiple surface impoundments to stop receiving EPA also withdrew its prior action taken legal challenges to this rule were waste and begin closure, and the time pursuant to Section 705 of the APA. The consolidated in American Lung frames needed for implementation. rule received multiple legal challenges, Association v. EPA, No. 19–1140, and Second, the rule establishes procedures but the courts did not sustain any of are currently pending in the D.C. Circuit for plants to obtain additional time to them 4 and EPA prevailed. Court of Appeals. develop alternate capacity to manage their wastestreams (both coal ash and E. Other Ongoing Rules Affecting the 2. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Steam Electric Sector non-coal ash) before they have to stop On April 17, 2015, the Agency receiving waste and begin closing their 1. Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule published the Disposal of Coal coal ash surface impoundments. Third, On June 19, 2019, EPA issued the Combustion Residuals from Electric the rule changes the classification of ACE rule pursuant to Clean Air Act Utilities final rule (2015 CCR rule). This compacted-soil-lined and clay-lined (CAA) sections 111(a)(1) and 111(d), rule finalized national regulations to surface impoundments from lined to providing states with guidelines for provide a comprehensive set of unlined. Finally, the rule revises the establishing standards of performance requirements for the safe disposal of coal ash regulations to specify that all CCR, commonly known as coal ash, regulating CO2 emissions at existing unlined surface impoundments are coal-fired electric utility generating from steam electric power plants. The required to retrofit or close. This would units (EGUs).5 This action was finalized final 2015 CCR rule was the culmination not affect the ability of plants to install in conjunction with two related, but of extensive study on the effects of coal new, composite-lined surface separate and distinct rulemakings: (1) ash on the environment and public impoundments. The repeal of the Clean Power Plan health. The rule established technical As explained in the 2015 ELG rule (CPP), and (2) revised implementing requirements for CCR landfills and and 2019 ELG proposal, the ELGs and regulations for ACE, ongoing emission surface impoundments under subtitle D 2015 CCR rule may affect the same EGU guidelines, and all future emission of the Resource Conservation and or activity at a plant. Therefore, when guidelines for existing sources issued Recovery Act (RCRA), the nation’s EPA finalized the ELG and CCR rule in under the authority of CAA section primary law for regulating solid waste. 2015 and proposed revisions to both These regulations addressed coal ash 111(d). rules in 2019, the Agency coordinated Under CAA section 111(a)(1) and disposal, including regulations designed the ELG and CCR rules to facilitate and 111(d), respectively, EPA determines to prevent leaking of contaminants into minimize the complexity of the best system of emission reduction groundwater, blowing of contaminants implementing engineering, financial, (BSER) and states submit plans into the air as dust, and the catastrophic and permitting activities. EPA establishing standards of performance failure of coal ash surface continued to coordinate these two rules impoundments. Additionally, the 2015 based on the BSER. The BSER must be during the development of the final rule CCR rule set recordkeeping and applicable to, at, and on the premises of for ELG and CCR Part A. EPA’s analysis reporting requirements as well as the a source that is subject to CAA section now estimates how the CCR Part A rule requirement for each plant to establish 111(d). EPA repealed the CPP on the may affect surface impoundments and and post specific information to a basis that it in part improperly premised the ash handling systems and FGD publicly accessible website. This final its BSER on power generation that was treatment systems that send wastes to 2015 CCR rule also supported the shifting between EGUs and other, lower- those impoundments. This is further responsible recycling of CCR by emitting sources. In ACE, EPA described in Supplemental TDD, distinguishing beneficial use from determined the BSER for coal-fired Section 3. For more information on the disposal. CCR Part A rule and accompanying EGUs as six heat rate improvements As a result of the D.C. Circuit Court (HRI) ‘‘candidate technologies,’’ as well background documents, visit rulings in USWAG v. EPA, No. 15–1219 www.regulations.gov Docket EPA–HQ– as additional operations and (D.C. Cir. 2018) and Waterkeeper maintenance (O&M) practices, all of OLEM–2019–0172 and www.epa.gov/ Alliance Inc. et al. v. EPA, No. 18–1289 coalash/coal-ash-rule. (D.C. Cir. 2019), the Administrator 4 In addition to the final CCR Part A See Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, No. signed A Holistic Approach to Closure 18–cv–00050 (D. Ariz. filed Jan. 20, 2018); see also rule, EPA has proposed further revisions Clean Water Action. v. EPA, No. 18–60079 (5th Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure and to the CCR regulations (CCR Part B). Cir.). On October 29, 2018, the District of Arizona Specifically, EPA proposed four changes case was dismissed upon EPA’s motion to dismiss 6 These six technologies are: (1) Neural network/ in the CCR Part B rule. First, EPA for lack of jurisdiction, and on August 28, 2019, the intelligent soot blowers, (2) EGU feed pumps, (3) air Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review of the heater and duct leakage control, (4) variable proposed procedures to allow plants to postponement rule. frequency drives, (5) blade path upgrade (steam request approval to continue operating 5 84 FR 32520. turbine), and (6) redesign/replace economizer. CCR surface impoundments equipped

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64656 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

with an alternate liner. Second, EPA information on capacity utilization.7 (e.g., CCR, CPP, and the 2015 Steam proposed two options to allow the The analyses supporting the final rule Electric ELG), that are cited by some continued placement of CCR in surface use an updated baseline that power companies when they announce impoundments undergoing forced incorporates these changes in the unit or plant closures, fuel switching, or closure. Third, EPA proposed an industry. The analyses then compare the other operational changes. Some additional closure option for CCR units effect of the final rule’s requirements for utilities are also trending toward being closed by removal of CCR. Finally, FGD wastewater and BA transport water supplementing or replacing traditional EPA proposed requirements for annual to the effect on the industry (as it exists generation with alternative sources. The closure progress reports. While the Part today) of the 2015 rule’s limitations for electric power infrastructure adjusts to B proposal was issued after the FGD wastewater and BA transport these changes and generally trends comment period for the ELG rule had water. toward optimal infrastructure and closed and EPA had already taken As described in the Regulatory Impact operations to deliver the country’s significant steps to respond to public Analysis, of the 914 steam electric power demand. Some communities comments on the ELG rule and develop power plants in the country identified experience negative effects, while for the final ELG rule, EPA recognizes that, by EPA, only those coal-fired power others the effects are positive. The just as with the Part A rule, the first plants that discharge bottom ash negative distributional effects can be provision of the Part B rule may affect transport water or FGD wastewater may particularly difficult for communities the same EGU or activity at a plant that incur compliance costs under this final affected by company decisions to scale these final ELGs affect. EPA is rule. EPA estimates that 108 such plants back or retire a plant. Also see Section continuing to work on the Part B rule could have incurred non-zero 2.3 of the RIA. and may finalize this provision in the compliance costs under the 2015 rule C. Control and Treatment Technologies future. Thus, to provide the public with but that only 75 plants may incur non- meaningful analysis of the potential zero compliance costs under this final In general, control and treatment overlap and impacts of this final rule rule. As described above, this difference technologies for some wastestreams with the CCR Part B rule, EPA has is due to plant retirements, fuel have continued to advance since the conducted a sensitivity analysis that is conversions, ash handling conversions, 2015 rule. Often, these advancements described further in a memo titled wastewater treatment updates, and provide plants with additional ways of ‘‘Assessment of the economic impacts of updated information on capacity meeting effluent limitations, sometimes the final revised Steam Electric ELGs utilization discussed in Changes to at a lower cost. For this final rule, EPA relative to an alternative baseline Industry Profile for Coal-Fired incorporated updated information and including the CCR Part B Rule’’, (DCN Generating Units for the Steam Electric evaluated several technologies available SE09360). For more information on the Effluent Guidelines Final Rule (DCN to control and treat FGD wastewater and CCR Part B rule and accompanying SE08688), but does not include BA transport water. See Section VIII of background documents, visit additional changes since this document this preamble for details on updated www.regulations.gov Docket EPA–HQ– was developed. cost information. OLEM–2019–0173. B. Current Market Conditions in the 1. FGD Wastewater Electricity Generation Sector F. Scope of the Final Rule FGD scrubber systems, either dry or Market conditions in the electricity wet, remove sulfur dioxide from flue The final rule revises the new, more generation sector have changed gas, preventing sulfur dioxide emissions stringent BAT ELGs and pretreatment significantly and rapidly in the past into the air. Dry FGD systems generally standards for existing sources in the decade. These changes include do not discharge wastewater, as the 2015 rule that apply to FGD wastewater availability of abundant and relatively water they use evaporates during and BA transport water. inexpensive natural gas, emergence of operation; wet FGD systems do produce V. Steam Electric Power Generating alternative fuel technologies, and a wastewater stream. Industry Description continued aging of coal-fired steam Steam electric power plants electric power plants. These changes discharging FGD wastewater currently A. General Description of Industry have resulted in coal-fired unit and employ a variety of wastewater plant retirements and switching of fuels. treatment technologies and operating/ EPA provided a general description of The lower cost of natural gas and management practices to reduce the the steam electric power generating technological advances in solar and pollutants associated with discharged industry in the 2013 proposed rule, the wind power have had a depressive FGD wastewater. As part of the 2015 2015 rule, the 2019 proposed rule, and effect on both coal-fired and nuclear- rule, EPA identified the following types has continued to collect information powered generation. (This rule will of treatment and handling practices for and update that industry profile. The have no direct effect on the nuclear- FGD wastewater: previous descriptions reflected the powered sector, except as it might affect • known information about the universe relative prices through its effects on Chemical precipitation systems that use tanks to treat FGD wastewater. Chemicals are of steam electric power plants and coal-fired generation.) In the coal-fired incorporated final environmental added to help remove suspended solids and sector, the market forces manifest as dissolved solids, particularly metals. The regulations applicable at that time. For scaling back coal-fired power generation precipitated solids are then removed from the final rule, as described in the (including unit and plant closures) at an solution by coagulation/flocculation, Supplemental TDD, Section 3, EPA has accelerated rate. The rate of coal followed by clarification and/or filtration. revised its description of the steam capacity retirement is affected by The 2015 rule focused on a specific design electric power generating industry (and regulations adopted in the last decade that employs hydroxide precipitation, sulfide its supporting analyses) to incorporate precipitation (organosulfide), and iron coprecipitation to remove suspended solids major changes such as additional 7 The data presented in the general description continue to reflect some conditions existing in and to convert soluble metal ions to insoluble retirements, fuel conversions, ash metal hydroxides or sulfides. handling conversions, wastewater 2009, as the industry survey remains EPA’s best available source of information for characterizing • Biological treatment systems that use treatment updates, and updated operations across the industry. microorganisms to treat FGD wastewater.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64657

EPA identified three types of biological wastewater plus the rate at which electrocoagulation, and electrodialysis treatment systems used to treat FGD precipitation enters the impoundments; reversal. These treatment technologies wastewater: (1) Anoxic/anaerobic fixed-film therefore, there is no discharge to surface have been evaluated at full scale or pilot bioreactors, which remove nitrogen water. scale, or are being developed to treat compounds and selenium, as well as other —FA conditioning. Many plants that operate metals; (2) anoxic/anaerobic suspended dry FA handling systems will add water to FGD wastewater. See Section 4.1 of the growth systems, which remove selenium and the FA to suppress dust or improve Supplemental TDD for more other metals; and (3) aerobic/anaerobic handling and/or compaction characteristics information on these technologies. sequencing batch reactors, which remove in an on-site landfill. EPA is not aware of 2. BA Transport Water organics and nutrients. The 2015 rule any plants using FGD wastewater to focused on a specific design of anoxic/ condition ash that will be marketed. BA consists of heavier ash particles anaerobic fixed-film bioreactors that employs —Combination of wet and dry FGD systems. that are not entrained in the flue gas and a relatively long residence time for the The dry FGD process involves atomizing microbial processes. The bioreactor design and injecting wet lime slurry, which ranges fall to the bottom of the furnace. In most used as the basis for the 2015 rule, with a from approximately 18 to 25 percent furnaces, the hot BA is quenched in a typical hydraulic residence time of solids, into a spray dryer. The water in the water-filled hopper.8 Many plants use approximately 10 to 16 hours, is referred to slurry evaporates from the heat of the flue water to transport (sluice) the BA from in this rulemaking as high residence time gas within the system, leaving a dry the hopper to an impoundment system reduction (HRTR). The BAT technology basis residue that is removed from the flue gas or a dewatering bin system. In both the for the 2015 rule also included chemical by a fabric filter (i.e., a baghouse) or impoundment and dewatering bin precipitation as a pretreatment stage prior to electrostatic precipitator (ESP). the bioreactor and a sand filter as a polishing systems, the BA transport water is —Underground injection. These systems usually discharged to surface water as step following the bioreactor (i.e., CP + dispose of wastes by injecting them into an HRTR). underground well as an alternative to overflow from the system, after the BA • Thermal evaporation systems that use a discharging wastewater to surface waters. has settled to the bottom. In both the falling-film evaporator (or brine impoundment and dewatering bin concentrator). Following a softening As part of the proposed rule, EPA systems, the BA transport water is pretreatment step, thermal evaporation added two additional FGD wastewater usually discharged to surface water as systems produce a concentrated wastewater treatment technologies to the suite of overflow from the system, after the BA stream and a distillate stream to reduce the regulatory options that were evaluated has settled to the bottom. In addition to volume of wastewater by 80 to 90 percent in the 2015 rule: Low hydraulic and also reduce the discharge of pollutants. wet sluicing to an impoundment or residence time biological reduction dewatering bin system, the industry also The concentrated wastewater is usually (LRTR) and membrane filtration, which further processed in a crystallizer, which uses the following BA handling systems produces a solid residue for landfill disposal are further described below. that generate BA transport water: and additional distillate that can be reused • LRTR system. A biological treatment • Remote mechanical drag system (remote within the plant or discharged. These system that targets removal of selenium and MDS). These systems use the same processes systems are designed to remove the broad nitrate/nitrite using fixed-film bioreactors in as wet sluicing to an impoundment or a spectrum of pollutants present in FGD smaller, more compact reaction vessels than dewatering bin system to transport bottom wastewater to very low effluent those used in the biological treatment system ash to a remote MDS. A drag chain conveyor concentrations. evaluated in the 2015 rule (referred to in this dewaters the bottom ash by pulling it out of • Constructed wetland systems using rule as HRTR—high residence time biological the water bath on an incline. The system can natural biological processes. These systems reduction). The LRTR system is designed to either be operated as a closed loop (evaluated involve wetland vegetation, soils, and operate with a shorter residence time during the 2015 rule) 9 or a high recycle rate microbial activity to reduce the (approximately 1 to 4 hours, as compared to system. For the high recycle rate system that concentrations of metals, nutrients, and TSS a residence time of 10 to 16 hours for HRTR), serves as the basis for BAT in the final rule, in wastewater. High temperature, chemical while still removing significant volumes of plants would be permitted to purge a portion oxygen demand (COD), nitrates, sulfates, selenium and nitrate/nitrite. The LRTR of the wastewater from the system to boron, and chlorides in the wastewater can technology option selected for this final rule maintain a high recycle rate, as described in adversely affect constructed wetlands’ includes chemical precipitation as a Section VII of this preamble. performance. To avoid this, plants typically pretreatment stage, followed by the • Dense slurry system. These systems use find it necessary to dilute the FGD bioreactor, then ultrafiltration as a polishing a dry vacuum or pressure system to convey wastewater with service water before it enters step. the bottom ash to a silo (as described below the wetland. • Membrane filtration. A membrane for the dry vacuum or pressure system), but • Eliminating discharged FGD wastewater. filtration system typically combines instead of using trucks to transport the Some plants operate their wet FGD systems pretreatment for potential scaling agents such bottom ash to a landfill, the plant mixes the using approaches that eliminate the as calcium, magnesium, and sulfates, and one bottom ash with water (a lower percentage of discharge of FGD wastewater. These plants or more types of membrane technology (e.g., water compared to a wet sluicing system) and use a variety of operating and management nanofiltration or reverse osmosis) to remove pumps the mixture to the landfill. practices to achieve this. a broad range of particulate and dissolved As part of the 2015 rule and the final rule, pollutants from FGD wastewater. The —Complete recycle. Plants that operate in EPA identified the following BA handling membrane filtration units may also employ this manner do not produce a saleable systems that do not generate bottom ash advanced techniques, such as vibration or solid product from the FGD system (e.g., transport water. creation of vortexes, to mitigate fouling or wallboard-grade gypsum). Because the • Mechanical drag system. These systems scaling of the membrane surfaces. The plants are not selling the FGD gypsum, operate directly underneath the EGU. The membrane filtration technology option they are able to allow the landfilled bottom ash is collected in a water quench considered for this final rule includes a material to contain elevated levels of bath. A drag chain conveyor dewaters the chlorides, and as a result do not need a pretreatment stage. separate wastewater purge stream. EPA also collected new information 8 Consistent with the 2015 rule, boiler slag is —Evaporation impoundments. Some plants on other FGD wastewater treatment in warm, dry climates have been able to considered BA. 9 use surface impoundments as holding technologies, including spray dryer Additional treatment may be necessary to evaporators, direct contact thermal maintain a true closed loop system. This additional basins from which the FGD wastewater treatment could include adding a polymer to evaporates. The evaporation rate from the evaporators, zero valent iron treatment, enhance removal of suspended solids, or membrane impoundments at these plants is greater forward osmosis, absorption or filtration of a slip stream to remove dissolved than or equal to the flow rate of the FGD adsorption media, ion exchange, solids.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64658 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

bottom ash by pulling it out of the water bath BA. Two additional plants were selected useful for updating cost estimates for on an incline. for a conference call due to installed installing candidate treatment • Dry mechanical conveyor. These systems FGD wastewater technologies that EPA technologies. As needed, EPA operate directly underneath the EGU. The understood could potentially achieve conducted follow-up meetings and system uses ambient air to cool the bottom ash in the EGU and then transports the ash the limitations in the VIP. The final two conference calls with industry out of the EGU on a conveyor. No water is conference calls were with companies representatives to discuss and clarify used in this process. whose plants EPA believed were these data. • Dry vacuum or pressure system. These planning or constructing FGD 3. Voluntary BA Transport Water systems transport bottom ash from the EGU wastewater technologies that could Sampling to a dry hopper without using any water. Air potentially achieve the limitations in is percolated through the ash to cool it and the VIP, based on preliminary In December 2017, EPA invited seven combust unburned carbon. Cooled ash then information provided by third parties.11 steam electric power plants to drops to a crusher and is conveyed via participate in a voluntary BA transport vacuum or pressure to an intermediate The specific objectives of these visits storage destination. and calls were to gather general water sampling program designed to • Vibratory belt system. These systems information about each plant’s obtain data to supplement the deposit bottom ash into a vibratory conveyor operations, pollution prevention and wastewater characterization data set for trough, where the ash is air-cooled and wastewater treatment system operations, BA transport water included in the ultimately moved through the conveyor deck ongoing pilot or laboratory scale studies record for the 2015 rule. EPA asked to an intermediate storage destination of FGD wastewater treatment, and BA plants to provide analytical data for ash without using any water. impoundment effluent and untreated • 10 handling system conversions. Compact submerged conveyor. These BA transport water (i.e., ash systems are located directly underneath the 2. Data Requests, Responses, and impoundment influent). EPA selected EGU and are designed to reuse slag tanks, ash Meetings gates, clinker grinders, and transfer the plants based on their responses to its enclosures from the existing wet sluicing Under the authority of Section 308 of 2010 Questionnaire for the Steam systems. The system collects bottom ash from the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. Electric Power Generating Effluent the discharge of each clinker grinder. A series 1318), in January 2018, EPA requested Guidelines (see Section 3.2 of the 2015 of submerged drag chain conveyors supplemental information from nine TDD). Two plants chose to participate in transports and dewaters the bottom ash. steam electric power companies that the voluntary BA sampling program. See Section 4.2 of the Supplemental own coal-fired facilities generating FGD These data were incorporated into the TDD for more information on these wastewater: analytical data set used to estimate technologies. • FGD wastewater characterization data pollutant removals for BA transport associated with testing and implementation water. VI. Data Collection Since the 2015 Rule of treatment technologies, in 2013 or later. • Information on halogen usage to reduce 4. Electric Power Research Institute A. Information From the Electric Utility (EPRI) Voluntary Submission Industry flue gas emissions, as well as data on halogen concentrations in FGD wastewater. EPRI conducts studies—funded by the • 1. Engineering Site Visits Projected installations of FGD steam electric power generating wastewater treatment technologies. During October and November 2017, • Cost information for projected or industry—to evaluate and demonstrate EPA conducted seven site visits to installed FGD wastewater treatment systems, technologies that can potentially plants in five states. EPA selected plants from bids received in 2013 or later. eliminate wastestreams or remove pollutants from them. Following the to visit using information gathered in EPA selected these nine companies to 2015 rule, and prior to the final rule, support of the 2015 rule, information provide supplemental information EPA reviewed 46 reports published from industry outreach, and publicly because EPA became aware that these between 2011 and 2020 that EPRI available plant-specific information. companies may be testing, piloting or voluntarily provided regarding EPA re-visited four plants that were otherwise investigating new wastewater characteristics of FGD wastewater and previously visited in support of the treatment technologies and EPA was BA transport water, FGD wastewater 2015 rule because they had recently unable to obtain information about these treatment pilot studies, BA handling conducted, or were currently studies on a voluntary basis. After practices, halogen addition rates, and conducting, FGD wastewater treatment receiving each company’s response, the effect of halogen additives on FGD pilot studies. EPA also revisited plants EPA met with these companies to wastewater. These EPRI reports include that had implemented new FGD discuss the FGD-related data they those cited by EPRI in their comments wastewater treatment technologies or submitted, other FGD and BA data on the proposed rule. EPA used BA handling systems (after the 2015 outside the scope of the request that the information presented in these reports rule) to learn more about company believed to be relevant, and to inform the development of numeric implementation timing, start-up and suggestions each company had for effluent limitations for FGD wastewater operation, and implementation costs. potential changes to the 2015 rule with and to update methods for estimating Following the proposal, EPA also respect to FGD wastewater and BA the costs and pollutant removals conducted five teleconference calls in transport water. EPA used this associated with candidate treatment the spring of 2020. One of these plants information to learn more about the technologies. was selected for a conference call performance of new treatment systems, because it had installed a compact inform the development of FGD 5. Meetings With Trade Associations submerged conveyor for management of wastewater limitations, learn more In May and June of 2018, EPA met about plant-specific halogen usage (such 10 At proposal, EPA referred exclusively to one with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), specific vendor’s compact submerged conveyor as bromide), and obtain information the National Rural Electric Cooperatives technology (submerged grinder conveyors), but is Association (NRECA), and the American using the more generic term for the technology 11 In one case this preliminary information was (compact submerged conveyors) for this final rule provided by a membrane vendor and in the other Public Power Association (APPA). because the Agency did not intend to limit its the information was provided by a state permitting These trade associations represent consideration to only one vendor’s technology. authority. investor-owned utilities, electric

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64659

cooperatives, and community-owned and EPC firms through presentations, VII. Final Regulation utilities, respectively. EPA also met conferences, meetings, and email and A. Description of the Main BAT/PSES with the Utility Water Act Group phone contacts regarding FGD Options (UWAG), an association comprising the wastewater and BA handling trade associations above as well as technologies used in the industry. The EPA analyzed four regulatory options individual electric utilities. EPA met data collected informed the at proposal, the details of which were with each of these trade associations development of the technology costs discussed in the proposed rule (84 FR separately and together to discuss the and pollutant removal estimates for FGD 64620). For the final rule, EPA technologies and the analyses presented wastewater and BA transport water. The in the 2015 rule and receive information evaluated four regulatory options, as EPC firms also suggested potential shown in Table VII–1. Proposed related to reconsidering the 2015 rule. changes to the 2015 rule. EPA used information from these regulatory options 1, 2, 3, and 4 meetings to update industry profile data D. Other Data Sources correspond generally to regulatory (i.e., accounting for retirements, fuel options D, A, B, and C in this final rule, conversions, and updated treatment EPA gathered information on steam respectively, but contain certain technology installations). EPA also met electric power plants from the differences, as detailed below. Public with UWAG and EEI to discuss their Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy commenters generally supported three comments with them after the close of Information Administration (EIA), forms of the regulatory options that EPA the 2019 proposed rule comment EIA–860 (Annual Electric Generator proposed, or variants thereof.12 The period. Report) and EIA–923 (Power Plant availability and achievability of Operations Report). EPA used the 2017 B. Information From the Drinking Water technologies with better pollutant and 2018 data to update the industry Utility Industry and States removals, as well as the general lack of profile, including commissioning dates, public comments supporting proposed EPA received additional information energy sources, capacity, net generation, regulatory option 1, led EPA to focus from the drinking water utility sector operating statuses, planned retirement updates to the Agency’s analysis on the and states on the effects of bromide dates, ownership, and pollution controls remaining three regulatory options. EPA discharges from steam electric power at the EGUs. plants on drinking water treatment did not update the analyses for processes. First, EPA received letters EPA conducted literature and internet regulatory option D, but rather retained from, and met with, the American Water searches to gather information on FGD the results of the proposed rule analysis Works Association (AWWA), the wastewater treatment technologies, for this option. Association of Metropolitan Water including information on pilot studies, EPA is finalizing Option A in the final Agencies (AMWA), the National applications in the steam electric power rule. All four options include the same Association of Water Companies generating industry, and technology bases for BA transport water, (NAWC), the Association of Clean Water implementation costs and timelines. except Option A, which includes a Administrators (ACWA), and the EPA also used the internet searches to different technology basis for the Association of State Drinking Water identify or confirm reports of planned subcategorized low utilization EGUs Administrators (ASDWA). Second, EPA plant and EGU retirements, and reports and surface impoundments for EGUs visited two drinking water treatment of planned unit conversions to dry or permanently ceasing combustion of coal plants in North Carolina that have closed-loop recycle ash handling by 2028. In regards to FGD wastewater, modified their treatment processes to systems. EPA used this information to Option D is based on chemical address an increase in disinfection inform the industry profile and identify precipitation, Options A and B are byproduct levels due to bromide process modifications occurring in the based on a combination of chemical discharges from an upstream steam industry. electric power plant. Finally, EPA precipitation and low hydraulic EPA received information from obtained data on surface water bromide residence time biological treatment, concentrations and data from drinking several environmental groups and other while Option C is based on membrane water monitoring from the two drinking stakeholders following the 2015 rule. filtration; the difference between water treatment plants. EPA also These groups provided examples of Options A and B is that the former obtained existing state data from other when, they believed, state permitting includes three subcategories while the drinking water treatment plants from authorities had not properly latter does not. Table VII–1 below the states of North Carolina and implemented the ‘‘as soon as possible summarizes the regulatory options Virginia. date’’ for the new, more stringent BAT considered in this rulemaking. The requirements in the 2015 rule when subcategories identified below are C. Information From Technology issuing permits. EPA also met with described further in Section VII.C, Vendors and Engineering, Procurement, these groups after the close of the below. and Construction (EPC) Firms comment period of the 2019 proposed EPA gathered data on availability and rule to discuss those organizations’ 12 Some commenters also supported retaining the effectiveness from technology vendors comments. 2015 rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64660 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE VII–1—MAIN REGULATORY OPTIONS

Technology basis for the BAT/PSES regulatory options Wastestream Subcategory A D (final rule) B C

FGD Wastewater ...... N/A ...... Chemical precipitation Chemical precipitation Chemical precipitation Membrane filtration. + low hydraulic res- + low hydraulic res- idence time biologi- idence time biologi- cal treatment. cal treatment. High FGD flow plants NS ...... Chemical precipitation NS ...... NS. Low utilization EGUs NS ...... Chemical precipitation NS ...... NS...... EGUs permanently NS ...... Surface impound- NS ...... NS. ceasing the com- ments. bustion of coal by 2028.

FGD Wastewater Voluntary Incentives Program (Direct Dischargers Only)

BA Transport Water ... N/A ...... High recycle rate sys- High recycle rate sys- High recycle rate sys- High recycle rate sys- tems. tems. tems. tems. Low utilization EGUs NS ...... Surface impound- NS ...... NS. ments +BMP plan. EGUs permanently NS ...... Surface impound- NS ...... NS. ceasing the com- ments. bustion of coal by 2028. NS = Not Subcategorized. Note: The table above does not present subcategories included in the 2015 rule because EPA did not reopen the subcategorization of oil-fired units or units with a nameplate capacity of 50 MW or less.

1. FGD Wastewater limitations equal to BPT limitations for alternatives for high flow plants, retiring Under Option D, EPA would establish TSS based on the use of surface units, or repowering units. impoundments with a best management BAT limitations and PSES for mercury 2. BA Transport Water and arsenic based on chemical plan for minimizing discharges. For precipitation. Under Options A and B, Options A, B, and D, EPA would Under all options described above, EPA would establish BAT limitations establish voluntary incentives program the final rule controls the discharge of and PSES for mercury, arsenic, limitations for mercury, arsenic, pollutants from BA transport water by selenium, and nitrate/nitrite based on selenium, nitrate-nitrite, bromide, and establishing daily BAT limitations and chemical precipitation followed by TDS based on membrane filtration PSES on the volume of BA transport LRTR and ultrafiltration. Option A preceded by pretreatment (i.e., chemical water that can be discharged, based on 14 contains three subcategories. The first precipitation). For Option C, EPA high recycle rate systems. A high subcategory under Option A is for would establish BAT limitations and recycle rate system is a recirculating, plants with high FGD flows (defined as PSES for mercury, arsenic, selenium, wet ash handling system that greater than four MGD). For these nitrate/nitrite, bromide, and TDS based periodically discharges (purges) a small plants, Option A would establish on membrane filtration, which would be portion of the process wastewater from limitations and standards for mercury applicable to all steam electric power its system. This is a correction of the and arsenic based on chemical plants (except if they qualify for the proposal, in which the Agency in some precipitation. The second subcategory subcategories contained in the 2015 instances identified ‘‘dry handling or under Option A is for low utilization rule). For Options B and C, the final rule high recycle rate systems’’ as the boilers with a capacity utilization rating preamble evaluates alternative proposed technology basis. While plants (CUR) of less than 10 percent per year. technology bases for all units to address are free to use dry handling technologies This is a change from the proposed comments that the proposed rule to achieve the limitations in the rule, subcategory, which was based on a preamble did not evaluate technology the final rule limitations are based on cutoff of 876,000 MWh utilization. For high recycle rate systems (as were the those low utilization EGUs, Option A 14 The proposal relied on data from three data sets proposed limitations).15 The only to establish limits for the VIP membrane difference between Options A through D would require mercury and arsenic technology—two using chemical precipitation as limitations based on chemical the pretreatment technology for a portion of the for BA transport water is that Option A precipitation.13 The third subcategory pilot and one using chemical precipitation as the includes two subcategories. The first under Option A is for EGUs pretreatment for some portions of the pilot and only subcategory under Option A is for low microfiltration for other portions of the pilot. utilization EGUs with a CUR of less than permanently ceasing the combustion of However, the cost estimates for membrane filtration coal by December 31, 2028. This is a technology at proposal were based on 10 percent per year. This is a change change from the proposed subcategory, microfiltration (or comparable large particle filter) which only included EGUs retiring by pretreatment technology for plants without existing 15 Public comments focused on the FGD wastewater treatment, which is less costly than appropriateness of high recycle rate systems and December 31, 2028. For this subcategory chemical precipitation. The final rule limits are did not discuss or recommend dry handling or of EGUs, Option A would establish BAT based entirely on those data using chemical other zero discharge systems as the technology precipitation pretreatment, and the final rule costs basis, which is consistent with EPA’s intent that the 13 As explained above, EPA did not propose to are also based on chemical precipitation as technology basis be high recycle rate systems alone, revise BAT limitations or PSES for oil-fired EGUs pretreatment. See Section XIII for further discussion rather than include dry handling or high recycle and/or small EGUs (50 MW or smaller). on the use of data to establish limits. rate systems.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:38 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64661

from the proposed subcategory which are also included in Option A.17 EPA’s biological treatment stage are designed was based on a cutoff at 876,000 MWh rationale for the final rule’s limitations to remove suspended solids—i.e., any utilization. For these low utilization are discussed below. EPA is not reduced, insoluble selenium, mercury, EGUs, Option A would establish BAT finalizing the bromide sub-options or other particulates—exiting the limitations for BA transport water equal proposed in 2019 and, as a result, this bioreactor. Ultrafiltration uses a to the BPT limitations based on gravity section does not include discussion of membrane with pore size small enough settling in surface impoundments to those sub-options. A more complete to remove these smaller suspended remove TSS.16 Such plants would also discussion of site-specific water quality- particulates after the biological be required to develop and implement based effluent limitations for bromides treatment stage, but still much larger a BMP plan to minimize the discharge provided in Section XIV(C) of this than the pore size of the membrane of pollutants from BA transport water. preamble. filtration technology (which uses nanofiltration or reverse osmosis). Because POTWs are designed to treat 1. FGD Wastewater conventional pollutants such as TSS, Membrane filtration is the basis for TSS is not considered to pass through, This final rule identifies treatment Option C and the VIP under Options A and EPA would establish PSES based on using chemical precipitation followed and B, and is designed to remove the inclusion of a BMP plan only. For by a low hydraulic residence time dissolved metals and inorganics (e.g., additional information on pass through biological treatment, including nutrients, bromides, etc.). Unlike the analyses, see Section VII(C) of the 2015 ultrafiltration as the BAT technology nanofiltration and reverse osmosis rule preamble. basis for control of pollutants technologies included as the technology discharged in FGD wastewater. More in Option C and the VIP, ultrafilters do The second subcategory under Option specifically, the technology basis for not generate a brine that would require A is for EGUs permanently ceasing the BAT includes the same chemical encapsulation with FA or other disposal combustion of coal by December 31, precipitation system described in the techniques. The types and quantities of 2028. This is a change from the 2015 rule, which employs equalization, solids removed by the ultrafilter in the proposed subcategory, which only hydroxide and organosulfide CP+LRTR treatment system are similar included retiring EGUs. For this precipitation, iron coprecipitation, and to the particulates captured in other subcategory of EGUs in Option A, EPA removal of suspended and precipitated multimedia filters (e.g., sand filters), or would establish BAT limitations equal solids. This chemical precipitation settled out in HRTR or surface- to BPT limitations for TSS, based on system is followed by a low hydraulic impoundment-based systems with gravity settling in surface residence time, anoxic/anaerobic longer residence times. These systems impoundments. For Options B and C, biological treatment system designed to do not result in the same non-water EPA evaluated high recycle rate systems remove heavy metals, selenium, and quality environmental impacts that are for all units to address comments that nitrate-nitrite.18 The LRTR bioreactor associated with the brine generated by technology options should have stage is followed by ultrafiltration to the membrane filtration technology. considered alternatives for retiring units remove suspended solids, including After accounting for the changes in or repowering units. This is a change colloidal particles, exiting the the industry described in Section V of from the original regulatory options bioreactor. this preamble, at the time Changes to presented at proposal. Both chemical precipitation and Industry Profile for Coal-Fired Finally, EPA is not finalizing the biological treatment are well- Generating Units for the Steam Electric proposed definitional change to exclude demonstrated technologies that are Effluent Guidelines Final Rule (DCN water remaining in a tank-based high available to steam electric power plants SE08688) was developed 15 steam recycle rate system when the plant for use in treating FGD wastewater. In electric power plants with wet scrubbers permanently ceases coal combustion. addition to the 39 plants using chemical that discharge FGD wastewater are Instead, facilities with high recycle rate precipitation that were mentioned in the expected to already have technologies in systems may properly discharge this 2015 rule preamble, plants have place that can meet the final BAT water as BA purge water subject to the installed, or have begun installation, of effluent limitations for FGD BPJ limits established by the permitting such systems, and have taken steps to wastewater.19 Of these 15 plants, seven authority, as discussed in section cease using surface impoundments to are currently operating anoxic/anaerobic XIV(A)(2) of this preamble. treat their FGD wastewater. This trend biological treatment designed to is expected to continue in response to substantially reduce nitrogen B. Rationale for the Final BAT the April 11, 2021 cease receipt of waste compounds and selenium in their FGD In light of the criteria and factors date in the CCR Part A final rule. In wastewater. These biological treatment specified in CWA sections 304(b)(2)(B) addition, thousands of industrial plants and 301(b)(2)(A) (see Section IV of this nationwide have used chemical 19 Two plants will retire or cease burning coal prior to 2028. The remaining 13 plants represent 14 preamble), EPA is establishing BAT precipitation for the last several percent of steam electric power plants with wet effluent limitations based on the decades, as described in the 2015 rule scrubbers. EPA notes that 35 percent of all steam technologies described in Option A. record. Ultrafilters downstream of the electric power plants with wet scrubbers use FGD EPA’s selection of the generally wastewater management approaches that eliminate 17 the discharge of FGD wastewater altogether. But, applicable BAT (LRTR plus chemical If any provisions of this rule are reviewed and although these technologies (described above in vacated by a court, it is EPA’s intent that as many Section V.C.1) may be available to some plants, precipitation for FGD wastewater and portions of this rule remain in effect as possible. high recycle rate for BA transport water) none of them are available nationwide, and thus do 18 Similar to the 2015 rule and consistent with not form the basis for the final BAT limitation. For in Option A is independently supported discussions with engineering firms and plant staff, example, evaporation impoundments are only by this rulemaking record and not EPA assumed that in order to meet the limitations practical in certain climates. Similarly, complete dependent upon the subcategories that and standards, plants would take steps to optimize recycle FGD systems are only available at plants wastewater flows as part of their operating practices with appropriate FGD metallurgy. Facility (by reducing the FGD purge rate or recycling a conditions and availability of these technologies 16 Although TSS is a conventional pollutant, portion of their FGD wastewater back to the FGD have not materially changed since the 2015 rule, regulation of TSS in this final rule is intended as system), where the FGD system metallurgy can and EPA thus reaffirms that these technologies are regulation of the particulate form of toxic metals accommodate an increase in chlorides. See Section not available nationwide and are not a basis for the through the use of an indicator pollutant. 5.2.1 of the Supplemental TDD. final BAT limitations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64662 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

systems are a mix of low and high would affect the ability of plants to meet this final rule, some limitations are hydraulic residence time.20 EPA the effluent limitations. Industry more stringent, while others are less identified an eighth plant that provided data for two plants showing stringent.24 Some commenters expected previously operated an anoxic/ that they successfully operated the limitations and long-term averages anaerobic biological treatment system, biological systems while cycling for all constituents to be less stringent but more recently installed a thermal operations and undergoing shutdowns with CP+LRTR as compared to system for the treatment of FGD in the years since the 2015 rule. CP+HRTR due to the shorter residence wastewater. See DCN SE08964. A ninth While the rationale above applies to time. This is not the case. Indeed, some plant is also operating an anoxic/ both CP+HRTR and CP+LRTR limitations become more stringent due, anaerobic biological treatment system, technologies, EPA is establishing BAT in part, to the different design of but is expected to retire all generating based on the CP+LRTR technologies CP+LRTR systems, which include units by 2028. Another six steam rather than the CP+HRTR technologies. ultrafiltration in the prefabricated electric power plants are operating Some commenters pointed out that systems delivered for pilot studies and thermal treatment systems for FGD CP+HRTR technologies are still full-scale installations to date.25 Thus, wastewater; one of these is expected to available and economically to the extent that commenters relied on retire all generating units by 2028. achievable,21 and argued that EPA is the limitations and long-term averages In the 2015 rule, EPA rejected three thus obligated to select CP+HRTR. EPA to make this argument, EPA concludes availability arguments made against agrees that CP+HRTR continues to be it is reasonable and allowed by the Act biological treatment. EPA solicited available and economically achievable; to consider removals as a whole, which comment on retaining its 2015 findings however, after considering the statutory results in comparable removals for the concerning biological treatment, and no factors in section 304 of the CWA (as suite of pollutants in FGD wastewater new information was provided by EPA is required to do), EPA does not discharges. commenters suggesting that EPA’s 2015 find that CP+HRTR is the Best Available Second, even taking selenium in analysis was incorrect. Instead, EPA has Technology Economically Achievable. isolation, EPA disagrees that a simple continued to confirm its prior findings CP+LRTR pollutant reductions are comparison of numeric limitations and concerning the availability of biological comparable to CP+HRTR pollutant long-term averages is the only way to 22 treatment. First, EPA rejected the reductions, are less costly, and require identify pollutant removals attainable argument that maintaining a biological significantly less process or plant through the application of BAT. It can system over the long run is infeasible. footprint modifications than the be misleading to look at the numeric Of the nine full-scale systems CP+HRTR option. limitations in isolation. Instead, EPA mentioned above, three plants have As explained in Section XIII of this has considered pollutant concentrations used the biological technology for more preamble, the long-term averages in treated effluent as compared to those forming the basis of the selenium than a decade, with varying operating in raw FGD wastewater. In the 2015 rule limitations for CP+LRTR and CP+HRTR conditions, climate conditions, and coal TDD, EPA estimated the average are similar, and the higher selenium sources, to treat FGD wastewater. Many selenium concentration in untreated limitations for the CP+LRTR systems are pilot tests of the biological technology FGD wastewater as 3,130 ug/L. Using largely driven by increased short-term have been conducted at various plants, this for comparison demonstrates that variability around that average, rather and data from these tests demonstrate both the CP+LRTR and CP+HRTR than a meaningful difference in long- that, even in the face of major upsets treatment trains remove more than 99 term pollutant removals.23 Some during chemical precipitation, the percent of selenium initially present in commenters argued that CP+LRTR biological stage continues to reduce FGD wastewater. Even were EPA to selenium and nitrogen. pollutant reductions are not comparable to HRTR pollutant reductions. EPA examine incremental removals, when In the 2015 rule, EPA also rejected the compared to the performance of surface argument that selenium removal disagrees with these commenters and rejects this characterization for several impoundments under existing BPT efficacy is subject to the type of coal regulations, both treatment trains would burned and coal-switching. Plants have reasons. First, these comments appear to be limited to a single pollutant: remove more than 99 percent of the continued to operate biological selenium remaining after physical treatment systems while switching coals Selenium. When comparing the limitations of all four regulated settling. EPA also notes that both the and, in those cases, have maintained long-term average and the actual selenium removal. Furthermore, at least pollutants (mercury, arsenic, selenium, and nitrate/nitrite) in the 2015 rule to limitations for selenium in this final three pilot- and one full-scale system rule are more stringent than they were have now been successfully run or 21 Without support, some commenters also in the proposed rule. In summary, installed to treat FGD wastewater at suggested that CP+LRTR and CP+HRTR are the CP+LRTR and CP+HRTR are two very plants burning subbituminous coals or same technologies. A more detailed response is effective selenium removal blends of bituminous and provided in Response to Public Comments for technologies. Between these two, EPA subbituminous coals, encompassing Revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating selected as BAT the technology that is both HRTR and LRTR technologies. Point Source Category (DCN SE08615). also less costly and requires Finally, in the 2015 rule, EPA rejected 22 For example, while the effluent from CP+LRTR significantly less modification of a arguments that cycling plants up and is more variable than from CP+HRTR, both plant’s process or footprint. down in production, and even out of technologies achieve long-term average effluent concentrations for selenium lower than 20 mg/L. service for various periods of time, 24 23 Courts have recognized that while section 301 While these four indicator pollutants are of the CWA is intended to help achieve the national regulated, the record for the 2015 rule and current 20 In addition to these seven plants, some plants goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, final rule both indicate reductions in many other employ other types of biological treatment. Some of at some point the technology-based approach has its pollutants. these systems are sequencing batch reactors (SBR), limitations. See Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 787 25 To the extent that limits become more stringent which treat nitrogen and can be operated to remove F.2d 965, 972 (5th Cir. 1986) (‘‘EPA would disserve due to the use of data from pilot studies with selenium. The SBR systems currently operating at its mandate were it to tilt at windmills by imposing chemical precipitation systems designed to meet steam electric power plants, however, would likely BAT limitations which removed de minimis the 2015 rule limits prior to the biological treatment not be able to meet the limitations discussed in the amounts of polluting agents from our nation’s components, CP+HRTR limits would also be final rule without reconfiguration. waters [. . .]’’). expected to become more stringent to some extent.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64663

CP+LRTR is less costly than the argued that costs were underestimated EPA considered nanofiltration, reverse CP+HRTR technology selected as the due to incomplete pretreatment costs osmosis, forward osmosis, and EDR BAT basis of the 2015 rule. Compared (e.g., microfiltration rather than full membranes and proposed effluent to the baseline of the 2015 rule, chemical softening), failure to analyze limitations for the VIP option based CP+LRTR is estimated to save costs using maximum design flows, specifically on a combination of approximately $52 million per year in missing cost components, and microfiltration and reverse osmosis after-tax costs to industry 26 While the underestimated ash needs for brine membrane technologies. CP+HRTR costs are economically management. With respect to economic Other industries use a variety of achievable, EPA finds those costs achievability, some commenters pointed different types of membrane filtration unreasonable for a treatment technology to uncertainties about the costs and technologies. EPA met with vendors that would result in marginal additional asserted that membrane filtration would that have installed membrane systems reductions in selenium and that would not be economically available for some in several industries, including result in marginal increases in other plants. Finally, with respect to non- textiles,28 chemical manufacturing,29 pollutants, such as mercury. water quality environmental impacts, mining,30 and agriculture.31 Within the CP+LRTR requires fewer process some commenters argued that many steam electric power generation changes than CP+HRTR. Compared to plants currently make beneficial use of industry, reverse osmosis membranes HRTR, LRTR installations are less some or all of their FA (a practice that are a technology used for treating EGU complex and require fewer could be hindered if plants use makeup water and cooling tower modifications to a plant’s footprint. The membrane filtration); while other blowdown, and EDR membranes are a HRTR systems used as the basis for BAT commenters argued that beneficial use technology used for treating ash in the 2015 rule were large, concrete of FA would not be affected by use of impoundment discharges.32 tanks, which, along with their membrane filtration and that EPA failed Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that associated piping and pumping and to evaluate alternative brine membrane filtration technology is control equipment, would be fabricated management methods. transferable, and the information on site. By contrast, new LRTR systems As the summary of comments presented below demonstrates that, have smaller footprints, and in many presented above makes clear, EPA despite its use in other industries, there cases come prefabricated as modular received a wide range of comments on may be technical issues constraining its components, including the ultrafilter membrane filtration technology. After use for treating FGD wastewater. polishing stage, and require little more carefully considering the statutory EPA’s record demonstrates that no than a concrete foundation, electricity factors for BAT and available data, EPA domestic steam electric power plants supply, and piping connections. For is rejecting membrane filtration as BAT. have installed full-scale nanofiltration, further public comments and responses First, based on significant information reverse osmosis, or EDR membrane regarding HRTR and LRTR, see DCN gaps and uncertainties in EPA’s record, filtration systems to remove dissolved SE08615. EPA cannot conclude that membrane pollutants in FGD wastewater.33 A filtration is technologically available a. Membrane Filtration vendor email cited by some commenters nationwide, as required by the CWA. Except for plants participating in the erroneously asserted that a full-scale Second, the Agency finds that, on a installation of such a technology had VIP discussed below, the final rule does nationwide basis, membrane filtration not establish BAT limitations based on begun at Georgia Power’s Plant Scherer. entails unacceptable non-water quality Follow-up discussions with staff membrane filtration (Option C). EPA environmental impacts associated with working on that project revealed that the received many comments arguing both management of the membranes’ plant is not installing a permanent full- in favor and against the use of byproduct, brine. Finally, while the scale membrane technology to treat FGD membrane filtration as BAT for factors above are sufficient to reject wastewater, but is performing a long- treatment of FGD wastewater, including membrane filtration as BAT, EPA also term pilot of both membrane filtration comments on the technology’s notes that membrane filtration would and biological treatment systems to availability, costs, economic result in higher costs to industry. achievability, and non-water quality At the time of the 2015 rule, EPA had 28 ERG. 2020. Final Notes from Call with Dupont. environmental impacts. With respect to no record of information about DCN SE08618. availability, some commenters argued membrane filtration technologies. Since 29 ERG. 2020. Final Notes from Call with Dupont. that the technology is available, citing that time, EPA collected information on DCN SE08618. pilot studies, three full-scale foreign several types of membrane filtration 30 ERG. 2019. Final Notes from Meeting with Pall installations,27 use in other industrial technologies. Microfiltration and Water. (5 March). EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819–7613; sectors, and vendor claims of product Wolkersdorfer, Christian et al. 2015. Intelligent ultrafiltration membranes are used mine water treatment—recent international performance. Other commenters argued primarily for removing suspended developments. (21 July). DCN SE08581; U.S. EPA. that this technology is not available due solids, including colloids. 2014. Office of Superfund and Remediation and to uncertainties regarding the extent of Nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, forward Technology Innovation. Reference Guide to pretreatment required to ensure reliable osmosis, and electrodialysis reversal Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced treatment performance and management Water. EPA 542–R–14–001. (March). DCN SE08582. (EDR) membranes are used to remove a 31 CH2M Hill. 2010. Review of Available of the resulting brine. With respect to broad range of dissolved pollutants. Technologies for the Removal of Selenium from costs, some commenters argued that Each of these membrane filtration Water. (June). DCN SE08583. costs were overestimated due to technologies generate both a treated 32 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2015. decreasing EGU use, resulting in effluent and a residual wastestream that State of Knowledge: Power Plant Wastewater Treatment—Membrane Technologies. August. reduced flow volumes that require requires further treatment or disposal. 3002002143. treatment; while other commenters Microfiltration and ultrafiltration 33 Ultrafiltration has been installed as part of generate a solid waste residual, which is several FGD wastewater treatment systems in the 26 Due to the final rule’s changed compliance disposed of. Nanofiltration, reverse U.S. and is included as a back-end component of dates, this estimate also includes discounting which the CP+LRTR BAT established in this final rule; may overstate the savings. osmosis, forward osmosis, and EDR all however, these membranes are only capable of 27 The record at proposal included three full-scale produce a concentrated brine residual removing suspended solids, not dissolved foreign installations. which must be disposed of. At proposal, pollutants.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64664 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

evaluate possible compliance EPA contacted Doosan about its system about FGD wastewater, EPA focused its alternatives under planned future in South Korea, the company declined evaluation on the more challenging changes to the plant (see DCN SE08619). to share plant operation, maintenance, wastewaters in other industries. In the The State of Maryland also informed or performance information, and mining industry, reverse osmosis is EPA that three GenOn plants planned to indicated that it was not interested in employed to treat mine-influenced install technologies to meet the 2015 the U.S. market. Similarly, EPA water. For example, since 2006, the rule VIP effluent limitations. In a contacted Lenntech regarding its system Bingham Canyon Water Treatment Plant teleconference call held to learn more in Finland, but has received no (BCWTP) at the Kennecott South about these plans, GenOn staff stated information about this plant’s operation, Superfund site treats 3,200 gallons per that one of these plants (Dickerson) had maintenance, or performance. minute of mine-influenced water and announced its retirement, but confirmed Regarding the plants in China, EPA is has maintained a TDS removal that the other two (Chalk Point and generally aware that two of the plants efficiency of 98.9 percent, given an Morgantown) are currently considering employ pretreatment and a combination expected influent TDS of approximately reverse osmosis systems (see DCN of reverse osmosis and forward osmosis. 2,000 mg/L.39 Mining wastewaters SE08614).34 EPA views GenOn’s But EPA was not able to obtain further demonstrate some similar challenges consideration of membrane technology information about the specific seen in FGD wastewaters, but there are similarly to the bids and engineering configurations, maintenance, or long- also differences in the two reports for full-scale systems that the term performance of these two wastestreams. For example, both are agency was aware of at proposal. As systems.37 EPA also has no information highly scaling in gypsum,40 but as the discussed at proposal, the sources of the about how the resultant brine is being BCWTP example demonstrates, mining bids and engineering reports expressed managed or disposed of. Furthermore, influent TDS concentrations can be an concerns about operating a technology the company that sold these two order of magnitude (or more) lower than on this wastewater that would be the systems has since ceased commercial the TDS concentrations found in some first of its kind in the U.S. While bids, operations.38 EPA is aware that two FGD wastewater streams.41 In the engineering reports, and one company other plants operating in China employ mining industry, brine generated by considering potential membrane pretreatment followed by nanofiltration reverse osmosis is typically disposed of installations are important and reverse osmosis. As with the through evaporation, deep well considerations in evaluating the systems above, the vendors declined to injection, or ocean discharge.42 availability of a technology, they do not provide plant operation, maintenance, In the oil and gas industry, there are demonstrate that the technology is or performance information to EPA. The several applications and opportunities available under the CWA. Because no remaining Chinese systems were for membrane filtration, recently 43 full-scale membrane filtration system for developed by DuPont, which met with summarized by Adham et al. (2018). treatment of FGD wastewater is yet EPA after proposal to provide what For example, nanofiltration is used operating domestically, EPA carefully limited information was available. worldwide for sulfate removal in considered available data from pilots, While DuPont has sold six systems to offshore oil and gas operations. Reverse foreign installations, and other Chinese plants to treat FGD wastewater, osmosis is the standard treatment for industries. the company did not have access to coal seam gas water in Australia, where With respect to pilots, EPA is aware operation, maintenance, or performance regulations restrict underground of at least 19 previous or ongoing data for these systems. Due to travel restrictions in place 39 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). domestic pilot studies and one foreign 2014. Reference Guide to Treatment Technologies pilot study of FGD wastewater treatment during the COVID–19 pandemic in for Mining-Influenced Water. EPA 542–R–14–001. using four different membrane filtration spring and summer 2020, EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology technologies.35 All of these technologies representatives were unable to travel Innovation. March. Available online at: https://clu- in.org/download/issues/mining/Reference_Guide_ first used some form of suspended abroad to visit these plants. Because the to_Treatment_Technologies_for_MIW.pdf (DCN solids removal, such as microfiltration vendor companies either ceased SE09084). or chemical precipitation. This operations or declined to provide EPA 40 Patel, S. 2020. Rethinking Wastewater pretreated FGD wastewater was then fed with information about the operation, Treatment for Better FGD Economics. Power Magazine. May 31. Available online at: https:// into either nanofiltration, reverse maintenance, or performance of their www.powermag.com/rethinking-wastewater- osmosis, or EDR membrane filtration membrane filtration products, and treatment-for-better-fgd-economics/ (DCN systems. For several of the pilot studies, EPA’s lack of regulatory authority to SE09085). the resultant brines were mixed with FA compel the production of information 41 The FGD wastewater treatment system pilot tests that were highlighted in the petitions for and/or lime to test the potential for from foreign plants, EPA’s record has reconsideration of this rule illustrate this point. encapsulation of the concentrated brine significant information gaps on the EPRI. 2017. Biological Treatment of Flue Gas wastestream.36 operation and performance of Desulfurization Wastewater at a Power Plant EPA is aware of 12 foreign membranes used to treat FGD Burning Powder River Basin Coal—Pilot Demonstration with the ABMet Technology. EPA– installations: One in South Korea, one wastewater. HW–OW–2009–0819–6480.2. in Finland, and 10 in China. EPA’s With respect to the use of membrane 42 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). rulemaking record contains very limited filtration in other industries and in 2014. Reference Guide to Treatment Technologies information about these plants. When connection with non-FGD power plant for Mining-Influenced Water. EPA 542–R–14–001. wastestreams, given what is known Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. March. Available online at: https://clu- 34 The company indicated that plans for both in.org/download/issues/mining/Reference_Guide_ units will depend on the requirements of this final 37 This is in contrast to biological treatment to_Treatment_Technologies_for_MIW.pdf (DCN rule, and also, for one of its units, changing systems for which EPA has long-term performance SE09084). electricity demand. data. Although LRTR and HRTR systems differ in 43 Adham, S., Hussain, A., Minier-Matar, J., 35 Two of these pilot studies were completed in their configuration (e.g., residence time), the Janson, A., Sharma, R. 2018. Membrane 2014, but information about these tests was not underlying performance has been well applications and opportunities for water provided to EPA prior to the 2015 rule. demonstrated on this wastewater. management in the oil and gas industry. 36 The record includes additional encapsulation 38 DCN SE08034 contains a story summarizing the Desalination. 440. 2–17. Available online at: studies and data not explicitly linked to these 19 forward osmosis company Oasys ceasing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ pilots. commercial operations. S0011916417321380 (DCN SE09087).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64665

injection. Reverse osmosis is also a for further use as FGD makeup water.47 further finds that use of data from standard treatment for desalination (i.e., While ash transport water can have high treatment of non-FGD wastewaters in TDS removal) in this industry. In variability, there is no information in this and other industries would not be contrast to the uses for mining the record suggesting that ash transport appropriate because the other wastewaters discussed above, the oil water has scaling potential or TDS wastewaters that are currently being and gas industry’s use of membranes concentrations similar to FGD treated by membrane filtration systems typically involves wastewaters with wastewater. at full scale differ in variability, scaling TDS concentrations at least as high as After evaluating all available potential, TDS, or a combination those found in FGD wastewater, but information on membrane filtration, thereof. with different scaling potential. Within EPA has concluded that critical Some commenters argue that certain the oil and gas industry, underground uncertainties remain regarding data limitations are not sufficient to injection, evaporation, and ocean operation of the suite of membrane reject membrane filtration systems as discharge are common disposal methods filtration technologies that the Agency BAT for FGD wastewater because such systems can be operated as no discharge for the resulting brine. evaluated as the basis for Option C. With respect to data from the pilot systems. EPA agrees that membrane Membrane filtration technologies are studies, these studies focused on filtration systems can be operated as no also employed for other, non-FGD membrane technologies intended to discharge systems; however, due to the wastestreams at steam electric power remove dissolved pollutants. Several significant data gaps in the record, EPA plants. Reverse osmosis is a generally studies of the technologies designed to cannot conclude that such systems can accepted, standard practice for treating remove dissolved pollutants either did operate continuously as no discharge EGU makeup water at steam electric not include a second stage of membrane systems for FGD wastewater, nor that 44 power plants. EGU makeup water is filtration (i.e., a reverse osmosis they can operate as no-discharge often treated groundwater or surface polishing stage, which electric utilities systems on FGD wastewater in all cases, water which would, therefore, not have and vendors indicated would need to be nor that their continuous operation TDS or scaling potential similar to FGD part of any potential future membrane would not result in other unacceptable wastewater. Reverse osmosis has also filtration system that they would non-water quality impacts. Staff been used to treat cooling tower consider installing to operate with a working on one current membrane blowdown at several coal-fired and non- discharge) or provided only summaries filtration pilot indicated that, with coal-fired steam electric power plants. of effluent data because of additional flexibility to reuse membrane According to one reverse osmosis nondisclosure agreements between filtration permeate as EGU makeup technology vendor, cooling tower EPRI, treatment technology vendors, water, the plant may consider a no- blowdown has similar scaling potential and/or the plant operators. Both of these discharge alternative in the future. At to FGD wastewater. EPA does not have limitations prevented EPA from fully present, however, the pilot is being information in this record to either analyzing the pollutant removal efficacy conducted to determine the feasibility of confirm this statement or to extrapolate and effluent variability associated with operating a membrane filtration system this finding to the industry more the treatment systems used in those with a discharge, including the broadly; however, scaling is a known studies. The pilot tests that omitted the evaluation of pretreatment and post- treatment to comply with the proposed issue for cooling tower water, which is second stage of membrane filtration do VIP mercury limitations. Similarly, ultimately blown down.45 The vendor not provide sufficient insight into the while GenOn indicated that it is that made this statement sold the performance capabilities of the considering installing membrane membrane technology because the system, comprising microfiltration filtration systems that would recirculate initial membrane filtration step (e.g., a followed by reverse osmosis, to a plant permeate as a no discharge system, nanofilter unit) does not by itself to treat high TDS cooling tower GenOn acknowledged that at least some remove the broad range of pollutants as blowdown that was corroding its brine discharges would eventually be effectively as would be achieved by the concentrators (thermal systems). This necessary, for example when the EGU is two-stage configuration. The pilot tests, membrane filtration system was able to not operating or is being retired. replace the brine concentrators, for which EPA has only summary-level While the limited information in resulting in a reduction of parasitic load data, provide summary statistics, such EPA’s record on foreign installations in cooling tower blowdown and as the observed range of pollutant may suggest that these systems operate substantial cost savings.46 Finally, EDR concentrations, average influent and as no-discharge systems, EPA does not has also been used at a power plant in effluent pollutant concentrations, and have information on these systems’ South Korea to treat ash transport water duration of the testing periods. EPA, long-term performance to confirm that however, lacks the individual daily they continually operate as no-discharge 44 EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2015. sample results that are needed to fully systems, whether there are some periods State of Knowledge: Power Plant Wastewater evaluate treatment system operation and during which discharges occur, or Treatment—Membrane Technologies. August. calculate effluent limitations. Complete whether their operation may result in 3002002143. data sets were only available from three other unacceptable non-water quality 45 Daniels, D.G. 2015. Winning the Cooling Tower pilot plants using a single vendor’s impacts. Furthermore, the information Trifecta: Controlling Corrosion, Scale, and 48 Microbiological Fouling. Power Magazine. August reverse osmosis technology. EPA that EPA does possess on foreign 21. Available online at: https:// installations indicates that pretreatment www.powermag.com/winning-the-cooling-tower- 47 https://www.ge.com/in/sites/www.ge.com.in/ before membrane filtration is a trifecta-controlling-corrosion-scale-and- files/GE_solves_ash%20pond_capacity_issue.pdf aqmicrobiological-fouling/ (DCN SE09088). (DCN SE09090). challenge due to FGD wastewater 46 Drake, M., Wise, S., Charan, N., and 48 These three data sets served as the basis of the Venkatadri, R. 2012. ZLD Treatment of Cooling final VIP limitations, described further in Section wastewater. Additional pilots, tests, and data Tower Blowdown with Membranes. WaterWorld. XIII of this preamble. These limited data sets do not collection could result in these technologies December. Available online at: https:// provide sufficient information to evaluate the becoming available by the VIP compliance date of www.watertechonline.com/process-water/article/ performance of nanofiltration and reverse osmosis 2028; however, the VIP compliance date is not 16211541/zld-treatment-of-cooling-tower- membrane filtration technology as the primary based on an assumption that the technology will be blowdown-with-membranes (DCN SE09089). treatment for dissolved pollutants in FGD available by 2028.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64666 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

variability. This is consistent with the employing thermal systems, foreign their fly ash and some plants selling public comments received on the plants employing membrane filtration none. Furthermore, these EIA estimates proposal, as well as the main focus of systems, and domestic plants in other may be low, as one plant’s staff the long-term pilot at Plant Scherer. In industries employing membrane represented that they were beneficially contrast to the thermal system that EPA filtration systems.51 EPA also evaluated using 100 percent of their FA rather visited in Italy before the 2015 rule (and whether FA is being disposed of or is than the amount reported in the EIA where EPA took samples and discussed being sold and productively reused. data.53 A quantitative comparison of the system with experienced engineers), After careful review of the information EIA data for plants with FGD EPA does not have access to the Chinese in the record for this rulemaking, EPA wastewater indicates that if plants plants to resolve some of the critical projects that, in the United States, the currently disposing of their FA installed unanswered questions discussed above. least cost option if membrane filtration membrane filtration, they may have Supplementing what is known about were selected would be encapsulation enough FA to encapsulate the quantities pilot studies and foreign plants with with FA and lime and disposal of the of brine produced by membrane information about the use of membrane resulting solid in a landfill. The filtration. Two assumptions underly filtration on non-FGD wastestreams in following paragraphs summarize the EPA’s comparison of EIA FA beneficial this and other industries still does not evaluations which led to EPA’s use and disposal data to FGD brine address or resolve the uncertainties in conclusion that there is an unacceptable encapsulation. First, EPA assumes that EPA’s record. Although EPA non-water quality environmental impact the fraction of brine generated from all acknowledges that some of the other in selecting membrane filtration systems FGD wastewaters is the same at all wastewaters discussed above are subject as BAT. plants that would install a membrane to operational variability, scaling There are no domestic plants system. Second, it assumes that all potential, and high levels of TDS, the operating membrane filtration systems plants that would install a membrane unique combination of these factors for EPA to contact. EPA therefore system would be able to make use of present in steam electric FGD contacted two domestic plants operating similar encapsulation blends as the bids wastewater favors EPA’s conclusion that thermal FGD systems and examined and pilots which EPA reviewed. In membrane filtration is not available for information submitted to EPA’s Region practice, EPA expects the percent of treatment of FGD wastewater at all 1 regarding a third thermal FGD system. brine generated by membrane systems to plants in the steam electric power Thermal and membrane filtration differ from plant to plant, based on FGD generating industry.49 Nevertheless, like systems generate similar brines, as both wastewater characteristics. EPA also evaporation-based and thermal increase the concentration of TDS in expects the encapsulation blend to treatment technologies, FGD wastewater FGD wastewater by removal of ‘‘clean’’ differ from plant to plant based on both may be amenable to treatment with water. For the three domestic thermal the brine characteristics and the fly ash membrane filtration technologies in at systems treating FGD wastewater, the characteristics. This is consistent with least some circumstances. Thus, EPA’s resultant brine is either used to public comments EPA received on the conclusion that membranes are not condition (i.e., wet) ash for disposal proposal. Thus, while EPA’s assumption available nationwide, as required under without encapsulation52 or is of a typical blend is reasonable for a the CWA, does not conflict with EPA’s crystallized and sent to a landfill. Thus, nationwide assessment, the Agency finding that membrane filtration may be encapsulation of the brine using FA at anticipates that there will be sites where available at specific sites for purposes of these three plants is unnecessary. When non-water quality environmental the VIP. asked about the availability of FA for impacts are particularly unacceptable.54 EPA also rejects membranes as the sale, one of the three plants indicated But, while these assumptions are technology basis for BAT for all existing that its particular market for FA is flush, appropriate for nationwide cost plants because it could discourage more and that plant was no longer able to estimates which are needed to valuable forms of beneficial reuse of FA maintain contracts for the sale of its FA, demonstrate economic achievability for (such as replacing Portland cement in which would make it available for the the industry as a whole, this does not concrete), causing more FA to be plant to use to encapsulate the thermal necessarily mean that these assumptions disposed of as waste.50 While EPA system brine. In contrast, two of the should be used for analyzing the non- agrees with comments that there may be plants with which EPA discussed water quality environmental impacts several alternative ways to treat or possible future installations of associated with the resultant brine from dispose of the brine generated by membrane filtration systems stated that membrane use, and in particular, membrane filtration, as discussed they sell 100 percent of the FA estimating what plants are likely to do further below, plants are most likely to generated for beneficial reuse. Although with this by-product in relation to encapsulate the brine with FA and lime some commenters suggested that there available FA. Whether sufficient FA is and dispose of the resulting solid in a is more than sufficient FA available for present on site or available in the local landfill. reuse, the EPA’s rulemaking record market is a site-specific question. In concluding that the selection of contains information to the contrary. Should plants generate more brine than membranes as BAT would result in According to 2017 and 2018 EIA data, EPA estimated in its analysis, or should unacceptable non-water quality the median percentage of FA that was plants not have the quality of FA (e.g., environmental impacts, EPA evaluated sold for beneficial use by plants with class C, class F) necessary for the brine management alternatives that were wet FGD systems was approximately 14 discussed with domestic plants percent, with some plants selling all of 53 EPA was unable to resolve the conflicting company-stated beneficial use rates at this plant with the plant-specific EIA data. 49 51 While one membrane vendor commented that EPA did not evaluate alternatives which would 54 While there may be some sites where these FGD wastewater is no different than any other not be available to the industry (e.g., unlike offshore non-water quality environmental impacts are industrial wastewater, it did not provide any data oil and gas facilities, ocean discharge would not be acceptable, the Agency has not identified either or analysis to support this statement. available to inland power plants). information or a consistent basis upon which to 50 While EPA considers FA use for waste 52 Ash conditioning with water or surfactants is subcategorize these plants. In any case, such a solidification and stabilization as beneficial use, the a standard industry practice to control fugitive dust subcategorization approach may still not address CCR waste being solidified or stabilized must still emissions, and also a standard component of the availability concerns raised in the discussion be disposed of in accordance with 40 CFR 257. fugitive dust plans required under the CCR rule. above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64667

assumed blend, those plants would power plants to manage FGD comingling encapsulated material with need to reduce the quantity of ash wastewater brine. other landfill refuse could result in a beneficially reused or acquire a After consideration of the information leachate blowout. The King County substitute to encapsulate the brine above, EPA evaluated membrane Landfill in Virginia experienced a byproduct of an installed membrane filtration with three representative brine leachate blowout when compact CCR system. management alternatives to determine materials with a low infiltration rate Based on the limited available which could most likely represent were layered with normal municipal information, EPA understands that at future brine management. First, as it did solid waste having a higher infiltration least two foreign plants operating full- for the proposed rule, EPA evaluated rate. Similarly, in the case of scale membrane systems send the brine encapsulation with FA and lime, encapsulated brine paste, the paste resulting brine to a crystallizer to in a blend representative of the would set and thereafter achieve a very generate and sell a 95 percent high- information in EPA’s record.55 Second, low infiltration rate. When comingled purity industrial salt. However, there EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis with CCR having a higher infiltration are too many uncertainties for EPA to which examined crystallization and rate, this would lead to layers with estimate with confidence how many disposal of the resultant salt.56 Finally, disparate infiltration rates akin to those plants in the United States might be able EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis experienced in the King County do the same. EPA understands that which examined deep well injection. scenario. Thus, segregation of low these foreign plants engaged in While EPA received comments that the infiltration rate encapsulated brine in a negotiations with end-users prior to brine might be sold to oil and gas landfill cell separate from other, higher commissioning their membrane companies, commenters did not provide infiltration wastes could be necessary to systems. At one example system, the any examples where this is currently prevent this layering and a potential plant generates and sells approximately occurring, nor is the Agency aware of leachate blowout. Such dedicated 10,000 tons of industrial-grade salt per any. Thus, as it did for ocean discharge landfill cells do not exist today and year. While a crystallizer would be a (see above), EPA concluded that direct would require time to permit and more expensive option than ash sale of brine to oil and gas companies construct.59 conditioning practiced at no-discharge would not be representative of potential Moreover, instead of disposing of plants in the U.S., the sale of industrial brine management in the steam electric salt could generate additional revenue their FA, plants can sell it for beneficial power generating industry. use. As stated in the 2015 CCR rule: to offset those additional costs. Without After conducting these three salt revenue data from China, it is not representative brine management The beneficial use of CCR is a primary possible to compare these specific analyses, EPA concludes that the alternative to current disposal methods. And scenarios either in terms of costs or non- method most likely to be employed by as EPA has repeatedly concluded, it is a water quality environmental impacts steam electric power plants using method that, when performed correctly, can and any conclusions would be membrane filtration to treat FGD offer significant environmental benefits, speculative and lack factual support in wastewater would be encapsulation including greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, this rulemaking record. Furthermore, with FA and lime for disposal of the energy conservation, reduction in land EPA cannot evaluate the practicality of resulting solid in a landfill. This brine disposal (along with the corresponding avoidance of potential CCR disposal such sales in the U.S. because the management alternative was the least impacts), and reduction in the need to mine Agency does not know which industries cost solution in the bids and are purchasing these salts, if these and process virgin materials and the engineering documents examined, was associated environmental impacts.60 industries operate in the U.S., if they the least cost solution in EPA’s own cost would be willing to purchase salts from estimates, and is the disposal approach Specifically, the Agency estimated the U.S., or what the specifications are discussed by both Georgia Power 57 and (U.S. EPA 2011) that each ton of FA for the salt product. GenOn 58 as their most likely procedure used as a substitute for Portland cement Finally, EPA examined brine if theyose ultimately choose to would avoid the use of 5,400 megajoules management in other industries. In both participate in the VIP and install of nonrenewable energy, 690 liters of the mining industry and in oil and gas, membrane filtration systems by the 2028 water use, 1,000,000 grams (g) of CO brine is managed through evaporation 2 compliance date. emissions, 840 g of methane emissions, (including evaporation impoundments), As described in the proposal, 1,400 g of CO emissions, 2,700 g of NO deep well injection, and ocean X landfilling an encapsulated material emissions, 2,500 g of SOX emissions, discharge. Most steam electric power raises challenges. For instance, plants are not near enough to an ocean 2,400 g of PM, 0.08 g of Hg, 490 g of TSS discharge, 23 g of BOD discharge, and for ocean discharge to be a feasible 55 This scenario is representative not only of that 61 alternative. Evaporation is more 46 g of COD discharge. After blend, but also of blends that would use more or considering these cross-program consistent with disposal methods at the less fly ash and/or lime, as well as less expensive domestic thermal and foreign membrane ash conditioning, in which ash is wetted just with environmental impacts, EPA finds that the brine (in lieu of other water or surfactants) prior discouraging this beneficial use of FA filtration plants discussed above. The to disposal. use of evaporation impoundments is on a nationwide basis would result in 56 This scenario could also be representative of unacceptable non-water-quality generally dependent upon climate and crystallization with sale of the resultant salt; however, EPA’s rulemaking record lacks plant space, so not all steam electric 59 EPA also estimates that the volume of waste information with which to analyze potential sales. power plants may be able to employ requiring disposal if membrane filtration was 57 In discussions about the potential for Plant evaporation impoundments as is done at selected is 10 times the volume of waste estimated Scherer to install a membrane filtration technology under the selected LRTR technology. some mining and oil and gas under the proposed VIP, Georgia Power staff establishments. However, crystallization indicated that should such an installation occur, it 60 80 FR 21329 (April 17, 2015). is an evaporation means that is would make use of a paste landfill where 61 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). employed at some domestic and foreign encapsulation of brine would occur. 2011. Waste and Materials—Flow Benchmark 58 GenOn indicated that plans for Chalk Point and Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary plants to manage FGD wastewater brine. Morgantown included off-site disposal without FA Materials—Coal Combustion Products. Office of Finally, deep well injection is not from those plants because so much of that FA is Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, known to be used at any steam electric already beneficially used. DC 20460. April.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64668 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

environmental impacts.62 As discussed Inc. v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 796 (6th Cir. remove approximately 90 percent of the below in connection with the VIP, 1996)). Here, while these costs do not mercury remaining in the effluent from however, EPA finds that, based on site- make the membrane filtration option chemical precipitation treatment.65 specific circumstances, the non-water economically unachievable across the Because the combination of chemical quality environmental impacts point source category as a whole,64 precipitation with LRTR provides identified on a nationwide basis could these estimated increased costs do substantial further reductions in the exist to a lesser extent (thereby not weigh against selecting membranes as discharge of pollutants industry-wide, resulting in unacceptable non-water BAT. EPA has established BAT based on quality environmental impacts).63 CP+LRTR. While EPA views the foregoing b. Other Technologies Evaluated for Third, the final rule does not establish reasoning as sufficient to find that BAT Limitations BAT limitations based on thermal membrane filtration is not BAT for As described further below, EPA is technologies, such as chemical existing sources, EPA notes that also not establishing BAT limitations precipitation (including softening) membrane filtration is projected to cost based on other technologies evaluated followed by a falling film evaporator, industry 26 percent more than estimated in the 2019 proposed rule and 2015 based on the statutory factors of total at proposal. As identified by rule. costs to industry and non-water quality commenters, the data used to establish First, except for the permanent environmental impacts. EPA received limitations for membrane filtration for cessation of coal combustion and low- comments stating that thermal the proposed rule included pilots that utilization subcategories discussed technologies are available, are preceded membrane filtration with below, EPA is not establishing BAT unavailable, are economically chemical precipitation, while the cost limitations based on surface achievable, and are not economically estimates were based only on impoundments. One commenter achievable. EPA agrees that these microfiltration as pretreatment. EPA suggested that EPA should adopt a high technologies are available but disagrees agrees. Where EPA has information on recycle rate system for FGD wastewater that these technologies are economically pretreatment at foreign plants, none of if the purge from such a system would achievable. Although commenters those plants relies on microfiltration receive BAT limitations equal to BPT arguing against availability raise a alone. To correct this inconsistency, in limitations. The commenter relied on number of arguments, these arguments the final rule, EPA included the cost of EPA’s proposed BAT for BA transport were considered and rejected in the chemical precipitation as the water for this suggestion. Even for the 2015 rule, and no new information has pretreatment method for the membrane purged wastewater from a high recycle been provided that warrants revisiting filtration cost estimates and adjusted the rate BA transport water system, those findings. Since the 2015 rule, EPA set of data used to establish effluent however, the final rule does not has collected additional information on limitations. For the final rule, both establish BAT limitations equal to BPT full-scale installations and pilots of effluent limitations and cost estimates limitations. Instead, EPA leaves the BAT thermal technologies to treat FGD reflect data for systems using chemical limitations to be determined by the wastewater. EPA’s rulemaking record precipitation as pretreatment before permitting authority on a case-by-case includes information about nine pilot membrane filtration. EPA disagrees with basis, subject to BPJ. Such a case-by- studies conducted in the United States, comments that suggested the costs were case determination is not warranted for providing performance data for five not estimated correctly due to the use of FGD wastewater because EPA has different thermal technologies. In incorrect flows and FA consumption determined that CP+LRTR is available addition, full-scale installations are rates. For a more detailed discussion of and economically achievable for operating at six domestic plants,66 and the membrane filtration public treatment of FGD wastewater. a seventh purchased thermal comments and responses, see DCN Furthermore, EPA confirms its previous equipment, but elected not to install SE08615. findings that surface impoundments are it.67 EPA is also now aware of seven In addition to the estimated not as effective at controlling pollutants foreign installations in Italy and China, pretreatment costs, plants will also (such as dissolved metals and nutrients) five more foreign installations than at incur costs to dispose of the resulting as available and achievable technologies the time of the 2015 rule. brine. Some plants that may otherwise like CP+LRTR; however, as described in With respect to economic sell their FA may choose to use their FA Section X below, other statutory factors achievability, in the 2015 rule EPA to encapsulate the brine, thereby and EPA’s rulemaking record support rejected thermal technology as a basis foregoing revenue from FA sales. Other the use of surface impoundments for for BAT limitations due to high costs to plants that choose to continue to sell two subcategories. industry. New thermal technologies their FA will need to dispose of the Second, except for the low utilization have been pilot tested and used at full brine using another disposal alternative, EGU subcategory discussed below, the scale since the 2015 rule, and related such as crystallization, at an additional final rule does not establish BAT cost. Costs are a separate statutory factor limitations or PSES based on chemical 65 Recall that the FGD mercury and arsenic that EPA considers in selecting BAT precipitation alone. As EPA noted limitations in the 2015 rule were based on chemical precipitation data alone because the plants (see, for example, BP Exploration & Oil, during the development of the 2015 operating biological systems were not using all of rule, chemical precipitation is effective the chemical precipitation additives in the 62 Although EPA evaluated FA and lime at removing mercury, arsenic, and technology basis. encapsulation as the least-cost nationally available certain other heavy metals. This 66 One of these plants successfully ran three brine disposal alternative, other alternatives with different thermal systems to treat its wastewater, higher costs may also have adverse non-water technology alone does not remove transitioning from a falling film evaporator to a quality environmental impacts. For example, if a nitrogen, nor does it remove the direct-contact evaporator, which mixes hot gases in plant chose to crystallize the resulting brine to majority of selenium. Furthermore, the a high turbulence evaporation chamber, and finally continue selling its FA, this thermal crystallization data in EPA’s rulemaking record to a spray dryer evaporator. process could have a higher cost and parasitic 67 This plant purchased a falling film evaporator energy load. demonstrate that both LRTR and HRTR for the purpose of meeting water quality-based 63 The same would be true for other VIP- effluent limitations for boron, but then elected to compliant technologies (e.g., thermal) that might be 64 See, e.g., Texas Oil and Gas Ass’n et al. v. EPA, instead pay approximately $1 million per year to installed. 161 F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998). send its wastewater to a local POTW.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64669

cost information demonstrates that a case-by-case determination to be made could retrofit their operation using CSC thermal technologies are now less costly by the permitting authority using BPJ. systems, and that EPA should retain the than when estimated for the 2015 rule. EPA explained in the 2015 rule why BPJ zero discharge limitations established in Nevertheless, the thermal costs determinations would not be the 2015 rule. EPA also received evaluated in EPA’s memorandum FGD appropriate for FGD wastewater, comments that CSCs could be more Thermal Evaporation Cost Methodology particularly given the availability of costly than other technologies and that (DCN SE08631) are still 2.4 times higher several other technologies, and nothing CSCs are not available. These included than the CP+LRTR technology selected in EPA’s record would alter the comments that CSCs are not as BAT, and 1.04 times higher than the Agency’s previous conclusion. demonstrated, that CSCs cannot handle membrane filtration costs in Option C. the high ash loading rates of larger As authorized by section 304(b) of the 2. BA Transport Water EGUs, and that retrofit with CSCs are CWA, which requires EPA to consider Under the final rule, EPA has selected not feasible for EGUs below grade or costs, as well as the discretion that the high recycle rate systems as the with space constraints leaving the EGU. statute gives EPA to weigh the statutory technology basis for establishing the EPA disagrees with commenters who factors, the Agency finds that, for this BAT requirements to control pollutants asserted that it failed to consider zero final rule, thermal technologies are not discharged in BA transport water. EPA discharge requirements for BA transport BAT due to the unreasonably high costs determines that this technology is water. While the Agency acknowledges to industry.68 Given the high costs available and economically achievable that it did not identify technologies that associated with thermal technology, and after evaluating the factors specified in could achieve zero discharge of BA the fact that the steam electric power CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). In the 2015 transport water among its ‘‘main’’ generating industry continues to face rule, EPA selected dry BA handling or regulatory options at proposal, the 2015 costs associated with several other rules, closed-loop wet ash handling systems as rule required zero discharge, and EPA in addition to this rule, EPA is not the technology basis for the no- described the technologies forming the establishing BAT limitations for FGD discharge BAT requirements for BA basis for the 2015 rule and considered wastewater based on thermal transport water. EPA established no them and others, including CSCs, in this technologies. discharge effluent limitations based on rulemaking. In addition to the unreasonably high these technologies, while also creating a With respect to costs, since the costs, thermal technologies have limited allowance for pollutant proposal, EPA has conducted unacceptable non-water quality discharges associated with leaks and conference calls with two plants, one of environmental impacts associated with certain maintenance activities.70 which operates a vacuum system and management of the resultant brine. At the time of the 2015 rule, EPA one that operates a CSC. The Agency Thermal technologies generate a brine estimated that more than 50 percent of acknowledges that, at proposal, it did similar to membrane filtration plants already employed dry handling not estimate costs of installing technologies. For this reason, portions systems or wet sluicing systems pneumatic systems (which include both of the discussion of membrane filtration designed to operate closed-loop, or had dry vacuum or pressure systems) or brine above are based on brine announced plans to switch to such CSCs. In the case of pneumatic systems, management at plants with thermal systems in the near future. Based on these systems tend to be more expensive systems. EPA also concludes that new information collected since the than alternatives, and third party EPCs thermal technologies have unacceptable 2015 rule, EPA now estimates that have indicated that the decision to non-water quality environmental number to be over 75 percent of the install such systems is often driven by impacts. The reasoning is the same as industry. However, since the 2015 rule, a combination of space constraints and for membrane filtration—unacceptable EPA’s understanding has changed limitations on water withdrawals. EPA non-water quality environmental regarding the types of available dry continues to view pneumatic systems as impacts would occur as a result of systems, and the ability of wet systems more expensive than alternatives. With discouraging the beneficial use of FA, to operate a true closed-loop system (or respect to CSCs, the Agency did not and additional disposal requirements to achieve complete recycle) has have cost data at proposal to conduct a would result from the production of a changed. cost analysis; however, since proposal brine byproduct. EPA is aware of advances in dry BA the Agency has obtained CSC cost Furthermore, since the membrane handling systems since the 2015 rule.71 information from one plant, which filtration technologies evaluated in For example, in addition to under-EGU demonstrates that for that plant it was Option C appear to achieve similar mechanical drag chain systems the least-cost technology alternative. pollutant removals at lower costs than (described in the 2015 rule), pneumatic The costs for this plant are comparable thermal, as discussed later in this systems and compact submerged to other technologies that EPA section, EPA is revising the basis for the conveyors (CSCs, which are referred to evaluated, and this finding is consistent VIP limitations adopted in the 2015 rule in the proposed rule and in many public with the representations of electric to membrane filtration, instead of comments as submerged grinder utilities, vendors, and third-party EPC 69 firms, which have found that, on a thermal technologies. conveyors, the appellation of the most Finally, EPA is declining to establish plant-specific basis, CSCs may be the commonly sold system) are now in use BAT limitations for FGD wastewater as least costly bottom ash conversion at some plants. EPA received comments option. However, because CSCs serve that it failed to consider whether plants 68 Some industry comments asserted that EPA only an individual EGU, the more EGUs underestimated the cost for thermal technologies a plant has, the less economical this and that more accurate costs would make these 70 See 40 CFR 423.11(p). technologies economically unachievable. However, 71 The term ‘‘dry handling’’ is used to refer to ash technology becomes. One vendor as described above, EPA need not adjust its cost handling systems that do not use water as the suggested that plants with three or more assumptions because the Agency’s own cost transport medium for conveying ash away from the EGUs would generally find remote estimates result in unreasonably high costs. EGU. Such systems include pneumatic and MDSs to be a least-cost alternative. 69 EPA notes that thermal technologies could mechanical processes (some mechanical processes continue to be used to meet the voluntary use water to cool the BA or create a water seal With respect to availability, incentives program limitations based on membrane between the EGU and ash hoppers, but the water commenters disputed that CSCs are filtration. does not act as the transport medium). demonstrated, but did not make the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64670 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

same claim for pneumatic systems. Two percent redundant design basis.75 removal of fine particulates (‘‘fines’’), full-scale CSCs became operational in Commenters did not argue that space and building storage tanks to hold water 2019,72 while 50 plants employing constraints would preclude pneumatic during infrequent maintenance or pneumatic systems are currently systems. precipitation events. Industry-wide, operating, with retrofits dating back to With respect to wet BA handling EPA conservatively estimates the costs 1992. EPA is aware of only two CSCs in systems, in their petitions for of the additional measures needed to operation domestically today; however, reconsideration and in recent meetings achieve and maintain a truly closed- the Agency has identified three with EPA, utilities and trade loop system to be $63 million per year additional CSCs currently being associations informed EPA that many in after-tax costs, beyond the costs of the installed. Furthermore, in a conference existing remote wet systems are, in systems themselves.78 79 These call with one plant, it appears that, reality, ‘‘partially closed’’ rather than additional costs and process changes while there were some challenges, fully closed-loop, as assumed by EPA in were not accounted for in the 2015 rule; especially during installation, this the 2015 rule. Utilities and trade however, as discussed in Section 5.3.3 particular system has operated associations informed EPA that these of the Supplemental TDD, EPA has successfully since its commissioning. systems operate partially closed, rather accounted for these costs in estimating However, this plant did not experience than closed, due to small discharges the baseline costs of the BA limitations the same space constraints discussed associated with: (1) Additional in the 2015 rule. Some commenters below. Similarly, commenters raised maintenance and repair activities not argued that EPA’s costs were too issues with the ability of CSCs to handle accounted for in the 2015 maintenance conservative and asserted that these high ash loading rates. While staff at one allowances; 76 (2) water imbalances costs would not be necessary at most plant indicated that they successfully within the system, such as those sites. While EPA agrees that it is not ramped up the speed of their CSC to associated with stormwater; 77 and (3) likely that all plants would incur these handle more tons of ash per hour, and water chemistry imbalances, including additional costs, EPA had no means to constructed a 100 percent redundant acidity and corrosiveness, scaling, and predict which plants would ultimately system, AEP submitted comments that fines buildup. While some plants have incur these additional costs, and thus the installation of CSCs at a larger controlled or eliminated these the Agency reasonably assumed, for lignite EGU with high ash loading rates challenges with relatively purposes of its economic achievability would be considered high ‘‘application straightforward steps (See DCNs analysis, that each plant would incur risk.’’ 73 Specifically, the lignite coal SE08179 and SE06963), others require these costs—in order to ensure that the burned in this EGU has a much higher more extensive process changes and costs upon which economic ash content, and its bottom ash tends to associated increased costs or find them achievability are based are not be more abrasive, relative to the typical difficult to resolve (See DCNs SE08188, underestimated. However, to the extent bituminous coals burned and bottom SE08180, and SE06920). that necessary purges are smaller than EPA agrees that the new information ash produced at other AEP EGUs. As a this upper bound, EPA evaluated an indicates that some plants with wet ash result, 100 percent redundant systems alternate scenario in a Bottom Ash removal systems can operate as zero would be required, which would Alternate Purge Sensitivity Analysis discharge systems, but in many cases eliminate the cost savings potential of (DCN SE09073). These lower costs were must operate as high recycle rate the CSC system.74 In contrast, no considered in addition to the costs systems. While some plants currently commenters claimed that pneumatic presented above and would not change handle the challenges discussed above systems had loading rate constraints. EPA’s conclusion that high recycle rate by discharging some portion of their BA Finally, industry engineers, third-party systems, rather than closed-loop transport water, the record demonstrates systems, are BAT. For further discussion EPC firms, and vendors have indicated that plants can likely eliminate such that pneumatic systems and CSCs can of public comments and responses discharges with additional process about closed loop and high recycle rate be installed at plants that are changes and expenditures. For the 2015 constrained from retrofitting the larger systems, see DCN SE08615. rule, EPA estimated costs of chemical EPA also recognizes the need for under-EGU MDS due to insufficient additions to manage scaling. Now, plants to consider their ability to vertical space under the EGU. EPA has companies could be adding additional comply with multiple environmental identified five EGUs at three plants treatment chemicals (caustic) to manage regulations simultaneously. As where MDS installation is precluded acidity or other chemicals to control discussed in Section IV above, EPA has due to insufficient vertical space. alkalinity, using reverse osmosis filters recently finalized the CCR Part A rule, Commenters stated that CSCs, while to remove dissolved solids from a requiring plants to cease receipt of smaller, could not be installed at these slipstream of the recycled water, adding waste in unlined surface impoundments space-constrained plants where MDS polymer to enhance settling and by April 11, 2021 (with certain installation is precluded without dismantling and excavating beneath the 75 See DCNs SE08695 and SE08695A1. 78 Due to the final rule’s changed compliance EGU, and EPA finds that, at a minimum, 76 The 2015 rule maintenance discharges were dates this estimate also includes discounting, which these five EGUs could face such characterized as not a significant portion of the may overstate the savings. limitations. AEP additionally described system volume, compared to, for example, potential 79 Utilities and EPC firms have discussed the discharges resulting from maintenance of the availability of new dry systems, such as the CSC or EGUs where space constraints would remote MDS tank or the conveyor itself. Such pressure systems, which at some plants would have not preclude installation of a single maintenance could require draining the entire costs similar to recirculating wet systems (which CSC, but would preclude the system, which would not be permissible under the would require a purge). Because EPA did not have installation of AEP’s required 100 2015 rule maintenance discharge allowance. cost information to determine the subset of plants 77 The 2015 rule provided no exemption or for which new dry systems might be least costly, allowance for discharges due to precipitation some portion of the costs estimated for this rule 72 EPA only had a conference call with one of events. While systems are often engineered with may be based on selecting recirculating wet systems these two plants because the second plant did not extra capacity to handle rainfall and runoff from a at plants that could ultimately choose to install dry respond to EPA outreach. certain size precipitation event, these events may handling technologies. Thus, EPA may overestimate 73 AEP indicated that the vendor had found this occur back-to-back, or plants may receive events costs or underestimate pollutant removals at the application to be high risk as well. with higher rates of accumulation beyond what the subset of plants where such a dry system would be 74 See DCNs SE08695 and SE08695A1. plant was designed to handle. selected.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64671

exceptions).80 The challenges of wastewater segregation may force those Process changes to existing high recycle operating a truly closed-loop system, plants to continue to send the non-CCR rate, non-closed loop systems made to discussed above, are compounded by wastewater to their existing surface comply with this rule in conjunction the requirements of the CCR rule. Plants impoundments, thus extending their with the CCR rule, as discussed above, often send various CCR and non-CCR surface impoundment operations until could be more challenging without a wastestreams, such as coal mill rejects, new non-CCR wastewater systems can further discharge allowance, and in economizer ash, etc., with BA transport be commissioned. Some comments some plants could also prolong use of water into their surface impoundments. point to CCR rule requirements and unlined surface impoundments. According to reports provided to EPA Duke Energy’s installation of lined EPA concludes that the factors and conversations with electric utilities, retention basins in an attempt to discussed above are sufficient to several plants have already begun (or demonstrate that non-CCR wastewaters support the Agency’s decision not to even completed) the transition away can be managed separately within the select dry handling or closed-loop from impoundments and use the BA 2015 rule time frames. EPA disagrees in systems as BAT for BA transport water. treatment system for some of their non- both instances. While it might be EPA also notes that cost is a statutory CCR (i.e., non-FA, BA, or FGD) possible for the retention basins being factor that it must consider when wastewaters.81 This can be beneficial installed by Duke Energy to handle establishing BAT, and that closed-loop where it reduces the discharge of the redirection of all of these non-CCR systems cost more than high recycle rate non-CCR wastewaters, which might wastewaters, Duke Energy itself did not systems for treatment of BA transport otherwise be discharged subject only to design for this, and instead designed water. Some commenters stated that the TSS limitations applicable to low and currently operates at least some of high recycle rate systems cannot be volume wastewater. At the same time, its high recycle rate systems to handle selected solely on the basis of higher however, doing so can lead to or non-CCR wastewaters.83 The CCR Part A costs when those costs are economically exacerbate scaling, corrosion, or rule generally requires plants to cease achievable. While EPA does not find the plugging of equipment, all of which receiving waste in unlined surface estimated additional cost to industry require process changes and additional impoundments no later than April 2021. would result in plant closures, cost is a expense to address, thereby Nevertheless, in cases where alternative statutory factor that EPA must consider complicating establishment of a closed- capacity is not available, plants may under section 304(b) of the CWA, and loop system. These problems could be request a site-specific alternative closure EPA has discretion in weighing the avoided by purging the system from extension to operate that surface statutory factors, see, e.g., BP time to time, as necessary. Fewer than impoundment until 2023 or 2024. Thus, Exploration & Oil Inc. v. EPA, 66 F.3d 25 percent of plants have not yet if the final rule were to require complete 784, 799–800 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation installed a BA transport water recycling of BA transport water, and this omitted)). EPA views the higher cost of technology beyond surface could only be accomplished by fully closed-loop systems as an impoundments and could potentially segregating wastewaters, at least some additional factor supporting EPA’s employ a dry system. However, due to plants that might currently be able to decision to reject closed-loop systems as the fast approaching cease-receipt-of- meet the CCR Part A rule’s April 2021 BAT for treating BA transport water. waste date under the CCR rule, it is cease-receipt-of-waste date would Some commenters argued that the probable that the majority of these instead be forced to request a site- proposed BAT based on high recycle rate systems is not warranted because plants have already begun their specific alternative closure extension that technology basis does not represent conversions to wet ash handling and continue operating the existing, what is achieved by the single best systems, which makes switching to a unlined surface impoundment while performing plant, and even went so far wholly different BA handling they developed alternative disposal as to say that this standard reflected the technology infeasible so late into the capacity to manage these newly 82 worst performing plant. EPA disagrees process. For EPA to not allow a purge segregated wastestreams. may encourage more of the non-CCR In light of the foregoing process with these commenters. Some wastewaters mentioned above to be changes and associated engineering companies began proactive fleetwide conversions either before the effective discharged as low volume waste. In challenges facing plants needing to dates of the 2015 rule or in some cases order to accommodate both compliance implement a true zero discharge BA before the 2015 rule was signed. Many with this rule and the CCR Part A rule, transport water limitation in of these fleetwide conversions were to EPA finds it necessary for the permitting combination with the CCR rule, and to the remote MDS, a specific type of high authority to allow for a high recycle rate give plants flexibilities that will recycle rate system that formed the system with some purge rather than a facilitate orderly compliance with the ‘‘closed-loop’’ part of the 2015 rule BA truly closed-loop system. fast-approaching CCR rule deadlines, transport water BAT technology basis. Furthermore, to the extent that plants EPA determines that the basis of the BA had not designed, planned, procured, or As discussed above, these systems do transport water BAT limitations is the commissioned segregated non-CCR not all operate 100 percent closed-loop, use of high recycle rate systems rather wastewater treatment systems yet, as EPA assumed they did when than dry handling or closed-loop requiring a plant to close the loop where finalizing the 2015 rule. Based on systems, which were the technologies closed loop operation would require actual, measured purge rates in EPRI on which the zero discharge BAT (2016), however, the Agency estimates limitation (adopted in the 2015 rule) 80 As mentioned in Section IV of this preamble, that actual purge rates necessary on a further information about this proposal is available were based. EPA’s conclusion is based day-to-day basis may be less than one at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket EPA–HQ– on its discretion to give particular percent of the system’s volume, with OLEM–2019–0172. weight to the CWA Section 304(b) 81 In some cases, the treatment system predated higher purges necessary at less frequent even the proposed CCR rule. statutory factor of ‘‘process changes.’’ intervals due to precipitation and 82 The CCR Part A rule acknowledges that a maintenance. Furthermore, while 83 subset of plants which were lined or met the For example, Duke Energy’s Belews Creek plant surface impoundments can cover groundwater monitoring requirements and location manages its coal mill rejects wastestream in its restrictions may not yet have taken steps to convert recently commissioned remote mechanical drag dozens of acres and contain volumes in their systems. system. the billions of gallons, typical high

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64672 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

recycle rate systems have volumes flexibility if and when needed to result of the CCR rule. New wastewater closer to one-half million gallons (1⁄2 address site-specific challenges of treatment systems installed for low million). Thus, even assuming the operating the recirculating ash system volume wastewater and other proposed maximum allowable purge of (for more on implementation, see wastestreams (which could be used to 10 percent is necessary for a unit, the Section XIV of this preamble).85 treat the wastewater purged from a high average gallons per day released by high Some commenters suggested that EPA recycle rate system), as well as the types recycle rate systems will be two percent establish a BMP plan rather than a 10 of wastestreams combined in such of the average gallons per day released percent purge. Commenters seemed to systems, are likely to vary across plants. by surface impoundments, and therefore misunderstand the 10 percent purge in For further purge-related public will also be 1.5 percent of the pollutant relation to BAT. When EPA establishes comments and responses see DCN releases expected from surface BAT, it selects a technology that is SE08615. impoundments. Industry-wide, EPA available nationally and economically In light of the information discussed estimates this combination of reduced achievable industry-wide. EPA then above, and EPA’s authority under volume and increased recycling reduces calculates the effluent limitations section 304(b) to consider both the discharges by 366 million pounds of expected from the performance of the process employed (for maintenance pollutants per year, and thus makes selected technology. Only after needs) and process changes (for new reasonable further progress toward the establishing those limitations might treatment systems installed to comply CWA goal to eliminate the discharge of EPA impose an additional BMP plan with the CCR rule), EPA concluded that pollutants. See 33 U.S.C. 1251(a), under section 304(e) of the CWA. Here, BAT limitations for any wastewater that 1311(b)(2)(A). Therefore, it is the BAT is high recycle rate systems, and is purged from a high recycle rate combination of the reduced system based on the available data, EPA has system and then discharged, should be volume and high capacity to recycle BA established limitations that such established by the NPDES permitting transport water that supports EPA’s systems can achieve. authority on a case-by-case basis using basis for high recycle rate systems as Under the final rule’s site-specific BPJ. EPA concludes that permitting BAT. requirement for determining discharge authorities are in a better position than The Agency also received comments allowances there may be wastewater EPA to examine site-specific climate that a generic 10 percent purge was not from whatever is purged by the high and maintenance factors, especially justified and that tighter limitations recycle rate system, and plants may since the permitting authority will could be applied in some cases. One wish to discharge this wastewater. At already be determining the allowable state commenter argued that it should proposal, EPA solicited comment on volume of purge, up to a maximum of be permissible for a permitting authority whether specific technologies should be 10 percent of the system’s volume. to continue to set zero discharge selected as BAT for the purged Permitting authorities will also be in a requirements. EPA has considered these wastewater. Some commenters better position than EPA to account for comments and made modifications to suggested that surface impoundments site-specific treatment technologies and improve the final rule. EPA is finalizing should be selected because the high their configurations already installed or the site-specific alternative for which it recycle rate systems already make being installed to comp0ly with the CCR solicited comment. Under the final rule, reasonable forward progress. While EPA rule and other regulations which could EPA establishes that the NPDES agrees that high recycle rate systems accommodate the volumes of, and permitting authority will determine on make reasonable forward progress in successfully treat, any discharges of a case-by-case basis the purge allowance wastewater from a high recycle rate accordance with the CWA, the Agency (not to exceed 10 percent) necessary at system associated with the proposed must still consider any available a particular plant with a wet transport allowance. treatment alternatives for the purged system.84 EPA is not identifying surface As with the proposal, this site-specific wastewater. Two considerations make impoundments as BAT for BA transport purge could in no case exceed 10 determining a nationwide BAT for these water because surface impoundments percent of the system volume per day on discharges challenging and site-specific. are not as effective at removing a 30-day rolling average. EPA concludes First, in the case of precipitation or dissolved metals as available and that the maximum purge volume would maintenance-related purges, such achievable technologies, such as high more than account for the challenges purges could be large volumes at recycle rate systems. Furthermore, the 86 identified above, including infrequent infrequent intervals. Each plant record since the 2015 rule shows that large precipitation and maintenance necessarily has different climates and plants have continued to convert away events. EPA defines the term ‘‘30-day maintenance needs that make selecting from surface impoundments to the types rolling average’’ to mean the series of a uniform treatment system more of technologies described above, either averages using the measured values of difficult. Second, utilities have stated voluntarily or due to the CCR rule, and the preceding 30 days for each average that discharges of wastewater associated in 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for in the series. The purge volume is more with high recycle rate systems are sent the District of Columbia vacated that appropriately determined on a case-by- to low volume wastewater treatment portion of the 2015 CCR rule that case basis because these plants vary so systems, which are typically dewatering allowed both unlined and clay-lined much with regard to what purge is basins or surface impoundments. Many surface impoundments to continue needed to maintain the wastewater of these systems are in transition as a operating. USWAG v. EPA, No. 15–1219 treatment system versus the tradeoffs at (D.C. Cir. 2018). Since very few CCR each site regarding what options are 85 EPA’s pollutant loading analyses provided in surface impoundments are composite- Section IX.B of this preamble and described in available for the non-CCR wastewater, detail in the BCA Report and Supplemental TDD, lined, the practical effect of this ruling Thus, this option is designed to provide were based on an assumed 10 percent purge at each is that many plants with operating affected plant, and therefore overestimates pollutant impoundments likely will cease sluicing 84 While this could include a purge of zero discharges associated with the BAT for BA waste to these impoundments in the transport water. percent, EPA believes that such a determination near future. In the 2015 CCR rule, EPA could only occur in those cases where the system 86 For example, rainfall exceeding a 10 year, 24- is designed to function, and is demonstrated to hour event would only be expected to occur twice estimated that it would be less costly for successfully perform, as a zero discharge system. during the 20-year lifetime of the equipment. plants to install under-EGU or remote

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64673

drag chain systems and send BA to EPA disagrees. The VIP program install a new thermal system under a landfills rather than continue to wet established in the 2015 rule was not VIP program as the least cost sluice BA and replace unlined challenged in court (and also not technology, though some might install it impoundments with composite lined challenged by these particular to comply with water quality-based impoundments. This supports the commenters who challenged other effluent limitations established by their suggestion that surface impoundments aspects of the 2015 rule). The statute is permitting authority.87 As authorized by are not BAT for all plants; however, silent with respect to BAT effluent section 304(b) of the CWA, which EPA is identifying surface limitations established after 1989. As allows EPA to consider costs, EPA is impoundments as BAT for two the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth selecting membrane filtration as the subcategories, as discussed later in this Circuit recently held, the CWA’s technology basis for the VIP limitations, section. In addition, EPA is defining a requirement in 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(C), with limitations for mercury, arsenic, new wastestream, BA purge water, (D), and (F) that effluent limitations be selenium, nitrate-nitrite, bromide, and which is a more accurate term than the met no later than three years after TDS.88 proposed ‘‘maintenance purge water.’’ promulgation plainly applies only to Also, as authorized by section 304(b) BA purge water consists of the water initial BAT limitations, not revisions of of the CWA, which allows EPA to permissibly purged from a high recycle such effluent limitations. Clean Water consider process changes and non-water rate system. This wastestream is no Action v. Pruitt, 936 F.3d 308, 316 (5th quality environmental impacts, EPA is longer defined as BA transport water; Cir. 2018). The compliance deadlines in revising the compliance date for the VIP therefore EPA is making conforming Sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F) of the limitations to December 31, 2028. That changes to the BPT regulations to make CWA only apply to effluent limitation is the date EPA has determined that the clear that the BPT limitations based on guidelines that were established prior to membrane filtration technology will surface impoundments for TSS and oil the outside dates specified in those likely be available for full-scale and grease, which are applicable to BA provisions. They do not apply to implementation at those plants that transport water, also continue to be effluent limitations guidelines choose to adopt it. EPA proposed to applicable to BA purge water. Effluent established in 2020. For further conclude that membrane technology limitations for BA purge water are to be discussion, see DCN SE08615. would be nationally available in 2028. established by the permitting authority New information in several utilities’ Some commenters asserted that it is based on BPJ. internal analyses and contractor reports inappropriate for EPA to predict a date provided to EPA since the 2015 rule, as 3. Voluntary Incentives Program (VIP) in the future when a technology will well as information EPA gathered in become nationally available for CWA The final rule includes a VIP that meetings with utilities, EPC firms, and purposes. EPA agrees with these provides the certainty of more time vendors, indicates that plant decisions commenters and in the final rule (until December 31, 2028, instead of a to install the more expensive thermal concludes only that membrane date determined by the permitting systems both prior to and following the technology will likely be available by authority that is as soon as possible 2015 rule were driven by water-quality- 2028 on a site-specific basis. Although beginning October 13, 2021) for plants based effluent limitations imposed by EPA will continue investigating the to implement new BAT limitations if the NPDES permitting authority. These availability and economic achievability they adopt additional process changes documents and meetings also revealed of this technology, EPA cannot predict and controls that achieve limitations on that several plants considered installing with certainty that the technology will mercury, arsenic, selenium, nitrate- membrane filtration technologies under be nationally available in 2028. nitrite, bromide, and TDS in FGD the 2015 rule VIP as well, and EPA is The 2028 time frame is based on the wastewater, based on membrane plus aware of one company, GenOn, that has time necessary to pilot, design, procure, pretreatment technology. The 2015 rule plants that opted into the 2015 VIP with and install both the membrane filtration included a similar VIP that was based plans to use membrane filtration systems and the brine management on thermal evaporation technology and technologies to meet the VIP limitations. systems, including disposal capacity. that would extend the compliance Despite membrane filters not being Additional time is also often necessary deadline for VIP participants by five available nationwide and not being to complete the permitting process. This years. See Section VIII(C)(13) of the appropriate for all facilities, due to time frame should also be adequate for 2015 rule preamble for a more complete electric utilities’ continued interest in description of the selection of the this technology, EPA evaluated alternative VIP-compliant technologies, thermal technology basis, chemical membrane filtration as an alternative such as thermal systems. Because EPA precipitation (with softening) followed basis for the VIP limitations. establishes BAT effluent limitations by a falling film evaporator. As in the Under the final rule, EPA establishes based on a specific technology’s 2015 rule, EPA expects the additional VIP limitations based on membrane performance, but does not require a time to achieve compliance, combined filtration, replacing the 2015 rule VIP specific technology for compliance, with other factors (such as the limitations based on thermal thermal systems would still be possibility that a plant’s NPDES permit technology, because EPA estimates that allowable under the final rule VIP may need more stringent limitations to membrane filtration systems are less program, as would alternative non- meet applicable water quality costly than thermal systems and have membrane technologies that meet the standards), may lead some plants to comparable pollutant removal limitations. choose this option for future performance. Membrane filtration Some commenters argued that the implementation by incorporating the achieves pollutant removals comparable 2028 deadline for the VIP is too long, VIP limitations into their permit when to thermal systems in situations where citing shorter construction time frames applying. the thermal system would discharge, and an email from one electric utility Some commenters argued that EPA which the VIP in the 2015 authorized. lacks authority under the CWA to Due to the significantly higher costs of 87 See, e.g., https://www.powermag.com/how-low- temperature-evaporation-treats-fgd-wastewater/ establish a VIP with compliance thermal systems compared to chemical (DCN SE09091). deadlines beyond three years from the precipitation followed by LRTR, EPA 88 Note that the 2015 rule VIP did not include date of promulgation of the final rule. does not expect that many plants would limitations for nitrate/nitrite or bromide.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64674 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

suggesting a VIP deadline of 2026 would discussions, such a process may be less deposits, and loss of heat transfer be feasible.89 While EPA agrees that costly than current brine disposal efficiency within the EGU. This some plants opting into the VIP may be alternatives. This process could also extremely clean water is turned into able to install the technology sooner, reduce non-water quality environmental steam at the EGU and is used to turn the part of the incentive for the program, impacts by reducing the amount of FA blades of the turbine to generate which is expected to result in used, decreasing air emissions and fuel electricity before being condensed back substantial additional pollutant use associated with trucking and into water at the cooling towers and removals from plants opting in, is the spreading, and, where FA is already returned to the EGU. Some plants that extra time provided to achieve being disposed of, reduce the volumes participate in the VIP and install a compliance. Finally, EPA notes that this and pollutant concentrations in membrane filtration system to treat their time frame is also similar to the eight- leachate.90 91 EPA is aware that part of FGD wastewater by the 2028 year period between promulgation of Plant Scherer’s current, long-term pilot compliance date might find it the 2015 rule and the 2023 deadline for study is intended to evaluate this very advantageous to direct their partially the 2015 rule’s VIP. For a further process. treated FGD wastewater through their discussion of VIP timing in public Two additional challenges were EGU makeup water RO system, instead comments and responses, see DCN identified for the membrane filtration of employing a second stage RO SE08615. technology or the paste technology treatment to meet the membrane EPA finds that using membrane described above. The first challenge filtration-based limitations in this rule. filtration as the technology basis for the regarding the paste alternative is In these cases, it is unlikely that the VIP does not result in the same non- developing approaches to manage FGD wastewater treated using the first water quality environmental impacts wastes (e.g., flush water) from periodic stage of the membrane filtration that informed the Agency’s decision not cleaning of the paste transportation treatment system alone would meet the to select membranes as BAT for the piping, where such piping is used.92 final membrane-based limitations (i.e., entire industry. First, participation in Consistent with the proposal, and as an internal limitation could not be met), the VIP is voluntary and EPA would authorized by section 304(b) of the and after mixing with other source expect it to be selected only by plants CWA, which allows EPA to consider the water (e.g., river water or groundwater) for which it presents the least cost process employed, EPA is finalizing a at the EGU makeup water RO treatment option, accounting for particular FA modification of the definition of FGD system, it could be infeasible to production, use, disposal and market wastewater and ash transport water to demonstrate compliance based on availability. Where plants have limited explicitly exclude water used to clean existing methods.93 Small amounts of FA markets and already dispose of their FGD paste piping. This enables plants EGU water are handled as EGU ash, they could dispose of the brine using paste piping for brine blowdown, which is sent to flash tanks using encapsulation or ash conditioning encapsulation and disposal in an on-site where most will turn to steam. While without reducing beneficial use of FA. landfill to clean residual paste from some of the rest can be recycled, at EPA understands that this is the case at pipes and other equipment more easily. times it is necessary to discharge this Duke’s Mayo Plant. Other plants may The second challenge is that some water, subject to existing limitations for have sufficient external sources of FA plants that might want to re-use the first low volume waste (as the existing and landfill space to dispose of an stage, membrane-treated FGD regulatory definition of low volume encapsulated material. EPA understands wastewater without a polishing RO wastes includes EGU blowdown). This that this is the case at GenOn’s two stage as EGU makeup water could be could occur where the EGU is emptied discouraged from doing so. As remaining Maryland plants. Of course, for maintenance (e.g., to repair tube discussed in Section VII(B)(1) above, RO brine disposal options are not the only leaks) or shut down (e.g., during is the standard treatment for source considerations for plants deciding outages). Reduced water withdrawals water (e.g., groundwater and surface whether to participate in the VIP. As are a non-water quality environmental water) used in the EGU to generate noted above, GenOn indicated that final impact that not only saves plants money steam. These existing systems must plans for treatment technology for both to withdraw and treat significant ensure sufficiently low levels of units will depend on the standards of volumes of water, but would also reduce pollutants (such as TDS) to prevent this final rule, and for one of its units, impingement and entrainment. EPA corrosion, fouling, foaming, scale changing electricity demand. projects that the final rule VIP will Finally, forthcoming changes in result in 292,000 gallons per day of 90 membrane filtration brine disposal Sniderman, Debbie. 2017. From Power Plant to reduced water withdrawals at eight Landfill: Encapsulation. Innovative Technology plants. While some of these reduced options may reduce the non-water Offers Elegant Solution for Disposing of Multiple quality environmental impacts Types of Waste. EPRI Journal. September 19. water withdrawals may be due to associated with encapsulation, as Available online at: http://eprijournal.com/from- increased recycling within the FGD discussed in Section VII(b)(i) above. power-plant-to-landfill-encapsulation/ (DCN system, at least a portion of these SE09092). reduced withdrawals would be expected Through discussions with several 91 Although EPA is not establishing BAT for where a plant used the permeate as EGU utilities and EPRI, EPA learned that a leachate in the current rulemaking, the vacatur and developing ‘‘paste’’ technology may remand of BAT for leachate in Southwestern makeup water. Therefore, to encourage allow plants to mix the brine with lower Electric Power Co., et al. v. EPA means that this practice where EGU makeup water decreasing volumes of leachate and the quantities of FA and lime and pump the is ultimately discharged as EGU concentration of pollutants in that leachate might blowdown, the EPA is making a change resulting paste via pipes to an onsite make more technologies available in a future BAT from proposal by clarifying that landfill where the paste would self-level rulemaking. 92 membrane permeate and thermal prior to setting as an encapsulated Utilities described this process as water material. According to these pushing a ball through the paste piping when not in use, based on cleaning done of concrete pipes at 93 As discussed in Section XIII of this preamble, construction sites. While the ball would clean out the data points used for developing limitations of 89 This company appears to be retiring its coal- the majority of the paste, water would still contact three constituents in the VIP included too many fired EGUs from service, and therefore EPA does incidental amounts of ash and FGD materials, thus non-detect values to develop a monthly limit, and not project that it would use the VIP whether the potentially subjecting it to regulations for those these data points did not include dilution water, as deadline is 2026 or 2028. wastewaters. would be the case here.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64675

distillate used as EGU makeup water is to early retirement). In the 2015 rule, higher capital cost than other plants in not considered FGD wastewater, and is EPA stated: the industry. The 2015 rule discussed thus removing them from the definition ‘‘If these units shut down, EPA is the ability of high flow plants to recycle of FGD wastewater at 423.11(n). concerned about resulting reductions in the FGD wastewater back into the air A compliance date of December 31, flexibility that grid operators have during pollution control system to decrease 2028 for the VIP allows time for further peak demand due to less reserve generating FGD wastewater flows and treatment development of this paste technology, capacity to draw upon. But, more costs. After the 2015 rule, the Tennessee increasing its availability to plants, and importantly, maintaining a diverse fleet of Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a giving plants more time to acquire any generating units that includes a variety of request seeking a fundamentally necessary permits for landfill cells for fuel sources is important to the nation’s different factors (FDF) variance for its brine encapsulated with FA and lime if energy security. Because the supply/delivery Cumberland power plant.96 This needed; allowing plants time to conduct network for oil is different from other fuel sources, maintaining the existence of oil-fired variance request relied primarily on two pilot testing, demonstrations, and generating units helps ensure reliable electric facts. First, TVA stated that further analyses to identify and power generation, as commenters Cumberland’s FGD wastewater flow implement process changes associated confirmed.’’ 95 volumes are several million gallons per with membrane filtration; and assessing day,97 approximately an order of the long-term performance of the For these subcategorized units in the magnitude higher than many other technology for treatment of FGD 2015 rule, EPA established plants with comparable generation wastewaster. differentiated limitations based on capacity, and millions of gallons per day Taken together, EPA’s final VIP gives surface impoundments (i.e., setting BAT higher than the next highest flow rate in plants greater flexibility when choosing limitations equal to BPT limitations on the entire industry.98 TVA further stated a technology to achieve the established TSS). that the FGD system at Cumberland is VIP pollutant limitations, resulting in EPA did not propose, and is not constructed of a steel alloy that is pollutant reductions beyond the BAT changing in this final rule, the 2015 rule susceptible to chloride corrosion. Based limitations that are generally applicable subcategorization of small EGUs and oil- on the typical chloride concentrations to the industry. Under the proposal, fired units. The final rule does, in the FGD scrubber, the plant would be EPA estimated that 18 plants may opt however, incorporate and expand on able to recycle little, if any, of the into the VIP program. Based on public EPA’s previous analysis of wastewater back to the scrubber as a comments and cost estimate revisions, characteristics and differences within means for reducing the flow volume under the final rule, EPA now estimates the industry. EPA has authority in a sent to a treatment system.99 Second, as that eight plants (13 percent of plants national rulemaking to establish a result of the inability to recycle these estimated to incur FGD compliance different limits for different plants after high FGD flows, TVA stated that the costs) may opt into the VIP program. considering the statutory factors listed cost of a biological treatment system EPA is not finalizing the VIP for PSES in section 304(b). See Texas Oil & Gas would be high. for several reasons. First, the CWA Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 938 (5th Cir. The final rule subcategorizes plants dictates that plants subject to PSES 1998) (‘‘We find nothing in the text of with FGD purge flows of greater than comply within three years after the the CWA indicating that Congress four million gallons per day, after limitations are promulgated. Thus, the intended to prohibit the promulgation of accounting for that plant’s ability to statute does not allow for additional different effluent limits within a single recycle the wastewater to the maximum time to implement VIP limitations. subcategory of point sources .... The limitations for the FGD system materials Second, there are only two plants with fact that EPA must promulgate rules for of construction, to avoid placing a indirect discharges of FGD wastewater. classes of polluters rather than disproportionate cost on such plants. One of these plants has announced its individual polluters does not mean that Such a flow reflects the reasonably retirement, and EPA expects that plant EPA is required to treat all polluters predictable flow associated with actual to participate in the subcategory for within each class identically. The and expected FGD operations. EGUs permanently ceasing the phrases ‘for categories and classes’ and According to TVA’s analysis, combustion of coal. The other plant has ‘within such categories or classes’ chemical precipitation plus biological a water quality-based effluent limitation simply do not, by their terms, exclude treatment at that high flow plant would that would already call for the use of a a rule allowing less than perfect result in a capital cost of $171 million, technology that could meet the VIP uniformity within a category or limitations. Since a PSES VIP would not subcategory.). The final rule includes 96 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)— subcategories applicable to FGD Cumberland Fossil Plant—NPDES Permit No. grant any additional time or flexibility, TN0005789—TVA Request for Alternative Effluent EPA determines that such a provision is wastewater and BA transport water for Limitations for Wet FGD System Discharges Based not justified. EGUs with low utilization and EGUs on Fundamentally Different Factors Pursuant to 33 permanently ceasing the combustion of U.S.C. 1311(n). April 28, 2016. C. Additional Subcategories coal. In addition, the final rule includes 97 In the FDF variance, TVA cites to a hypothetical maximum flow of 9 MGD; however, In the 2015 rule, EPA established a subcategory applicable to FGD based on survey responses and discussions with subcategories for small EGUs (less than wastewater for power plants with high TVA staff, the company has never approached this or equal to 50 MW nameplate capacity) FGD flows. These subcategories are flow rate and does not expect to. and oil-fired units. EPA subcategorized discussed below. 98 Cumberland accounts for approximately one- small EGUs due to disproportionate seventh to one-sixth of all industry FGD wastewater 1. Plants With High FGD Flows flows. costs when compared to the rest of the 99 Reducing the volume purged from the FGD industry and subcategorized oil-fired Consistent with the proposal, EPA is system or recycling FGD wastewater back to the units both because they generated finalizing a subcategory for plants with FGD system can be used to reduce the volume of substantially fewer pollutants and are high FGD flows based on the statutory wastewater requiring treatment, and thus reduce the 94 factor of cost. Specifically, this cost of treating the wastes. However, reducing the generally older (and more susceptible flow sent to treatment also has the effect of subcategory faces a disproportionately increasing the concentration of chlorides in the 94 Age is a statutory factor for BAT. CWA section wastewater, and FGD system metallurgy can impose 304(b), 33 U.S.C. 1304(b). 95 80 FR 67856 (November 3, 2015). constraints on the degree of recycle that is possible.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64676 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and an O&M cost of approximately $20 in establishing the national on these unacceptable disparate costs. million per year.100 EPA’s cost estimates limitations’’). EPA finds that chemical precipitation are higher than TVA’s, a $235 million With respect to establishing a does not impose the same unacceptable dollar capital cost plus $21 million per subcategory based on costs, EPA is disparate costs. Therefore, the year in O&M. EPA proposed to find that required to consider ‘‘cost’’ under the subcategory BAT is based on chemical these costs are disproportionate, and statute, and that includes consideration precipitation, with effluent limitations thus proposed to subcategorize the of costs for a subcategory. See Chem. for mercury and arsenic. Cumberland plant and any other plant Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 239 with similarly high flows. (5th Cir. 1989). EPA has broad 2. Low Utilization EGUs Some commenters argued that EPA discretion in deciding how to account EPA is establishing a new subcategory cannot legally create a subcategory of for the consideration factors and the for EGUs with low utilization (i.e., one plant. These commenters suggest weight to be accorded to each factor. See peaking EGUs) based on the statutory that EPA must issue a fundamentally Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d factors of cost, non-water quality different factors (FDF) variance rather 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Chem. Mfrs. environmental impacts (including than create a subcategory. Other Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 214; Texas Oil energy requirements), and other factors commenters argued that EPA cannot & Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 928 the Administrator deems appropriate create a subcategory based on costs (5th Cir. 1998). Here, EPA has (i.e., harmonization with Clean Air Act alone and that EPA had overestimated determined that total capital costs are a and CWA regulations which apply to costs. Finally, commenters claimed that reasonable way to consider cost in this electric utilities). Low natural gas prices EPA reversed previous findings about scenario because they demonstrate the and other factors have led to a decline the ability to recycle within the significant up-front disparity created in capacity utilization for the majority of Cumberland FGD system without just to install the system. EPA coal-fired EGUs. According to EIA 923 sufficient explanation. acknowledges that the capital cost data,101 overall coal-fired production for With respect to subcategory size, EPA estimates developed by the Agency at 2017–2018 was approximately one-third does not agree that the CWA prohibits proposal were, and continue to be for lower than in 2009, with the majority of the creation of the subcategory for the final rule, higher than TVA’s EGUs decreasing utilization, some of plants with high flows, and EPA estimates, but notes that the O&M costs them significantly. While the majority of discussed its CWA authority earlier in are nearly identical. EPA’s estimated EGUs were base load in 2009, coal-fired this section. Here, EPA has determined capital costs for Cumberland amount to EGUs today often operate as cycling or that plants that have particularly high one quarter of the total capital costs to peaking EGUs, responding to changes in FGD flows are different from other the entire industry for treating FGD load demand.102 plants in the industry with respect to wastewater with CP+LRTR, but they In light of these industry changes, the compliance costs they would incur would still amount to approximately EPA examined the costs of the 2019 if they were expected to achieve the one fifth if TVA’s estimated capital costs proposed BAT limitations and otherwise applicable limits based on were used. Both instances represent pretreatment standards for FGD CP+LRTR. While EPA is currently aware disproportionately high costs, as wastewater and BA transport water on of only one plant that operates with compared to the rest of the industry. the basis of MWh produced, rather than flows at this high level, any plant in the Furthermore, while the baseline IPM the nameplate capacity (which was used industry that operates with these flow run discussed below used costs of the to subcategorize EGUs with 50 MW levels would qualify for the different 2015 rule (i.e., CP+HRTR), which are capacity or less in the 2015 rule). limitations established in this somewhat higher than those for this Specifically, the Agency proposed a subcategory. final rule, these costs were projected to subcategorization for plants producing With respect to FDF variances, EPA result in reduction of Cumberland’s less than 876,000 MWh per year on a does not agree that CWA section 301(n) operations by 96 percent and partial rolling two-year basis. EPA received somehow restricts EPA’s authority to retirement of the plant in order to meet many comments on this subcategory, establish subcategories. Rather, section the 2015 rule requirements. including some that suggested different 301(n) provides an ‘‘acceptable With respect to recycling within the MWh utilization thresholds or tiering alternative to subcategorizing an FGD scrubber system, EPA has not with different limitations for different industry to account for plant-specific reversed any previous findings. At thresholds. Some commenters argued characteristics.’’ Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. proposal, EPA found that, based on the that the proposed cutoff was not based EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 221 (5th Cir. 1989) maximum chlorides concentrations on utilization at all, and that it could (citation omitted). While EPA is ‘‘not allowable in ‘‘once through’’ FGD apply to very high utilization EGUs that required to establish separate systems, many of these systems could just happened to have a smaller subcategories for single plants,’’ Chem. still employ some recycling of FGD nameplate capacity, or recommended Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 239, it water within the scrubber. For plants that EPA consider other utilization is not prohibited from doing so. like Cumberland, this was true in 2015 measures such as the eight percent CUR Furthermore, FDFs are different from and is true today. The amount of threshold used in the 2012 Mercury and subcategories in important ways recycling EPA estimated for Air Toxics Standards rule (77 FR 9304, because they typically are based on Cumberland, however, is small relative February 16, 2012). EPA agrees with the information that EPA did not have a to its flows. This recycling is explicitly latter comments and has made changes chance to consider in the national accounted for in the 2019 proposal, and rulemaking. See 40 CFR 125.31(a)(2) (a now in the final rule analysis of O&M 101 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/ request for establishment of effluent costs. For further public comments and 102 In meetings and conference calls with electric limitations based on fundamentally responses on the propriety of this utilities and trade organizations, several examples different factors shall be approved only subcategory, see DCN SE08615. were provided of former base load plants that have if the factors are ‘‘fundamentally As authorized by section 304(b) of the since modified operations to be load-following, or that no longer produce at all except for peak days different from those considered by EPA CWA, which allows EPA to consider in summer or winter. These discussions tracked costs, EPA is finalizing a new closely with changes in production reported in the 100 Email to Anna Wildeman. November 13, 2018. subcategory for FGD wastewater based EIA 923 data.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64677

in the final rule to ensure that this frequently and to what extent an EGU is proposed rule’s 876,000 MWh/yr subcategory is focused on low generating electricity: The more an EGU threshold, nearly two-thirds have a CUR utilization EGUs and better reflect the runs, the higher the CUR, and the more over 25 percent. This confirms that the intent of this subcategory, which its residuals it generates and must pay to subcategory as proposed was more name makes apparent. Specifically, EPA dispose of.103 In contrast to O&M costs indicative of low production rather than has changed how it determines low which correlate to how much an EGU is low utilization. Thus, to properly utilization from a method which was operating, capital costs do not vary with evaluate low utilization, EPA compared based on MWh/yr (a production metric) generation as they correspond to the costs on a CUR basis. Figure VIII–1 to one based on utilization as measured original design of a system that can below presents annualized capital costs by CUR. handle the maximum FGD scrubber per MWh produced versus CUR. These Similar to EPA’s finding regarding purge flow and ash generation rate such are the costs of Option B (i.e., no small units in the 2015 rule, the record that the system can handle a high-end/ indicates that disparate costs to meet the peaking power demand scenario subcategorization) as measured against proposed FGD wastewater and BA (typically the EGU’s nameplate capacity the status quo, rather than against the transport water BAT limitations and which would result in a CUR of 100%) 2015 rule baseline. This figure shows pretreatment standards are imposed on and still meet the limitations. Thus, as that four to six EGUs with a CUR EGUs with low capacity utilization. utilization decreases, O&M costs are between 0 percent and 16 percent have Specifically, EPA focused its analysis on expected to decrease proportionally, disparately higher capital costs per annualized capital costs as opposed to while capital costs are not. MWh produced than facilities with a O&M costs because O&M costs are often Of the EGUs which EPA estimates higher CUR. tied to CUR, a measure of how have production lower than the

Some commenters argued that the unit costs, EPA finds that many during peak loading. For example, EGUs CWA does not allow subcategorization decisions to retire, repower, or upgrade operating for approximately one month based on costs. Some commenters also treatment are made at the EGU level, out of the year would have a CUR just argued that costs should properly be and many other EPA regulations are tied over eight percent, but their continued compared on a plant basis, and that to EGUs, as discussed below. Thus, an operation is useful, if not necessary, for costs are not disparate on a plant basis. EGU-level comparison is appropriate ensuring electricity reliability in the EPA disagrees with these comments. when examining disparate costs of this near term. Some commenters disagreed See the discussion in the introduction of rule. that electricity reliability is a concern, this subcategorization section. EPA also In addition to disparate costs, EPA and they pointed to excess reserve notes that it subcategorized units with a considered non-water quality margins in some regions of the country. 50 MW nameplate capacity or less based environmental impacts (including EPA acknowledges that electricity on disparate costs alone in the 2015 energy requirements). Because CUR is a reliability may not be a concern rule, and that provision of the 2015 rule reflection of the frequency and extent of everywhere in the U.S., nor will it be a was not challenged. With respect to an EGU’s generation, LUEGUs concern in all seasons. For instance, the commenters’ arguments that the necessarily operate much less most recent NERC winter reliability relevant metric is plant costs rather than frequently, delivering electricity only assessment states, ‘‘Anticipated

103 Unlike residuals, wastewater volumes need flexibility in how the system is operated and timing not always vary directly with utilization due to of the generation of wastewater.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER13OC20.002 64678 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

resources in all assessment areas meet 2019) anticipated reserve margins as that was not anticipated to meet its or exceed their respective Reference well as the reference margin designed to reference margin, and another (MISO) Margin Levels for the upcoming winter ensure electric reliability. As seen in which was anticipated to be very close period.’’ 104 In contrast, Figure VIII–2 that figure, the most recent summer to its reference margin (19 percent vs.17 below presents the most recent (summer assessment showed one region (ERCOT) percent).

The figure above also does not present percent CUR, or have allowed for final rule falls between eight and 10 NERC sub-regions or local distribution, consideration of CUR in site-specific percent CUR, based on EIA data from which may present additional reliability decisions. This provides some flexibility 2017–2018. In light of the range of CURs challenges. For example, one trade in implementing these rules, including over which there appear to be disparate association commenter provided an reduced monitoring, different costs, the potential to contribute to example in Southeast Michigan where a recordkeeping, and alternative reserve margins or provide local natural gas distribution system caught compliance technologies for units flexibility in case of unexpected fire during the winter of 2019. The meeting the relevant CUR threshold. As capacity disruption, and the desire to temporary shortage caused by the fire is clear in these examples, EPA has long harmonize with the range of CURs that and cold temperatures caused local auto considered certain low CUR EGUs as have been provided additional and semiconductor manufacturers to important to local reliability and flexibilities in other EPA rules, the final shut down or cut production and put resiliency of the power grid. Various rule establishes a subcategory for Michigan residents at risk of service definitions of low CUR have been used LUEGUs with an average annual CUR of interruptions.105 To the extent that by EPA programs to identify where less than 10 percent per year averaged LUEGUs are able to remain in service, regulatory requirements should be over 24 months. For further public they would be available to help alleviate different. While in all of these example comments and responses on the these types of short-term localized regulations EPA concluded that propriety of this subcategory, see DCN shortages and outages. additional flexibility was warranted for SE08615. Finally, EPA considered an ‘‘other EGUs based on CUR, EPA did not define Consistent with the proposal, for this factor[ ]’’ the Administrator deems peaking EGUs, nor is the Agency low utilization subcategory, EPA appropriate,106 which is the defining peaking EGUs in this final ELG. selected chemical precipitation as the harmonization of regulations. DOE/EIA EPA has consistently given more technology basis for BAT limitations does not define what a peaking unit is, flexibility to EGUs operating at the and PSES for FGD wastewater, with nor do the CAA or CWA. Nevertheless, margins of the electric grid. While EPA effluent limitations for mercury and EPA has grappled with this issue in has not consistently implemented the arsenic. Also, for this subcategory EPA previous regulations under these two same CUR for all of its regulations, in selected composite lined surface statutes. A discussion of these practice the difference between eight impoundments as the BAT technology regulatory examples is provided in percent and 10 percent CUR is minor, basis for BA transport water and Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines approximately one week of operations. established limitations for TSS based on Reconsideration—Evaluation of Final Furthermore, while the subcategory is surface impoundments in combination Rule Subcategories (DCN SE09071). not limited to EGUs that already operate with a BMP plan under section 304(e) These regulations have in some cases at these levels, EPA estimates that only of the CWA. For example, surface specified a 10 percent CUR, an eight one EGU that will incur costs under this impoundments that meet the

104 NERC (North America Electric Reliability www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20 105 U.S. News. 2019. Bitter Cold and Natural Gas Corporation). 2019. 2019–2020 Winter Reliability Assessments%20DL/NERC%20WRA%202019_ Shortages Shutter Auto Plants. DCN SE08655A081. Assessment. November. Available online at: https:// 2020.pdf (DCN SE09093). 106 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(1)(B).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER13OC20.003 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64679

engineering and design requirements in achieve some level of recycle, but not 90 establish the subcategory for EGUs that 40 CFR 257.71 would comply with this percent, are required to do just that. will cease combustion of coal by 2028. requirement. While EPA projects that While this may still be significant due While it may be true, as commenters some plants in this subcategory with to changes occurring under the CCR suggested, that Congress contemplated unlined surface impoundments are rule, the fact that significant reductions that marginal plants may close under a likely to meet these TSS limitations might occur at little cost does not make BAT standard, it required that EPA using technologies other than surface the BMP requirement so burdensome as consider specific factors in devising a impoundments once they have closed to warrant defaulting to BPT. nationally applicable ELG rule: ‘‘Factors any unlined surface impoundments In light of the foregoing discussion, relating to the assessment of best under the CCR rule, EPA projects that EPA finds that chemical precipitation available technology shall take into two plants will continue to operate for FGD wastewater and surface account the age of equipment and lined surface impoundments.107 impoundments for BA transport water, facilities involved, the process As authorized by section 304(b) of the along with a requirement to prepare and employed, the engineering aspects of CWA, which allows EPA to consider implement a BMP plan under section the application of various types of costs, non-water quality environmental 304(e) of the Act to reduce pollutant control techniques, process changes, the impacts (including energy discharges from BA transport water, are cost of achieving such effluent requirements), and other factors the the only technologies that would not reduction, non-water quality Administrator deems appropriate, EPA impose disproportionate costs or cause environmental impact (including energy explicitly finds that additional unacceptable non-water quality requirements), and such other factors as technologies are not BAT for this environmental impacts for this the Administrator deems appropriate.’’ subcategory. Some commenters argued subcategory. While the Fifth Circuit in 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B)). And, as stated that the technologies identified for this Southwestern Electric Power Company previously in this preamble, EPA has subcategory do not represent the single v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1018 n.20 (5th Cir. considerable discretion in deciding how best plant within the subcategory. To an 2019), found EPA’s use of surface to account for the statutory factors and extent, commenters were correct in impoundments as the technology basis the weight to be accorded to each factor. identifying more advanced technologies for effluent limitations on legacy See Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 (e.g., biological treatment) in use within wastewater to be arbitrary and F.2d 1011, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Chem. the LUEGU subcategory as it was capricious, the Court left open the Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d at 214; proposed. However, those technologies possibility that surface impoundments Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d were typically installed when the EGU could be used as the basis for BAT 923, 928 (5th Cir. 1998). Based on the had been operated at a much higher effluent limitations so long as the consideration of the statutory factors utilization rate. Thus, it is not Agency identifies a statutory factor, presented below, EPA is within its appropriate to draw conclusions about such as cost, in its rationale for selecting statutory authority to establish different what BAT for LUEGUs is today based on surface impoundments. limitations for such plants to help avoid what might have been available and Finally, EPA rejects setting BAT unacceptable impacts.108 economically achievable when these limitations for BA transport water in EPA proposed to include only retiring EGUs operated at greater capacity this subcategory on a case-by-case basis EGUs in this subcategory but solicited utilization rates (and would therefore using BPJ because the technologies a comment on the inclusion of not have qualified as LUEGUs). In permitting authority would necessarily repowering EGUs. Electric utility addition, the LUEGU subcategory in the consider are the same dry handling and commenters across the board suggested final rule is narrower than the high recycle rate systems that result in that EPA include all EGUs that would subcategory EPA proposed, with fewer unacceptable disproportionate costs per cease the combustion of coal, and thus plants eligible and fewer plants with MWh and unacceptable non-water the generation of the wastewaters advanced technologies in place. quality environmental impacts, regulated under this final rule. EPA Other commenters took a different according to EPA’s analysis above. For agrees with these comments. EGUs that view, suggesting that, for LUEGUs, BAT further public comments and responses are repowering cease generation of BA should be set equal to BPT. EPA on the appropriate BAT for this transport water and FGD wastewater, disagrees with these commenters and subcategory, see DCN SE08615. just as retiring EGUs do. Furthermore, inclusion of repowering EGUs will declines to set BAT equal to BPT. In this 3. EGUs Permanently Ceasing Coal enhance harmonization of the rules final rule, EPA finds that chemical Combustion by 2028 precipitation for treatment of FGD Under the final rule, EPA establishes 108 wastewater, by itself, does not impose It is of no moment that, in 2015, EPA declined a subcategory for EGUs permanently to establish different limits for plants that might on LUEGUs the same disproportionate ceasing the combustion of coal by 2028, soon retire. EPA is free to change its mind as a costs as CP + LRTR and that chemical matter of policy, so long as it explains its decision. based on the statutory factors of cost, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, precipitation is technologically the age of the equipment and plants available and economically achievable. 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm involved, non-water quality Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). That Similarly, the requirement of a BMP environmental impacts (including one EPA Administrator may weigh the statutory plan to recycle what water can be consideration factors differently from a previous energy requirements), and other factors one does not make the decision arbitrary, recycled in a BA transport water system as the Administrator deems appropriate does not impose on LUEGUs the same particularly where courts have long held that the (harmonization with the CCR rule Administrator has considerable discretion in disproportionate costs as installation of alternative closure provisions). weighing the factors. See also Nat’l Ass’n of Home a high recycle rate system and is Some commenters argued that EPA Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d 1032, 1038 & 1043 (D.C. technologically available and Cir. 2012) (a revised rulemaking based ‘‘on a does not have authority to establish a reevaluation of which policy would be better in economically achievable. Plants that can subcategory for EGUs that are projected light of the facts’’ is ‘‘well within an agency’s to retire because the CWA does not give discretion,’’ and ‘‘ ‘[a] change in administration 107 Furthermore, EPA notes that plants may brought about by the people casting their votes is choose to retrofit a surface impoundment or it authority to establish a subcategory to a perfectly reasonable basis for an executive construct a new lined surface impoundment under ‘‘avoid premature closures’’ of plants. agency’s reappraisal’ ’’ of its policy choices) the CCR rule. EPA disagrees that it lacks authority to (citations omitted).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64680 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

applicable to this industry and give reasons (46),110 111 environmental 2028.113 Under Option B, these EGUs greater clarity to the regulated regulations (33),112 and consent decrees combined have estimated capital costs community. As discussed in the CCR (10). The fact that environmental of $209 million and estimated O&M Part A final rule, the alternative closure regulations were listed in these public costs of $21 million per year, leading to provisions for surface impoundments statements or filings by nearly one-third combined annualized costs as high as where there is ‘‘permanent cessation of of these plants and that ELGs were $63 million per year.114 When the coal fired boiler’’ in Section specifically listed by some respondents compared to the costs per MWh for 257.103(f)(2) includes surface suggests that additional flexibility may EGUs not ceasing coal combustion by impoundments at EGUs that convert to help to avoid premature closures of 2028, the shorter amortization periods natural gas or other fuels. The final some plants and/or EGUs. As presented for these LUEGUs lead to much higher subcategory in this ELG final rule in Figure VIII–2 and section VII.C.2 of costs per MWh in some cases. For adopts nearly identical terminology as the preamble above, the most recent example, while Winyah Unit 2 and Will summer assessment showed one region the language in Section 257.103(f)(2) of County Unit 4 have approximate costs (ERCOT) that was not anticipated to of $6/MWh under a normal 20-year CCR Part A. EPA believes the phrase meet its reference margin, and another amortization period, over the shortened used in § 423.11(w) of this rule (MISO) which was anticipated to be amortization period these costs jump to ‘‘permanent cessation of coal very close to its reference margin (19 over $10/MWh. These costs would both combustion’’ will avoid confusion over percent vs.17 percent). Thus, EPA be among the highest, if not the highest, the intent to include repowering EGUs, concludes that premature closure of costs absent a subcategory for units and is intended to parallel the EGUs some plants and/or EGUs is an ceasing coal combustion by 2028. that would be able to satisfy Section unacceptable non-water quality EPA received comments that the 257.103 of the CCR rule. Thus, adopting environmental impact because it could compliance deadline for this the same approach for these ELGs will impact reliability. Therefore the subcategory should be different. create consistency and certainty for the avoidance of these premature closures Commenters suggesting a longer time regulated community. Furthermore, not weighs in favor of subcategorization. frame proposed site-specific extensions treating repowering as equivalent to Some commenters took issue with past 2028, or later dates for LUEGUs. closure could create an unfavorable EPA’s analysis of a hypothetical plant Some commenters also suggested that incentive for a plant that desires to (see 84 FR 64640, November 22, 2019) this time frame was too long for a continue operating to, instead of and suggested that EPA should have variety of reasons. With respect to repowering, retire and construct a new evaluated the costs and pollutant comments that the time frame should be EGU on a greenfield, rather than use loadings of EGUs that fall into this shortened, EPA received comments existing infrastructure. It would be subcategory. EPA agrees with the latter presenting the time frame for building better environmentally for the plant to suggestion, and the final rule thus replacement capacity. One example use existing transmission and includes in the baseline all EGUs provided by Southern Company distribution infrastructure where retiring and repowering after 2023 (the demonstrated a real-world case where possible to limit potential new impacts latest compliance deadlines in the 2015 the construction of the natural gas from greenfield project development. rule). For those EGUs that would be replacement EGUs took eight years from Therefore, as described below, this subcategorized as permanently ceasing the initial coal EGU retirement subcategory includes repowering EGUs. coal combustion by 2028, EPA decision.115 Furthermore, as presented evaluated the changes in costs and above, EPA has demonstrated that costs EPA has continued to gather pollutant loads under regulatory Option are disparate over these shorter time information about plant and EGU A. frames. Even if commenters disagree retirements, deactivations, and fuel As noted above, EPA gathered readily with EPA’s characterization of these conversions since the 2015 rule from available information from publicly time frames as short, compressing cost company announcements, industry available sources, company recovery into these smaller amortization public comments, and government announcements, industry public periods does result in disproportionate databases as discussed in Changes to comments, and government databases to costs. Responding to comments that the Industry Profile for Coal-Fired identify EGUs. A list of EGUs EPA time frame should be lengthened, EPA Generating Units for the Steam Electric believes to be retiring or repowering further examined the 24 EGUs that have Effluent Guidelines Final Rule between 2024 and 2028 is presented in announced retirement or fuel memorandum (DCN SE08688). In the Changes to Industry Profile for Coal- conversion after 2028 presented in 2019 proposed rule, EPA identified 107 Fired Generating Units for the Steam Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines plants which had announced, Electric Effluent Guidelines Final Rule Reconsideration—Evaluation of Final commenced or completed such actions memorandum (DCN SE08688). Twenty- Rule Subcategories (DCN SE09071). Of since the development of the 2015 rule three EGUs at 12 plants may incur costs these 24 EGUs, only four EGUs at two record, the most frequently stated under the final rule absent a subcategory plants are projected to incur costs under reason in these public statements or for units ceasing coal combustion by a final ELG rule. These EGUs will filings being market forces, such as the continue burning coal until 2033 and 110 continued low price of natural gas (49 Announcements for some power plants cited 2035, meaning that they will be able to 109 several rationales, hence the numbers do not add plants). This was followed by other to 107. 111 ‘‘Other’’ includes age, reliability of the plant, 113 Three EGUs at two plants are expected to 109 This is consistent with recent analyses of the emission reduction goals, decreased local electricity retire or cease burning coal between permit renewal costs of coal-fired electric power generation versus demand, plant site limitations, and company goals and the no later than compliance date. other sources. Examples include: (1) https:// to invest in clean/renewable energy. 114 This upper bound assumes costs are all www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/ 112 Approximately 31 percent of the facilities incurred between 2021 and the announced year of half-of-all-u-s-coal-plants-would-lose-money- identified specific environmental regulations closure or conversion to a different fuel source. without-regulation; (DCN SE09094). (2) https:// affecting their decision-making. Specific 115 While replacement capacity may not be insideclimatenews.org/news/25032019/coal-energy- environmental regulations, when mentioned, necessary in all cases, the Agency believes that it costs-analysis-wind-solar-power-cheaper-ohio- included CPP, MATS, ELGs, CCR Rule, and should not tie the hands of electric utilities by valley-southeast-colorado (DCN SE09095). Regional Haze Rules. foreclosing the possibility.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64681

amortize their costs over a time frame dates forward.118 That report found that disputed EPA’s selected technology closer to the estimated 20-year if retirements happen faster than the basis for EGUs in this subcategory. amortization period used for the system can respond (by constructing Comments argued that EPA cannot industry as a whole. Unlike the EGUs new base load, e.g.), significant legally select surface impoundments for ceasing coal combustion by 2028, the reliability problems could occur. NERC this subcategory, failed to base BAT on costs per MWh of these four EGUs do cautions that, though this stress test is the best performing plant in the not increase significantly when not a predictive forecast,119 the findings subcategory, and failed to consider that evaluated with a shortened amortization are consistent with the concern that units in this subcategory could lease period, and appear to fall in the range electric utilities conveyed to EPA, viz., rather than purchase equipment to help of the rest of the industry. Thus, that the well-planned construction of meet the final limitations. As mentioned changes to the latest year for permanent new generation capacity and orderly above, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in cessation of coal combustion is not retirement of older plants are vital to Southwestern Electric Power Company justified based on disparate costs.116 ensuring electricity reliability. While v. EPA left open the possibility that Finally, with respect to both sets of EPA received comments that the surface impoundments could be used as comments suggesting longer and shorter scenarios that EPA evaluated at the basis for BAT effluent limitations, so time frames, changing the time frames proposal did not result in the same level long as the Agency identifies a statutory would eliminate harmonization with the of retirements as the NERC stress test, factor, such as cost, in its rationale for CCR rule. The CCR Part A rule finalized any retirements caused by EPA, selecting surface impoundments. For alternative closure provisions under including under this regulation, could further public comments and responses on this subcategory, see DCN SE08615. 257.103(f) for coal-fired EGUs that contribute to such a scenario. Next EPA examined the treatment permanently cease by 2028. For EPA to Furthermore, as presented in the discussion of LUEGUs above, technologies employed at plants that have requirements with that date under have units that qualify for this the CCR rule and a different date (earlier inadequate reserve margins in some regions and commenter-provided subcategory. Four of the 12 plants or later) for requirements under the retiring or repowering between 2024 ELGs would introduce unnecessary examples of electricity upsets support EPA’s view that marginal plants should and 2028 are projected to incur FGD confusion and potentially limit the wastewater costs. Of these, two have flexibilities deliberately afforded to the not be forced into retirement while they still have a useful role to play in chemical precipitation, one has regulated community under one or both chemical precipitation plus biological regulations. In meetings with EPA, ensuring electric reliability. In light of the information discussed treatment, and the remaining plant has utilities expressed two other concerns above, and EPA’s authority under physical settling via surface related to retiring or repowering units section 304(b) to consider cost, the age impoundments. The one plant with which would support this subcategory of equipment and plants involved, non- biological treatment is Duke Energy’s and the associated time frames. First, water quality environmental impacts Allen Steam Station, which installed an several utilities discussed the possibility (including energy requirements), and HRTR system more than 10 years ago. that public utility commissions (PUC) other factors that the Administrator Thus, unlike other plants with no would not allow cost recovery for deems appropriate, EPA is establishing current treatment, this plant has had equipment purchased near the end of a a new subcategory for EGUs that plan to sufficient time to amortize its costs. The plant’s useful life, resulting in stranded permanently cease combustion of coal fact that a plant could absorb the costs assets. Although the utilities indicated no later than December 31, 2028, subject of an advanced wastewater treatment that PUCs have historically allowed for to a certification requirement (described technology a decade ago when it cost recovery even after the retirement in Section XIV). For this subcategory, operated at a much higher utilization of an EGU, they provided recent EPA is establishing BAT limitations for does not demonstrate that, moving examples of PUCs rejecting cost TSS for both FGD wastewater and BA forward, plants already planning to recovery, which makes the prospect of transport water based on surface retire could absorb such costs. For BA continued recovery after retirement less impoundments as the selected transport water, nine of the 12 plants certain. Second, utilities expressed the technology basis.120 Some commenters will incur BA transport water costs need for sufficient time to plan, under this final rule. Four of these construct, and obtain necessary permits 118 North American Electric Reliability plants already operate high recycle rate and approvals for replacement Corporation (NERC). 2018. Special Reliability systems, while the remaining five plants generating capacity. In discussions of Assessment: Generation Retirement Scenario. only have wet sluice of their ash to example Integrated Resource Plans Atlanta, GA 30326. December 18. Available online surface impoundments. Again, the fact at: https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/ (IRPs) and the associated process, Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_ that a plant could easily absorb the costs utilities suggested timelines that would Retirements_Report_2018_Final.pdf. (DCN of such systems previously, does not extend for five to eight years or SE09096) indicate that such systems are BAT longer.117 119 ‘‘NERC’s stress-test scenario is not a prediction moving forward. of future generation retirements nor does it evaluate Finally, although EPA agrees with Finally, the North American Electric how states, provinces, or market operators are commenters that a wide variety of Reliability Corporation (NERC) recently managing this transition. Instead, the scenario conducted an aggressive stress test constitutes an extreme stress-test to allow for the analysis and understanding of potential future closure provisions of 40 CFR257.103(f)(1) or (2). scenario identifying the reliability risks reliability risks that could arise from an unmanaged Units falling within the alternative closure if large baseload coal and nuclear plants or poorly managed transition.’’ provision of (f)(2) must both complete closure of were to bring their projected retirement 120 EPA is not specifying that the BAT technology their unlined surface impoundments and basis is composite lined impoundments here, as it permanently cease combustion of coal by 2023 or did for the low utilization subcategory, because 2028 (depending on size of the impoundment). 116 While it is possible additional plants might under the CCR rule, plants must cease receiving Thus, use of unlined surface impoundments under choose to retire or repower soon after 2028 and waste in their unlined surface impoundments by the ELG up to that date would be compatible with have not yet announced their intent to do so, it is April 11, 2020, but plants that need additional time the CCR rule, and nothing in this final ELG would not possible to predict such possibilities. to develop alternate capacity to manage their authorize the use of an unlined surface 117 Utilities also shared instances of very quick wastestreams may continue to use their unlined impoundment outside of these CCR Part A rule turnaround in some cases. surface impoundments under the alternative flexibilities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64682 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

wastewater treatment systems are Additionally, it ensures that plants the 2017 postponement rule did not available to lease, availability alone could make better use of the CCR rule’s revise the 2015 rule’s ‘‘no later than’’ does not eliminate the issues already alternative closure provision, by which date of December 31, 2023, for identified. Commenters provided an unlined surface impoundment could implementation because, as public information that systems were available continue to receive waste and complete commenters pointed out, without such for lease but did not provide closure by 2028.121 EPA notes that, in a date, implementation could be information that leasing a treatment order to complete closure by 2028, substantially delayed, and a firm ‘‘no system would be less costly than the plants may have to cease receiving later than’’ date creates a more level alternative. In contrast, during one of waste well in advance of that date; playing field across the industry. Like the conference calls identified above, however, a 2028 date ensures that the the 2015 rule, as part of the EPA learned that one utility had final rule does not restrict the use of this consideration of the technological conducted an evaluation of leasing alternative closure provision regardless availability and economic achievability equipment for one of its plants. At that of when a plant ultimately ceases of the BAT limitations in this proposal, plant, the leasing option was not less receipt of waste. Furthermore, EPA EPA considered the magnitude and costly than purchasing and installing rejects setting BAT limitations for either complexity of process changes and new the same equipment. Data in the record FGD wastewater or BA transport water equipment installations that would be regarding costs of leasing FGD in this subcategory on a case-by-case required at plants to meet the final wastewater treatment systems is limited. basis, using BPJ because the rule’s limitations and standards. Where EPA had meetings or conference calls technologies an NPDES permitting such limitations and standards justified with several vendors and plants authority would necessarily consider a different ‘‘no later than’’ date, EPA has regarding leasing treatment equipment, are the same systems that result in changed this date, as detailed below. but only obtained specific cost data for unacceptable disproportionate costs and However, where EPA continued to a single plant. EPA used the information unacceptable non-water quality project that technologies would be provided about this plant to evaluate environmental impacts according to available by the existing ‘‘no later than’’ leasing in Cost to Lease Flue Gas EPA’s analysis (described above). deadlines, those deadlines have been Desulfurization Wastewater Treatment Because these EGUs are already nearing considered appropriate and retained. memorandum (DCN SE08633). For the end of their useful lives as coal-fired In the 2015 rule, and as amended by further public comments and responses units, and are susceptible to early the 2017 postponement rule, EPA on the issue of costs associated with retirement or fuel conversion, losing the selected the time frames described leasing FGD wastewater treatment use of surface impoundments for above to enable many plants to raise systems, see DCN SE08615. wastewater before currently planned needed capital, plan and design closure dates would undermine the systems, procure equipment, and then After considering the information flexibility of the CCR alternative closure construct and test systems. The time above, EPA finds that additional provisions. This could hasten the frames also allow for consideration of technologies such as chemical retirement of units in a manner more plant changes being made in response to precipitation, CP+LRTR, CP+HRTR, closely resembling the reliability stress other Agency rules affecting the steam membrane filtration, or thermal test discussed above, which is an electric power generating industry (e.g., technologies for FGD wastewater, and unacceptable non-water quality the CCR rule). EPA understands that the dry handling/closed-loop environmental impact (including energy some plants may have already installed, technologies or high recycle rate BA requirements) of compromised electric or are now installing, technologies that transport water technologies are not reliability. For further public comments could comply with the final limitations. BAT for this subcategory due to the and responses on the issue of the While these plants could therefore unacceptable disproportionate costs appropriate BAT technology for this potentially meet the standards of the they would impose; the potential of subcategory, see DCN SE08615. final rule by the earliest date on which such costs to accelerate retirements of the limitations may become applicable, EGUs at this age of their useful life; the D. Availability Timing of New EPA received comments asking that resulting increase in the risk of Requirements EPA not select November 1, 2020 for the electricity reliability problems due to Where BAT limitations in the 2015 ‘‘as soon as possible’’ date, and further those accelerated retirements; and the rule are more stringent than previously pointed out that this November 1, 2020 harmonization with the CCR rule. EPA established BPT limitations for FGD date was chosen to allow for sufficient finds that surface impoundments are the wastewater and BA transport water, time to conduct this rulemaking rather only technology that would not impose those BAT limitations, under the than with respect to when plants could such disproportionate costs on this compliance dates as amended by the meet the final limitations in this rule. subcategory of EGUs. Establishing 2017 postponement rule, do not apply As the Agency explained in the 2017 surface impoundments as BAT for this until a date determined by the postponement rule, the November 1, subcategory alleviates the choice for permitting authority that is ‘‘as soon as 2020 date was selected based on the these plants to either pass on possible’’ beginning November 1, time frame for finalizing a new rule (i.e., disparately high capital costs over a 122 2020. The 2015 rule also specifies the this final rule). shorter useful life or risk the possibility factors that the permitting authority For this final rule, EPA concluded that post-retirement rate recovery would must consider in determining the ‘‘as that the earliest date the industry can be denied for the significant capital and 123 soon as possible’’ date. In addition, achieve compliance with these new, operating costs associated with the final rule. This subcategory also allows 121 40 CFR 257.103(b). fuel-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act, as electric utilities to continue the 122 40 CFR 423.11(t). well as regulations for the disposal of coal organized phasing out of EGUs that are 123 These factors are: (a) Time to expeditiously combustion residuals under subtitle D of the no longer economical, in favor of more plan (including to raise capital), design, procure, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; (c) for and install equipment to comply with the FGD wastewater requirements only, an initial efficient, newly constructed generating requirements of the final rule; (b) changes being commissioning period to optimize the installed stations, and helps prevent the scenario made or planned at the plant in response to equipment; and (d) other factors as appropriate. 40 described in the NERC stress test. greenhouse gas regulations for new or existing fossil CFR 423.11(t)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64683

more stringent limitations is October 13, rule, make plans, and construct any vendors, and construction companies 2021. EPA notes that, while the necessary treatment system upgrades are often used across plants. These same limitations being finalized today are in under COVID–19 construction issues do not arise for chemical some cases more flexible than those of protocols. In addition to the precipitation systems, which are the 2015 rule, in other cases they are considerations above, allowing a full substantially more prevalent in the more stringent. For instance, mercury year after publication will allow plants industry, and in many cases would limitations for FGD wastewater in the time to adjust to changed electricity likely be installed to meet the cease- final rule are several times more demand due to the pandemic and the receipt-of-waste deadlines in the CCR stringent than those in the 2015 rule. subsequent phases of reopening; 125 Part A rule. That CCR rule finalized Even a plant that might have a fully build in evaluations with the most April 11, 2021 as the cease-receipt-of- installed and operational biological recent utilization rates; and evaluate waste date, with a site-specific treatment system to meet the 2015 rule whether participation in either the alternative closure extension provision might have to modify its physical/ LUEGU or permanent cessation of coal in 257.103(f) that allows a plant to get chemical pretreatment system or install combustion subcategories would be extensions up to as late as 2023 or 2024, post-treatment to ensure meeting these appropriate for any EGUs. depending on whether the plant was lower mercury limitations. Thus, even With respect to the latest compliance already required to close prior to the plants with treatment systems may need dates, EPA collected updated USWAG mandate. To stop receiving additional time to evaluate those information regarding the technical waste in an unlined surface systems against the new limitations, availability of the proposed FGD and BA impoundment, a plant would need to make modifications, and optimize BAT technology bases and the VIP construct a treatment system to meet performance. These changes might be alternative. Based on the engineering applicable ELGs, such as a tank-based minor in some cases; in other cases they dependency charts, bids, and other system that meets the BPT limitations. could require procurement and analytical documents in the current However, biological treatment is not installation of additional equipment. record, individual plants may need two necessary to remove TSS, and therefore For example, Duke Energy has recently to three years from the effective date of more time for implementation of the procured ultrafilters for its HRTR any rule to install and begin operating final BAT limitations will help to systems. a treatment system to achieve the BAT accommodate the process changes At the same time as these plants may limitations for FGD wastewater. necessitated by combining chemical have to procure and install additional Information in EPA’s rulemaking record precipitation and LRTR and alleviate equipment, the global pandemic related indicates a typical time frame of 26 to competition for resources. Considering to COVID–19 has disrupted normal 34 months to raise capital, plan and all the factors described above, EPA is supply chains and forced companies to design systems (including any necessary extending the ‘‘no later than’’ date for rethink how construction is conducted, pilot testing), procure equipment, and meeting FGD wastewater BAT in many cases putting in place construct and then test systems limitations based on CP+LRTR to additional protocols such as distancing. (including a commissioning period for December 31, 2025. Thus, for FGD 126 In conversations since the proposal with FGD wastewater treatment systems). wastewater, BAT limitations based on staff at Platte River Power Authority, For BA transport water, the record at CP+LRTR do not apply until a date Duke Energy, Georgia Power, and proposal indicated a typical time frame determined by the permitting authority GenOn, each company indicated that it of 15 to 23 months to raise capital, plan that is as soon as possible beginning had made changes to construction and design systems, procure equipment, October 13, 2021, but no later than projects or experienced delays. For and construct a dry handling or closed December 31, 2025. example, GenOn had on-site contractors loop or high recycle rate BA system. With respect to BA transport water, mobilized at some plants in February, Nothing in the comments received by commenters expressed several concerns, but due to restrictions imposed in EPA leads the Agency to a different including: A concern that 2023 was not March, those contractors left the sites conclusion. a sufficient time to plan for and meet and GenOn was forced to seek out an EPA received comments that the new limitations, nor a sufficient time to alternate vendor. This led to a six- record did not support longer conduct a BPJ analysis for the BA purge month delay on that project.124 Several compliance time frames for FGD water and install any appropriate companies also indicated that they have wastewater, based on the typical had to postpone outages. Since these technology; a concern that these dates installation time frames. EPA disagrees should be harmonized with the final outages are necessary to perform final with these comments. While the time hookups to newly installed wastewater CCR Part A rule, and that these dates frames above may be appropriate for an were not harmonized with the time treatment systems, delays will directly individual plant, several utilities and impact the time frames over which frames proposed for FGD wastewater EPC firms pointed out difficulties in (including the FGD makeup water plants could meet any limitations. retrofitting biological treatment systems exemption).127 EPA agrees with some Furthermore, any additional time short on a company-wide or industry-wide comments, disagrees with others, and of one year from the publication date of basis. Moreover, the same engineers, this rule would be insufficient for plants concludes that extension of the 2023 date as proposed is warranted, for the in many areas of the country because 125 Peer reviewed research from Imperial College the construction season would already in March 2020 suggested that some form of reasons discussed below. be over. Instead, EPA finds that setting mitigation measures (e.g., social distancing) might the earliest applicability dates for both be required for 18 months or longer which would 127 Commenters also stated that these time frames correspond to September 2021. Available online at: would be insufficient for installation of dry CSC bottom ash transport water and FGD www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/ systems. While dry handling is no longer wastewater as October 13, 2021, which medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial- considered part of the technology basis, EPA also happens to be toward the end of the College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03–2020.pdf. acknowledges that dry handling would be an 2021 construction season, would allow (DCN SE09097) alternative means for meeting the final limits, and 126 Many plants have already completed initial agrees that based on information provided in the companies time to analyze the final steps of this process, having evaluated water Rawhide conference call as well as the CCR rule balances and conducted pilot testing to prepare for docket, CSC systems may require a longer time 124 DCN SE08621. implementing the 2015 rule. frame for installation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64684 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

EPA disagrees that specific facts While harmonization with other E. Additional Rationale for the Final asserted by commenters warrant wastestreams’ compliance dates could PSES extending the time beyond 2023. First, support either a 2023 or 2025 ‘‘no later EPA is continuing to rely on the pass- EPA concludes that many plants could than’’ date for the BA transport water through analysis as the basis of the meet the 2023 date as proposed. As limitations in this rule, the 2023 date limitations and standards in the 2015 described at proposal, the industry would frustrate the flexibilities rule. With respect to FGD wastewater, as continues to shift away from the use of provided for impoundments until 2024 discussed above, the long-term averages surface impoundments for handling BA to close under the final CCR Part A rule for LRTR biological treatment are due to the CCR rule which has and lead to disjointed plant planning comparable to those achieved with requirements to cease receipt of waste across the two wastestreams. The more HRTR biological systems. On this basis, by a date certain. The CCR Part A final holistic approach is to select the 2025 EPA concludes that mercury, arsenic, rule establishes a cease receipt of waste selenium, and nitrate/nitrite pass- date of April 11, 2021 for many of these date, thereby harmonizing the dates applicable to the two wastestreams through POTWs, as it concluded in the impoundments; however, other 2015 rule. provisions of the 2015 CCR rule have being finalized in this rule. Thus, for BA transport water, BAT limitations based With respect to BA transport water, cease receipt of waste dates which have EPA projects that plants converting to already passed. With respect to the on high recycle rate systems do not apply until a date determined by the dry handling or recycling all of their BA concerns related to BPJ analysis timing transport water would continue to NPDES permitting authority that is as and FGD wastewater exemption, EPA perform as the zero discharge systems soon as possible beginning October 13, responds that these timing issues can be EPA used in its 2015 rule pass-through 2021, but no later than December 31, addressed with flexibilities for the analysis. As explained in Section respective provisions, rather than 2025. VII.b.ii, for those plants using high extending the ‘‘no later than’’ dates. For Importantly, for both FGD and BA, recycle rate systems, the final rule BPJ, plants can work with their EPA distinguishes the ‘‘no later than’’ allows the NPDES permitting authority permitting authority to develop date from the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ date, to establish, on a case-by-case basis, the reasonable compliance time frames to determined by the permitting authority volume of discharge (with a maximum meet whatever BPJ is selected for BA of 10 percent of the system volume per purge water. EPA has clarified in the in accordance with the factors in 40 CFR day, on a 30-day rolling average) and to regulatory text that BA transport water 423.11(t). While EPA is postponing the determine the BAT limitations for that sent to the FGD system for use as FGD ‘‘no later than’’ dates in this final rule, discharge based on BPJ. For indirect makeup water becomes FGD where plants can comply with these dischargers, control authorities can wastewater. Thus, whatever limitations final limitations sooner, NPDES establish local limitations on a BPJ apply to FGD wastewater at the time, permitting authorities are already basis. also apply to the BA transport water required to incorporate those earlier Thus, like BAT, the final rule used in the FGD systems as FGD permit dates, as specified in 423.11(t). establishes PSES based on Option A: makeup water. Where the compliance Thus, this change to the ‘‘no later than’’ PSES for FGD wastewater based on date for FGD wastewater limitations dates to December 31, 2025 will not CP+LRTR, and PSES for BA transport occurs after the compliance date for BA change the dates included in every water based on high recycle rate transport water limitations, plants NPDES permit. systems. EPA is establishing these would continue to meet the BPT In addition, as discussed earlier, EPA technologies as the bases for PSES for limitations for the BA transport water is giving plants that opt into the VIP the same reasons that the final rule used in the FGD system as FGD makeup until December 31, 2028, to meet the water until the former compliance date. selects these technologies as the bases However, EPA agrees that other facts VIP FGD wastewater limitations, which for BAT. Moreover, the final rule presented by commenters and in EPA’s are based on membrane filtration establishes the same subcategories for rulemaking record do warrant extending technology. That is the date on which PSES as it does for BAT limitations, for 128 the latest compliance dates for BA EPA finds that the membrane filtration the same reasons described earlier. transport water beyond 2023. First, the technologies may be available, on a site- As with the final BAT effluent CCR Part A rule alternate closure specific basis, to plants that might limitations, in considering the provision in 257.103(f)(1) now allows a choose to participate in the VIP and be availability and achievability of the final subset of surface impoundments to bound by those limitations. The final PSES, EPA concluded that existing receive waste as late as 2024. rule gives plants sufficient time to work indirect dischargers need some time to achieve the final standards, in part to Harmonizing compliance time frames to out operational issues related to being avoid forced outages (see Section at least 2024 would allow plants to the first plants in the U.S. to treat FGD VIII.C.7). However, in contrast to CWA make use of the CCR Part A rule’s wastewater using membrane filtration at additional flexibility. Second, EPA section 301(b), which does not specify full scale, as well as to conduct a compliance date for BAT limitations acknowledges that deadlines were engineering studies on the harmonized across wastestreams in the promulgated after 1989, CWA section encapsulation mix appropriate at that 307(b)(1) requires that pretreatment 2015 rule, providing plants an site for the disposal of the resulting opportunity to plan for any upgrades in standards shall specify a time for brine. As previously explained, both of a more integrated fashion. compliance not to exceed three years these issues contributed to EPA’s Harmonization of FGD wastewater and from the date of promulgation. BA transport water ‘‘no later than’’ dates decision that membrane filtration is not Therefore, the PSES compliance dates would be consistent with that approach. appropriate as a nationwide BAT. EPA established by this rule are three years Considering all the factors described also believes that a compliance deadline above, EPA is extending the ‘‘no later of December 2028 is an effective 128 Where the final rule establishes any incentive for plants to opt into a subcategory that identifies BAT based on surface than’’ date for compliance with the impoundments, with a restriction on TSS, there is generally applicable BA transport water program that can achieve significant no such parallel restriction for the analogous PSES BAT limitations to December 31, 2025. pollutant reductions. subcategory because POTWs effectively treat TSS.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64685

from promulgation of this rule. Unlike and found them to be acceptable. Some market conditions, described in Section limitations on direct discharges, commenters stated that consideration of V.B. This section provides an overview limitations on indirect discharges are air pollution changes suggest a more of the methodology EPA used to assess not implemented through an NPDES stringent option is warranted. EPA the costs and the economic impacts and permit and are directly enforceable. EPA reevaluated these impacts in light of the summarizes the results of these has determined that all existing indirect changed industry profile, as well as the analyses. See the RIA in the docket for dischargers can meet the standards requirements of the final rule. Based on additional details, including results for within three years of the effective date the results of these analyses EPA other regulatory options EPA of this final rule. determines that the final rule has considered. acceptable non-water quality impacts, Neither the cost estimates, nor the F. Summary of Economic Achievability including those air pollution impacts pollutant loading estimates (see section As EPA did for the 2015 rule, the raised by commenters. See additional IX of the preamble), prepared by EPA Agency performed cost and economic information in Section 7 of the for the purpose of evaluating various impact assessments using the Integrated Supplemental TDD, as well as Section X regulatory options, are designed to Planning Model (IPM) to determine the of this preamble. reflect changes to an industry with exact effect of the proposed ELGs, using a precision. See BP Exploration & Oil, Inc. baseline that incorporates impacts from H. Summary of Impacts on Residential v. EPA, 66 F.3d 784, 800 (6th Cir. 1995) other relevant environmental Electricity Prices and Low-Income and (‘‘ ‘The CWA does not require a precise regulations (see Chapter 5 in the RIA). Minority Populations calculation of BAT and NSPS costs.’ ’’) At the time of the 2015 rule, the IPM As EPA did for the 2015 rule, the (quoting NRDC, Inc. v. EPA, 863 F.2d model showed a total incremental Agency examined the effects of the final 1420, 1426 (9th Cir. 1988)); Chem. Mfrs. closure of 843 MW of coal-fired electric rule on consumers as an additional Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 237–38 (5th power generation as a result of the factor that might be appropriate when Cir. 1989) (‘‘The Act requires the EPA to ELGs, corresponding to a net effect of considering what level of control ‘take into account’ the costs of BAT; it two EGU closures.129 However, since represents BAT. If all annualized does not require a precise calculation. then, natural gas prices have remained compliance cost savings were passed on The EPA ‘need make only a reasonable low, additional coal plants have retired to residential consumers of electricity, cost estimate in setting BAT’; it is or refueled, and changes that have been instead of being borne by the operators sufficient if the EPA develops ‘a rough proposed to several environmental and owners of plants, the average per idea of the costs the industry would regulations have been included in those houshold cost savings under the final incur.’ ’’) (internal quotations and model runs. Owing to these changes, rule is $0.49 per year, as compared to citations omitted); see also Texas Oil & EPA ran an updated version of IPM (see the 2015 rule. Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 936 Section VIII.C.2 for additional EPA similarly evaluated the effect of (5th Cir. 1998) (EPA’s effluent reduction discussion of these updates). the final rule on minority and low- estimates were performed ‘‘only to EPA also ran IPM to analyze the effect income populations. As explained in satisfy the CWA’s unrelated requirement of the final rule. As of run year 2030, Section XII, EPA used demographic data that the EPA ‘identify’ in its regulations IPM estimates a total net increase of 1.3 for populations potentially impacted by the degree of effluent reduction GW in coal-fired electric generating steam electric power plant discharges attainable through the application of capacity compared to the baseline IPM due to their proximity (i.e., within 50 BAT . . . As such, even serious flaws in run (compliance with the 2015 rule), miles) to one or more plants. For those the effluent reduction estimates could reflecting full compliance by all plants populations, EPA evaluated both not provide grounds for remanding the with the final rule. This change recreational and subsistence fisher zero discharge limit.’’) (citing 33 U.S.C. represents a net increase in capacity; populations. The analysis described in 1314(b)(2)(A)). however, due to increased capacity Section XII indicates that absolute In developing ELGs, and as required utilization of several plants in one changes in human health impacts are by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), EPA region, IPM results show a net increase smaller than the overall impacts evaluates economic achievability to of one additional early closure. These resulting from the 2015 rule. However, assess the impacts of applying the IPM results indicate that the final rule low-income and minority populations limitations and standards on the is economically achievable for the steam are potentially affected to a greater industry as a whole, which typically electric power generating industry as a degree than the general population by includes an assessment of incremental whole, as required by CWA section discharges from steam electric power plant closures attributable to a 301(b)(2)(A). plants and are expected to accrue the regulatory option. As described in more EPA’s economic achievability analysis benefits or drawbacks of the final rule detail below, the final rule is expected for this and other options is described to a greater degree than the general to provide cost savings when compared in Section VIII, below. population. to the baseline. Like the prior analysis of the 2015 rule and the analysis of the G. Summary of Non-Water Quality VIII. Costs, Economic Achievability, 2019 proposal, the cost and economic Environmental Impacts and Other Economic Impacts impact analysis for the final rule focuses For the 2015 rule, EPA performed an EPA evaluated the costs and on understanding the magnitude and assessment of non-water quality associated impacts of the final rule on distribution of compliance cost savings environmental impacts, including EGUs at steam electric power plants. across the industry, and the broader energy requirements, air impacts, solid These costs were analyzed within the market impacts. waste impacts, and changes in water use context of compounding regulations and EPA used specific indicators to assess industry trends that have affected steam the impacts of the regulatory options on 129 In meetings with EPA since the 2015 rule, electric power plants’ profitability and the steam electric power generating electric utilities have expressed concerns that IPM power generation. These include the industry as a whole. These indicators underpredicts closures by not accounting for the ability of plants in regulated states to cost recover effects of current environmental are consistent with those used to assess even if they would otherwise lose money or are not regulations (e.g., final ACE rule, and the economic achievability of the 2015 economical to operate. final CCR Part A rule), as well as other rule (80 FR 67838, November 3, 2015);

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64686 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

however, for the final rule, EPA TDD for a more detailed description of preamble, the compliance deadlines and compared the values to a baseline that the methodology EPA used to estimate therefore the expected technology reflects implementation of existing plant-level costs. implementation years vary across environmental regulations (as of this Following the same methodology plants. EPA performed the social cost action), including the 2015 rule. In the used for the 2015 rule analysis and 2019 analysis over a 27-year period (2021– 2015 rule analysis, the costs of proposal, and consistent with OMB 2047), which combines the length of the achieving the 2015 rule requirements guidance, EPA used a discount rate of period during which plants are were reflected in the policy cases seven percent to annualize one-time anticipated to install the control analyzed rather than the baseline. Here, costs and costs recurring on other than technologies (which could be as late as the baseline appropriately includes an annual basis over a specific useful 2028) and the useful life of the longest- costs for achieving the 2015 rule life, implementation period, and/or lived technology installed at any plant limitations and standards, and the event recurrence period. For capital (20 years). EPA calculated the social policy cases show the impacts of costs and initial one-time costs, EPA cost of the final rule using both a three changes to those 2015 limitations and used 20 years. For O&M costs incurred percent discount rate and an alternative standards. More specifically, EPA at intervals longer than one year, EPA discount rate of seven percent. For compared the estimated baseline costs used the interval as the annualization plants that have EGUs permanently to the total cost to industry, and the period (3 years, 5 years, 6 years, 10 ceasing coal combustion during the change in the numbers and capacities of years). EPA added annualized capital period of analysis, EPA zeroed out O&M specific EGUs and plants expected to costs, initial one-time costs, and the costs in the years following the close under the regulatory options non-annual portion of O&M costs to cessation of coal combustion. (including the final rule, Option A). As annual O&M costs to derive total Social costs include costs incurred by a screening tool, EPA also analyzed the annualized plant costs. EPA then both private entities and the government ratio of compliance costs to revenue to calculated total industry costs by (e.g., in implementing the regulation). see how the regulatory options change summing plant-specific annualized As described further in Chapter 10 of the number of plants (and their owning costs. To assess industry costs, EPA the RIA, EPA did not quantify the entities) that exceed thresholds considered both pre-tax and after-tax incremental increase in the cost to state indicative of financial strain. costs. Pre-tax annualized costs provide governments to evaluate and In addition to the analyses supporting insight on the total expenditure as incorporate BPJ into NPDES permits.131 the economic achievability of the final incurred, while after-tax annualized Consequently, the only category of costs rule, EPA conducted other analyses to: costs are a more meaningful measure of used to calculate social costs are those (1) Characterize other estimated effects impact on privately owned for-profit pre-tax costs estimated for steam electric of the final rule (e.g., on electricity rates) entities and incorporate approximate power plants. Note that the annualized and (2) meet the requirements of capital depreciation and other relevant social costs for the seven percent Executive Orders or other statutes (e.g., tax treatments in the analysis. EPA uses discount rate differ from comparable Executive Order 12866, Regulatory pre- and/or after-tax costs in different pre-tax industry compliance costs. The Flexibility Act, Unfunded Mandates analyses, depending on the concept pre-tax industry compliance costs Reform Act). appropriate to each analysis (e.g., social represent the annualized costs of the costs are calculated using pre-tax costs final rule if they were incurred today A. Plant-Specific and Industry Total whereas cost-to-revenue screening-level (i.e., in 2020), and thus these costs are Costs analyses are conducted using after-tax discounted into social costs which are EPA estimated plant-specific costs to costs). estimated based on the stream of future control FGD wastewater and BA EPA estimated that the final rule will costs starting in the year that individual transport water discharged at existing provide cost savings (negative plants are projected to actually comply EGUs at steam electric power plants to incremental costs) as compared to the with the requirements of the final rule which the ELGs apply.130 EPA assessed costs that the industry would incur under the availability timing proposed the operations and treatment system under the 2015 rule of $175 million on in Section VII.D, and as described components currently in place at a a pre-tax basis, and $140 million on an above, account for changes to costs to given unit (or expected to be in place as after-tax basis. The savings are reflect EGUs permanently ceasing the a result of other existing environmental attributable to less expensive high combustion of coal during the period of regulations), identified equipment and recycle rate BA systems, lower cost FGD analysis. process changes that plants would likely wastewater treatment systems (chemical EPA estimated that the final rule will make to meet the 2015 rule (for precipitation and LRTR), and the provide total annualized social cost baseline) and the final rule, and subcategorization of LUEGUs, high-FGD savings (as opposed to industry cost estimated the cost to implement those flow plants, and EGUs permanently savings, as presented above), of $153 changes. As explained in the ceasing the combustion of coal by million using a seven percent discount Supplemental TDD, the baseline also December 31, 2028. Additional cost rate, and $127 million using a three accounts for announced unit savings are due to the changes in percent discount rate. retirements, conversions, and other compliance time frames discussed C. Economic Impacts relevant operational changes that have above in Section VII.D. EPA assessed the economic impacts of occurred since EPA promulgated the B. Social Costs 2015 rule. EPA thus derived plant-level the final rule in two ways: (1) A capital and O&M costs for controlling Social costs are the costs of the final screening-level assessment of the cost FGD wastewater and BA transport water rule from the viewpoint of society as a impacts on existing EGUs at steam using the technologies that form the whole, rather than the viewpoint of bases of the 2015 rule, and for the final regulated plants (which are private 131 The sensitivity analysis presented in Response costs). In calculating social costs, EPA to Public Comments for Revisions to the Effluent rule. See Section 5 of the Supplemental Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam tabulated the pre-tax costs in the year Electric Power Generating Point Source Category 130 EPA did not estimate costs for other when they are estimated to be incurred. (DCN SE08615) estimated that BPJ could increase wastestreams not affected by this final rule. As described in Section VII.D of this costs by up to $0.5 million per year.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64687

electric power plants and the entities extent that steam electric power plants generating units at steam electric power that own those plants, based on operating in a regulated market may in plants. In this analysis, the domestic comparison of costs to revenue; and (2) fact be able to pass on increases in parent entity associated with a given an assessment of the impact of the final production costs to consumers through plant is defined as that entity with the rule within the context of the broader changes in electricity prices. It is, largest ownership share in the plant. For electricity market, which includes an however, an appropriate assumption for each parent entity, EPA compared the assessment of changes in predicted a screening-level estimate of the incremental change in the total plant closures attributable to the final potential cost and savings impacts. annualized after-tax costs and the total rule. The following sections summarize revenue for the entity under the final a. Plant-Level Cost-to-Revenue Analysis the results of these analyses. The RIA rule compared with the baseline (see discusses the methods and results in EPA developed revenue estimates for Chapter 4 of the RIA for details). greater detail, including results for other this analysis using EIA data, then Following the methodology employed regulatory options EPA considered. calculated the change in the annualized in the analyses for the 2015 rule and The first set of cost and economic after-tax costs of the final rule as a 2019 proposal (80 FR 67838, 84 FR impact analyses—at both the plant and percent of baseline annual revenues. See 64620), EPA developed a range of parent company levels—provide Chapter 4 of the RIA for a more detailed estimates for the number of entities screening-level indicators of the impacts discussion of the methodology used for currently owning an EGU at a steam of costs for FGD wastewater and BA the plant-level cost-to-revenue analysis, electric power plant, accounting for transport water controls, relative to as well as results for other regulatory partial information available for steam historical operating characteristics of options EPA considered. electric power plants that are not steam electric power plants incurring Cost-to-revenue ratios are used to expected to incur compliance costs to those costs (i.e., level of electricity describe impacts to entities because meet the final rule BAT limitations and generation and revenue). EPA they provide screening-level indicators pretreatment standards. conducted these analyses for the of potential economic impacts. Just as Similar to the plant-level analysis baseline and the final rule, and then for the plants owned by small entities above, cost-to-revenue ratios provide compared these effects to understand under guidance in U.S. EPA (2006),132 screening-level indicators of potential the incremental effects of the final rule. the full range of plants incurring costs economic impacts to the owning The second set of analyses look at below one percent of revenue are entities; higher ratios suggest a higher broader electricity market impacts, unlikely to face economic impacts, probability of economic impacts. EPA considering the interconnection of while plants with costs between one estimated that the number of entities regional and national electricity percent and three percent of revenue currently owning EGUs at steam electric markets. It also looks at the distribution have a higher chance of facing economic power plants ranges from 231 to 459, of impacts at the plant and EGU level. impacts, and plants incurring costs depending on the assumed ownership This second set of analyses provides above three percent of revenue have a structure of plants not incurring costs insight on the impacts of the final rule still higher probability of facing under the final rule and not explicitly on steam electric power plants, as well economic impacts. analyzed. EPA estimates that, in the as the electricity market as a whole, Under the baseline scenario, which baseline, 225 to 452 parent entities, including changes in generation includes the 2015 rule, EPA estimated respectively, would either incur no capacity, generation, and wholesale that 12 plants would incur costs greater costs or incur costs that are less than electricity prices. The market analysis than or equal to one percent of revenue, one percent of their revenues compares model predictions for the including four plants that would have (annualized) to meet the 2015 rule BAT final rule to a base case that includes the costs greater than or equal to three limitations and pretreatment standards. predicted and observed economic and percent of revenue, and an additional 96 Six entities would have costs exceeding market effects of the 2015 rule and other plants would incur costs that are less 1 percent of revenue, and none of the existing regulations. EPA used results than one percent of revenue. For the entities would have costs exceeding from the screening analysis of plant- final rule, EPA estimated that nine three percent of revenue. and entity-level impacts, together with plants incur costs greater than or equal Compared to the baseline, the final changes in projected capacity closure to one percent of revenue, including rule reduces the impacts on the small from the market model, to understand three plants that have costs greater than number of entities incurring costs. the impacts of the final rule relative to or equal to three percent of revenue; an Specifically, there are two fewer entities the baseline. additional 100 plants incur costs that in the one to three percent of revenue are less than one percent of revenue. category under the final rule that were 1. Screening-Level Assessment b. Parent Entity-Level Cost-to-Revenue not in this category at proposal. EPA conducted a screening-level Analysis analysis of the final rule’s estimated 2. Electricity Market Impacts impact to existing EGUs at steam EPA also assessed the economic In analyzing the impacts of regulatory electric power plants and parent entities impact of the final rule on parent actions affecting the electric power based on cost-to-revenue ratios. entities. The screening-level cost-to- sector, EPA used IPM, a comprehensive Although this is a cost savings rule, for revenue analysis at the parent entity electricity market optimization model analytic convenience and as a worst- level provides insight on the impact on that can evaluate such impacts within case scenario, the Agency assumed that those entities that own existing electric the context of regional and national all of the compliance costs in the electricity markets. The model is baseline, and lower compliance costs in 132 U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). designed to evaluate the effects of 2006. EPA’s Action Development Process: Final the final rule, would be absorbed by the Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory changes in EGU-level electric generation steam electric power plants and their Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business costs on the total cost of electricity parent entities (and none passed on to Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. November supply, subject to specified demand and consumers). This assumption may 2006. Available online at: https://www.epa.gov/reg- emissions constraints. Use of a flex/epas-action-development-process-final- overstate the impacts of compliance guidance-epa-rulewriters-regulatory-flexibility-act. comprehensive, market analysis system expenditures in the baseline to the (DCN SE09098) is important in assessing the potential

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64688 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

impact of any power plant regulation market responds to changes in Impact on national and regional because of the interdependence of generation costs due to the final rule. electricity markets (all electric power electric EGUs in supplying power to the Additionally, in contrast to the generation, including steam and non- electric transmission grid. Changes in screening-level analyses, in which EPA steam electric power plants); (2) impact electricity production costs at some assumed no cost pass through of ELG on steam electric power plants as a EGUs can have a range of broader compliance costs, IPM v6 depicts group, and (3) impact on individual market impacts affecting other EGUs, production activity in wholesale steam electric power plants incurring including the likelihood that various electricity markets where the specific costs. Chapter 5 of the RIA discusses the units are dispatched. The analysis also increases in electricity prices for first analysis; the sections below provides important insight on steam individual markets would result in summarize the last two, which are also electric capacity closures (e.g., some recovery of compliance costs for further described in Chapter 5 of the retirements of EGUs that become plants in those markets. RIA. All results presented below are uneconomical relative to others), or In analyzing the final rule, EPA representative of post-compliance avoided closures, based on a more estimated changes in the fixed and modeled market conditions in the years detailed analysis of market factors than variable costs for the steam electric 2028–2033. in the screening-level analyses above. power plants and EGUs already The results further inform EPA’s incurring costs in the baseline to instead a. Impacts on Existing Steam Electric understanding of the potential impacts incur costs (or avoid incurring costs) to Power Plants comply with the final rule. Because IPM of the final rule. For the current EPA used IPM v6 results for 2030 133 analyses, EPA used version 6 (v6) of is not designed to endogenously model the selection of wastewater treatment to assess the potential impact of the IPM to analyze the impacts of the final final rule on current EGUs at steam rule. IPM v6 is based on an inventory of technologies as a function of electricity generation, effluent flows, and pollutant electric power plants. The purpose of U.S. utility- and non-utility-owned this analysis is to assess any fleetwide EGUs and generators that provide power discharge, EPA estimated these costs exogenously for each EGU and input changes from baseline impacts on EGUs to the integrated electric transmission at steam electric power plants. Table grid, including plants to which the ELGs these costs into the IPM model as fixed and variable O&M cost adders. In other VIII–3 reports estimated results for apply. IPM v6 embeds an energy current EGUs at steam electric power demand forecast that is derived from words, since the IPM code does not include wastewater treatment cost plants, as a group. EPA looked at the DOE’s ‘‘Annual Energy Outlook 2018’’ following metrics: (1) Incremental (and (AEO 2018). IPM v6 also incorporates minimization equations, wastewater treatment costs must be calculated avoided) early retirements and capacity the expected compliance response to outside the model and input separately closures, calculated as the difference current regulatory requirements to be considered during the model run. between capacity under the regulatory affecting the power sector (e.g., Cross- EPA then ran IPM v6 including these option and capacity under the baseline; State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and new cost estimates to determine the (2) incremental capacity closures as a CSAPR Update Rule, Mercury and Air dispatch of electric EGUs that would percentage of baseline capacity; (3) Toxics Rule (MATS), the 2014 CWA meet projected demand at the lowest change in electricity generation from section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake cost, subject to the same constraints as plants regulated by ELGs; (4) changes in Structure (CWIS) rule, and 2015 CCR in the baseline analysis. The estimated variable production costs per MWh, and 2020 CCR Part A rules, the final changes in plant- and EGU-specific calculated as the sum of total fuel and ACE rule, as well as the 2015 ELG rule). production levels and costs—and, in variable O&M costs divided by net In contrast to the screening-level turn, changes in total electric power generation; and (5) changes in annual analyses, which do not account for sector costs and production profile—are costs (fuel, variable O&M, fixed O&M, interdependence of electric EGUs in key data elements in evaluating the and capital). Note that changes in supplying power to the transmission expected national and regional effects of electricity generation presented in Table grid, IPM v6 accounts for potential the final rule, including closures or VIII–3 are attributable both to changes changes in the generation profile of avoided closures of steam electric EGUs in retirements, as well as to changes in steam electric and other EGUs and and plants. capacity utilization at EGUs and plants consequent changes in market-level EPA considered impact metrics of whose retirement status does not generation costs, as the electric power interest at three levels of aggregation: (1) change.

TABLE VIII–3—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE FINAL RULE ON STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AS A GROUP AT THE YEAR 2030 COMPARED TO BASELINE

Change in value from baseline Metric Baseline value attributable to the final rule Value Percent

Total capacity (MW) ...... 314,952 800 0.3% Early retirements or closures a (MW) ...... 68,959 ¥800 ¥1.2% Early retirements or closures a (number of plants) ...... 62 1 1.6% Total generation (GWh) ...... 1,475,819 4,160 0.3% Variable production cost (2018$/MWh) ...... $25.92 $0.03 0.1%

133 IPM model year 2030 represents years 2028– 2033.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64689

TABLE VIII–3—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE FINAL RULE ON STEAM ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS AS A GROUP AT THE YEAR 2030 COMPARED TO BASELINE—Continued

Change in value from baseline Metric Baseline value attributable to the final rule Value Percent

Annual costs (million 2018$) ...... $57,620 $109 0.2% a Baseline values for early retirements or closures reflect changes from current operations considering the effects of all current regulations and market trends, not solely the 2015 rule. Values for incremental early retirements or closures represent change relative to the baseline, and thus reflect only changes resulting from the cost savings of this final rule. IPM may show partial (unit) or full plant early retirements (closures). It may also show avoided closures (negative closure values) in which an EGU or plant that is projected to close in the baseline is estimated to continue operating in the policy case.

Under the final rule, generation at of the final rule on the steam electric EPA adjusted the discharge flow rates steam electric power plants is projected power generating industry will be less used in the pollutant loadings estimates to increase by 4,160 GWh (0.3 percent) than those of the 2015 rule. to account for retirements, fuel nationally, when compared to the conversions, and other changes in IX. Pollutant Loadings baseline. IPM v6 projects a net increase operations scheduled to occur by in total steam electric capacity by 800 In developing ELGs, EPA typically December 31, 2023, described in Section MW or approximately 0.3 percent of evaluates the pollutant loading 6 of the Supplemental TDD, that will total baseline capacity, and one net reductions of regulatory options under eliminate or alter the discharge of an plant retirement, which results from CWA section 304(b)(1)(A)(BPT), applicable wastestream. Finally, the increased steam electric generation at 304(b)(2)(A)(BAT) and 304 Agency adjusted the discharge flow several other coal-fired power plants in (b)(4)(A)(BCT). In estimating pollutant rates to account for changes in plant one region (an overall net increase in reductions associated with the final operations to optimize FGD wastewater steam electric generation). See Section rule, EPA took the same approach as flows and to comply with the 2015 CCR 5.2.2.2 in the RIA for details. described above for plant-specific costs. rule and 2020 CCR Part A rule. For These findings suggest that the final That is, EPA compared the values to a further discussion of these adjustments, rule can be expected to have small baseline that reflects implementation of see Sections 6.2.2 and 6.3.2 of the economic consequences for the steam current environmental regulations, Supplemental TDD, respectively. electric power plants as a group. For including the 2015 rule. In the 2015 EPA first estimated—on an annual, further discussion of closures and rule, the baseline did not reflect per plant basis—the pollutant discharge related distributional impacts, see pollutant loading reductions for meeting load for FGD wastewater and BA Chapter 5 of the RIA. the 2015 rule requirements, as that transport water associated with the effluent reduction is what EPA analyzed technology basis evaluated for plants to b. Impacts on Individual Plants to support the 2015 rule. Here, the comply with the 2015 rule requirements Incurring Costs baseline appropriately includes relative to the conditions currently EPA also analyzed plant-specific pollutant loading reductions for present or planned at each plant. EPA changes attributable to the final rule for achieving the 2015 rule requirements as similarly estimated plant-specific post- the following metrics: (1) Capacity EPA is analyzing the impact resulting compliance pollutant loadings utilization (defined as annual generation from any changes to those requirements. associated with the technology basis for (in MWh) divided by [capacity (MW) More specifically, EPA considered the plants to meet the effluent limitations of times 8,760 hours]) (2) electricity change in the pollutant loading the final rule. EPA then calculated the generation, and (3) variable production reductions associated with the final rule changes in pollutant loadings at a costs per MWh, defined as variable to those projected under the baseline. particular plant as the sum of the O&M costs plus fuel cost divided by net The general methodology that EPA differences between the estimated generation. The analysis of changes in used to calculate pollutant loadings is baseline and post-compliance discharge individual plants is detailed in Chapter the same as that described in the 2015 loadings for each applicable 5 of the RIA. rule. EPA used data collected for the wastestream. The results generally show no change, 2015 rule, as well as the data described For those plants that discharge or less than a one percent reduction or in Section VI, to characterize pollutant indirectly to POTWs, EPA adjusted the one percent increase for steam electric concentrations for FGD wastewater and baseline loadings and the loadings power plants projected to incur BA transport water. EPA evaluated these associated with the final rule to account compliance costs under the final rule. data sources to identify analytical data for pollutant removals expected from Consistent with lower estimated that meet EPA’s acceptance criteria for POTWs. These adjusted pollutant compliance costs under the final rule inclusion in analyses for characterizing loadings for indirect dischargers than the costs the plants would incur discharges of FGD wastewater and BA therefore approximate the resulting under the 2015 rule, a greater number of transport water.134 For each plant discharges to receiving waters. For plants see improving operating discharging FGD wastewater or BA additional details on the methodology conditions under the final rule (i.e., transport water, EPA used data from the EPA used to calculate pollutant loading higher capacity utilization or 2009 survey and/or industry-submitted reductions, including for the other generation, lower variable production data to determine the discharge flow regulatory options, see Section 6 of the costs) than deteriorating conditions rates of those wastewaters. To determine Supplemental TDD. when compared to the baseline. Thus, the pollutant loadings of the baseline, the results for the subset of plants A. FGD Wastewater incurring compliance costs further 134 Acceptance criteria are presented in Section For FGD wastewater, EPA used the support the conclusion that the effects 6.1 of the Supplemental TDD. average pollutant effluent concentration

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64690 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

and plant-specific discharge flow rates technology option, EPA also estimated described in Section IX of this to estimate the mass pollutant discharge discharge flows associated with the preamble, the baseline for these per plant for baseline and for the final purge from remote MDS operation, analyses appropriately includes non- rule. EPA used data compiled for the based on the EGU capacity and the water quality environmental impacts 2015 rule as the initial basis for volume of the remote MDS. Under the associated with meeting the 2015 rule estimating discharge flow rates and baseline, which reflects the 2015 rule requirements, and EPA has analyzed the updated the data to reflect retirements limitation of zero discharge, EPA incremental impacts resulting from the or other relevant changes in operation. estimated a flow rate of zero. final rule compared to those projected For example, EPA reviewed state and For the final rule, in response to the under the 2015 Rule baseline. In EIA data to identify flow rates for new administrative petitions discussed in general, EPA used the same scrubbers that have come online since Section IV of this preamble, EPA used methodology to conduct the current the 2015 rule. EPA also accounted for a revised set of the 2015 rule analytical analysis (with updated data as increased scrubber recycle rates, which data to characterize BA transport water applicable) as it did for the analysis would affect the discharge flow. effluent from steam electric power supporting the 2015 rule and the 2019 EPA assigned pollutant plants. As an example, EPA re-evaluated proposal. The following summarizes the concentrations for each analyte based on and revised, as appropriate, its data sets methodology and results. See Section 7 the operation of a treatment system in light of questions petitioners raised of the Supplemental TDD for additional designed to comply with the baseline or about the inclusion and validity of details, including analysis of the other the final rule. EPA used data compiled certain data due, in part, to what the regulatory options that EPA considered. for the 2015 rule to characterize petitioners assert are flaws in data untreated FGD purge, chemical acceptance criteria, obsolete analytical A. Energy Requirements precipitation effluent, and CP+HRTR methods, and the treatment of non- Steam electric power plants use effluent. EPA used data provided by detect analytical results, which energy when transporting ash and other industry to characterize effluent quality petitioners believed resulted in an solids on or off site, transporting brine for CP+LRTR and membrane filtration overestimation of pollutant loadings off site, operating wastewater treatment effluent under the VIP. In addition, EPA resulting from current practices for BA systems (e.g., chemical precipitation, used data provided by industry and transport water, in turn resulting in an biological treatment), or operating ash other stakeholders, as described in overestimation of pollutant removals handling systems. For the final rule, Section VI of this preamble, to quantify under the 2015 rule. EPA also updated EPA considered whether there would be bromide in FGD wastewater under the data set and incorporated BA an associated change in the incremental baseline conditions and for the final transport water sampling data submitted energy requirements compared to rule. by industry during the final months of baseline. Therefore, as applicable, EPA EPA received comments on potential the 2015 rulemaking and as part of a estimated the increase in energy usage errors in the bromide loadings voluntary sampling program described in megawatt hours (MWh) for calculations used for the 2019 proposal. in Section VI of this preamble. For a equipment added to the plant systems EPA agrees with comments identifying detailed discussion, including for other or in consumed fuel (gallons) for conversion errors, as well as comments regulatory options, see Section 6 of the transportation/operating equipment for suggesting updated bromide addition Supplemental TDD. the baseline and final rule. EPA rates and has, therefore, updated its summed the plant-specific estimates to bromide loadings estimates to reflect C. Summary of Incremental Changes of calculate the net overall difference in these changes. Some commenters also Pollutant Loadings From Final Rule energy requirements between baseline expressed preferences for addressing or Compared to the 2015 rule, the final and the final rule. This section not addressing iodine as presented in rule is estimated to result in further discusses plant-specific energy Section XIV(C) below. EPA’s rulemaking reductions of approximately 972,000 requirements and does not address record contains very limited pounds of pollutants per year. electricity reliability of the electric grid. information about iodine, and publicly Reductions under the final rule would See Section VII.C for discussion of available data is more limited and be realized to the extent that plants electricity reliability with respect to uncertain than data on bromide. choose to meet the limitations based on LUEGUs and EGUs permanently ceasing However, in response to comments, EPA membrane filtration under the VIP for coal combustion. conducted a mass balance to estimate FGD wastewater. The EPA estimated EPA estimated the amount of energy iodine loadings based on the limited that, under the final rule, eight plants needed to operate wastewater treatment available data. For a more complete (13 percent of plants estimated to incur systems and ash handling systems based discussion of these changes, see Section FGD compliance costs) would opt into on the horsepower rating of the pumps 6 of the Supplemental TDD. the VIP program. and other equipment. EPA also estimated the fuel consumption B. BA Transport Water X. Non-Water Quality Environmental associated with the changes in EPA estimated baseline and post- Impacts transportation needed to landfill solid compliance loadings for the final rule in The elimination or reduction of one waste and combustion residuals (e.g., Table VII–1 using pollutant form of pollution may create or ash) of steam electric power plants (on concentrations for BA transport water aggravate other environmental site or off site) and send concentrated and plant-specific flow rates. EPA used problems. Therefore, sections 304(b) brine off site to a centralized waste data compiled for the 2015 rule as the and 306 of the Act require EPA to treatment (CWT) plant. The frequency basis for estimating BA transport water consider non-water quality and distance of transport depend on a discharge flows and updated the data environmental impacts (including plant’s location, operation, and set to reflect retirements and other energy impacts) associated with ELGs. configuration; specifically, the volume relevant changes in operation (e.g., ash Accordingly, EPA has considered the of waste generated and the availability handling conversions, fuel conversions) potential impact of the final rule on air of either an on-site or off-site non- that occurred after the 2015 rule data emissions, solid waste generation, and hazardous landfill and its distance from were collected. For the high recycle rate energy consumption. For the reasons the plant. Table X–1 shows the net

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64691

change in annual electrical energy usage Steam electric power plants generate TABLE X–2—ESTIMATED NET CHANGE associated with the final rule compared air emissions by operating transport IN INDUSTRY-LEVEL AIR EMISSIONS to 2015 rule baseline, as well as the net vehicles, such as dump trucks, which ASSOCIATED WITH AUXILIARY ELEC- change in annual fuel consumption release criteria air pollutants and TRICITY AND TRANSPORTATION FOR requirements associated with the final greenhouse gases. A decrease in energy THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO THE rule compared to baseline. use or vehicle operation would result in a decreased air pollution from those 2015 RULE BASELINE TABLE X–1—ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL sources. Non-water CHANGE IN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS To estimate the net air emissions quality Change in emissions ASSOCIATED WITH THE FINAL RULE associated with changes in electrical impact (tons/year) COMPARED TO 2015 RULE BASELINE energy use projected under the final rule ¥ compared to the 2015 rule baseline, EPA NOX ...... 21.9 ¥ Non-water quality impact Energy use a combined the energy usage estimates SO2 ...... 16.8 ¥ with air emission factors associated CO2 ...... 33,300 Electrical Energy Used ¥ with electricity production to calculate a Negative values represent a decrease in (MWh) ...... 37,200 air emissions associated with the Fuel Used (Thousand Gal- energy use compared to 2015 Rule baseline. lons Per Year) ...... ¥1,062,000 incremental energy requirements. EPA used emission factors projected by IPM The modeled output from IPM v6 a Negative values represent a decrease in v6 (ton/MWh) for nitrogen oxides, predicts changes in electricity energy use under the final rule compared to baseline. sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide to generation due to compliance costs generate estimates of the changes in air attributable to the final rule compared to B. Air Pollution emissions associated with changes in the 2015 rule baseline. These changes in The final rule is expected to affect air energy production for the final rule electricity generation are, in turn, pollution through three main compared to baseline. predicted to affect the amount of NOX, mechanisms: (1) Changes in auxiliary To estimate net air emissions SO2, and CO2 emissions from steam electricity use by steam electric power associated with the change in operation electric power plants. A summary of the plants to operate wastewater treatment, of transport vehicles, EPA used the net change in annual air emissions ash handling, and other systems needed MOVES2014b model to identify air under the final rule for all three to meet regulatory standards; (2) emission factors (grams per mile) for the mechanisms is shown in Table X–3. To changes to transportation-related relevant air pollutants. EPA estimated provide some perspective on the emissions due to the trucking of CCR the annual number of miles that dump estimated changes in annual air waste to landfills; and (3) the change in trucks moving ash or wastewater emissions, EPA compared the estimated the profile of electricity generation due treatment solids to on- or off-site change in air emissions to the net to any regulatory requirements. This landfills would travel under the amount of air emissions generated in a section discusses air emission changes regulatory options. EPA used these year by all steam electric power plants associated with the first two estimates to calculate the net change in throughout the United States. For more mechanisms and presents the air emissions for the final rule compared details on the sources of air emission corresponding estimated net change in to the 2015 rule baseline. Table X–2 air emissions. See Section XII of this presents EPA’s estimated net change in changes, see Section 7 of the preamble for additional discussion of air emissions associated with auxiliary Supplemental TDD. the third mechanism. electricity and transportation.

TABLE X–3—ESTIMATED NET CHANGE IN INDUSTRY-LEVEL AIR EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CHANGES IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION FOR THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO THE 2015 RULE BASELINE

2018 emissions by Change in electric power Non-water quality impact emissions generating (million tons) industry (million tons)

NOX ...... 0.00067 1.29 SO2 ...... 0.0016 1.41 CO2 ...... 2.67 1,970

C. Solid Waste Generation and generated compared to baseline due to generate 30,800 more tons of waste per Beneficial Use projected implementation of the VIP at year than plants in the baseline Steam electric power plants generate eight plants. While BA solids are also scenario. However, EPA finds that these solid waste associated with sludge from generated at steam electric power additional non-water quality wastewater treatment systems (e.g., plants, all of the BA solids accounted environmental impacts are acceptable, chemical precipitation, biological for in the waste volumes disposed of in as these volumes represent much less treatment). EPA estimated the change in the 2015 rule analysis were suspended than a one percent increase in total the amount of solids generated under solids from combustion, and, therefore, waste generation by these plants. the final rule in comparison to the 2015 the final rule does not alter the amount EPA also evaluated the potential Rule baseline. For FGD wastewater of BA or other combustion residuals impacts of diverting FA from current treatment, the final rule results in an generated. EPA estimates that plants beneficial uses to encapsulate brine increase in the amount of solid waste impacted by the final rule would (from membrane filtration) for disposal

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64692 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

in landfills. According to the latest of other wastewater could significantly supporting the analysis for the final American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) increase the necessary purge flow to rule. The 2015 EA provides information survey,135 most beneficially used FA is maintain water chemistry, EPA from EPA’s earlier review of the replacing Portland cement used to make estimated the increase in water use for scientific literature and documented concrete. As seen by FA sales data in BA handling associated with the final cases of the full spectrum of impacts the 2018 EIA–923 Schedule 8A, plants rule compared to baseline as equal to associated with the wider range of steam currently discharging FGD wastewater the BA purge flow. electric power plant wastewater on average sell 34 percent of their FA The technology basis for FGD discharges addressed in the 2015 rule for beneficial use.136 Summary statistics wastewater in the final rule, CP+LRTR, on human health and the environment, of the FA beneficial use percentage for is not expected to reduce or increase the as well as a full description of EPA’s these plants are displayed in Table X– volume of water used. Plants that install modeling methodology. 5 below. a membrane filtration system for FGD Current scientific literature indicates wastewater treatment as part of the VIP that untreated steam electric power TABLE X–5—PERCENT OF FA SOLD option are assumed to decrease their plant wastewaters, such as FGD FOR BENEFICIAL USE BY PLANTS water use compared to baseline by wastewater and BA transport water, DISCHARGING FGD WASTEWATER recycling all permeate back into the contain large amounts of a wide range FGD system, which would avoid costs of pollutants, some of which are toxic Percent of of pumping or treating new makeup and bioaccumulative and cause Statistic FA sold for water. Therefore, EPA estimated the detrimental environmental and human beneficial use reduction in water use resulting from health impacts. For additional Min ...... 0% membrane filtration treatment as equal information, see Section 2 of the 25th percentile ...... 0 to the estimated volume of the permeate Supplemental EA. EPA also considered Median ...... 13 stream from the membrane filtration environmental and human health effects Mean ...... 34 system. EPA estimates that plants associated with changes in air 75th percentile ...... 79 impacted by the final rule will increase emissions, solid waste generation, and Max ...... 100 their water use by 3.94 million gallons water withdrawals. Sections X and XII per day compared to baseline. EPA finds 137 of this preamble discuss these effects. In EPA’s CCR disposal rule, EPA this impact to be acceptable because it noted that FA replacing Portland represents less than a one percent B. Updates to the Environmental cement in concrete would result in increase in water use at these plants. Assessment Methodology significant avoided environmental The environmental assessment impacts to energy use, water use, XI. Environmental Assessment modeling for this final rule consisted of greenhouse gas emissions, air emissions, A. Introduction the steady-state, national-scale and waterborne wastes. Although EPA immediate receiving water (IRW) model cannot, with available data, tie specific EPA conducted an environmental that EPA used to evaluate the direct and plants selling their FA to this specific assessment for the final rule. The indirect discharges from steam electric beneficial use, the ACAA data indicate Agency reviewed available literature on power plants for the 2019 proposal, the that more than half of the FA the documented environmental and 2015 rule and 2015 CCR rule.138 beneficially used currently replaces human health effects of the pollutants The Portland cement in concrete. Therefore, discharged in steam electric power plant model focused on impacts within the where sale for this particular beneficial FGD wastewater and BA transport immediate surface waters where the use occurs by plants that may otherwise water. EPA conducted modeling to discharges occurred (the closest use their FA to encapsulate membrane determine the impacts of pollution from segments of approximately 0.25 miles to filtration brine under Option C, EPA the universe of plants to which the final 5 miles long). EPA also modeled finds that would result in unacceptable rule applies. For the reasons described receiving water concentrations air and other non-water quality in Section VIII of this preamble, the downstream from steam electric power environmental impacts, as detailed in baseline for these analyses appropriately plant discharges using a downstream Section VII(B)(1). consists of the environmental and fate and transport model (see Section human health results of achieving the XII of this preamble). D. Changes in Water Use 2015 rule requirements (the same The environmental assessment also Steam electric power plants generally baseline EPA used to evaluate costs). incorporates changes to the industry use water for handling solid waste, This assessment compares the potential profile outlined in Section V of this including ash, and for operating wet environmental impacts of the 2015 rule preamble. Additionally, EPA retained FGD scrubbers. The BA transport with those of the final rule. the updates and improvements to technologies associated with baseline Information from EPA’s review of the several input parameters for the IRW and the final rule for BA transport water scientific literature and documented model from the 2019 proposal, eliminate or reduce the volume of water cases of impacts of pollutants including receiving water boundaries used by wet sluicing BA operating discharged in steam electric power plant and volumetric flow data from the systems. The 2015 rule baseline FGD wastewater and BA transport water National Hydrography Dataset Plus required zero discharge of pollutants in on human health and the environment, (NHDPlus) Version 2, updated national BA transport water, and because the use as well as a description of EPA’s recommended water quality criteria modeling methodology and results, are (NRWQC) for cadmium and selenium, 135 Available online at: https://www.acaa-usa.org/ provided in the Supplemental updated benchmarks for ecological Portals/9/Files/PDFs/2018-Survey-Results.pdf (DCN Environmental Assessment impacts in benthic sediment, and an SE09099). (Supplemental EA). The Supplemental updated bioconcentration factor for 136 Available online at: https://www.eia.gov/ EA contains information on literature electricity/data/eia923/. cadmium. 137 Available online at: http:// that EPA has reviewed since the 2015 www.regulations.gov Docket ID: EPA–HQ–RCRA– rule, updates to the modeling 138 These rules modeled the same waterbodies for 2009–0640. methodology and modeling results which the model was peer reviewed in 2008.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64693

C. Outputs From the Environmental quality; impacts to aquatic life based on Energy (ACE) rule (84 FR 32520, July 8, Assessment changes in sediment quality within 2019) to estimate human health effects EPA estimates small environmental surface waters; impacts to wildlife from due to changes in pollutant air and ecological changes associated with consumption of contaminated aquatic emissions relative to the baseline. organisms; and impacts to human health changes in pollutant loadings for the A. Categories of Benefits Analyzed final rule as compared to the baseline, from consumption of contaminated fish including small changes in impacts to and water. The Supplemental EA Table XII–1 summarizes benefit wildlife and humans. More specifically, discusses, with quantified results, the categories associated with the final rule in addition to other unquantified estimated environmental changes and notes which categories EPA was environmental changes, the projected within the immediate able to quantify and monetize. Analyzed environmental assessment evaluated receiving waters due to the estimated benefits fall into five broad categories: pollutant loading changes associated changes in: (1) Surface water quality, (2) Human health benefits from surface with today’s final rule compared to the impacts to wildlife, (3) number of water quality improvements; ecological 2015 rule. All of the modeled changes receiving waters with potential human conditions and effects on recreational relative to the baseline are small. health cancer risks, (4) number of use from surface water quality changes; receiving waters with potential to cause XII. Benefits Analysis market and productivity benefits, air- non-cancer human health effects, and This section summarizes EPA’s related effects, and changes in water (5) nutrient impacts. withdrawal. Within these broad As described in the Supplemental EA, national estimates of the changes in categories, EPA was able to assess EPA focused its quantitative analyses on social benefits expected to result from the changes in environmental and estimated changes in steam electric changes in the benefits projected for human health impacts associated with power plant wastewater discharges today’s final rule with varying degrees exposure to toxic bioaccumulative described in Section IX of this preamble of completeness and rigor. Where pollutants via the surface water and the resultant environmental effects possible, EPA quantified the expected pathway. EPA modeled changes in summarized in Section XI of this changes in effects and estimated discharged toxic, bioaccumulative preamble. The Benefit Cost Analysis monetary values. However, data pollutants from both FGD wastewater (BCA) report provides additional details limitations, modeling limitations, and and BA transport water into rivers and on the benefits, methodologies, and gaps in the understanding of how streams and lakes, including reservoirs. analyses, including uncertainties and society values certain environmental EPA also addressed environmental limitations. The analysis methodology changes prevent EPA from quantifying impacts from nutrients in the for quantified benefits is generally the and/or monetizing some benefit Supplemental EA, as well as in a same as that used by EPA for the 2015 categories. In the following discussion, separate analysis discussed in Section rule and the 2019 proposal, but with positive benefit values represent XII of this preamble. revised inputs and assumptions that improvements in environmental The environmental assessment reflect updated data. For the final rule, conditions and negative values concentrates on impacts to aquatic life EPA used the same methodology represent forgone benefits of the final based on changes in surface water developed for the Affordable Clean rule relative to the baseline.

TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL RULE

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

Human Health Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes

Changes in halogen levels in drinking water treatment plant source waters ...... ✓ ...... Changes in human health effects (e.g., bladder cancer) associated with halogenated disinfec- tion byproduct exposure via drinking water ...... ✓ Changes in incidence of cancer from arsenic exposure via fish consumption ...... ✓ ...... Changes in incidence of cardiovascular disease from lead exposure via fish consumption ...... ✓ Changes in incidence of other cancer and non-cancer adverse health effects (e.g., reproduc- tive, immunological, neurological, circulatory, or respiratory) due to exposure to arsenic, lead, cadmium, and other toxics via fish consumption or drinking water ...... ✓ Changes in IQ loss in children from lead exposure via fish consumption ...... ✓ ...... Changes in need for specialized education for children from lead exposure via fish consump- tion ...... ✓ ...... Changes in in utero mercury exposure via maternal fish consumption ...... ✓ ...... Changes in health hazards from exposure to pollutants in waters used recreationally (e.g., swimming) ...... ✓

Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From Surface Water Quality Changes

Benefits from changes in surface water quality, including: Aquatic and wildlife habitat; water- based recreation, including fishing, swimming, boating, and nearwater activities; aesthetic benefits, such as enhancement of adjoining site amenities (e.g., residing, working, trav- eling, and owning property near water; a and non-use value (existence, option, and be- quest value from improved ecosystem health).a ...... ✓ ...... Changes in protection of threatened and endangered species ...... ✓ ...... Changes in sediment contamination ...... ✓

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64694 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE XII–1—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH FINAL RULE—Continued

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

Market and Productivity Effects

Changes in water treatment costs for municipal drinking water, irrigation water, and industrial process water ...... ✓ Changes in commercial fisheries yields ...... ✓ Changes in tourism and participation in water-based recreation ...... ✓ Changes in property values from water quality changes ...... ✓ Changes in ability to market coal combustion byproducts ...... ✓ Changes in maintenance dredging of navigational waterways and reservoirs due to changes in sediment discharges ...... ✓ ......

Air Quality-Related Effects

Changes in human morbidity and mortality from changes in exposure to NOX, SO2, O3, and particulate matter (PM2.5) ...... ✓ ...... Changes in ecosystem effects; visibility impairment; and human health effects from direct ex- posure to NO2, SO2, and HAP ...... ✓ Changes in climate change impacts from CO2 emissions ...... ✓ ......

Changes in Water Withdrawal

Changes in the availability of groundwater resources ...... ✓ ...... Changes in the availability of surface water resources ...... ✓ Changes in impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms ...... ✓ a These values are implicit in the total willingness-to-pay (WTP) for water quality improvements.

The following section summarizes waters, it may alter incidence of steam electric power plants. Cohorts EPA’s analysis of the benefit categories associated health effects, even if by were defined by age, gender, race/ that the Agency was able to quantify small amounts. EPA’s analyses of ethnicity, and fishing mode and/or monetize (identified in the first human health effects, detailed in (recreational or subsistence). EPA used and second columns of Table XII–1). Chapters 4 and 5 of the BCA report, find these data to quantify and monetize Benefits are a function of the changes in that the incremental changes in changes in the following four categories pollutant loadings under the final rule exposure between the baseline and the of human health effects, which are and the timing of the rule’s final rule are minimal compared to the further detailed in the BCA report: implementation. The final rule would estimates of absolute changes in • also affect additional benefit categories exposure for those same pollutants Changes in IQ loss in children aged that the Agency was not able to quantify under the 2015 rule. zero to seven from lead exposure via or monetize. The BCA report further Due to data limitations and fish consumption. describes additional qualitative and uncertainties, EPA is able to monetize • Changes in need for specialized nonmonetized benefits. only a subset of the changes in health education for children from lead B. Quantification and Monetization of effects associated with changes in exposure via fish consumption. Benefits pollutant discharges under the final rule • Changes in in utero mercury relative to the baseline. EPA’s analysis exposure via maternal fish consumption 1. Changes in Human Health Effects first estimated the changes in the and associated IQ loss. From Surface Water Quality Changes expected number of individuals • Changes in pollutant discharges from experiencing adverse health effects in Changes in incidence of cancer steam electric power plants affect the populations affected by exposure to from arsenic exposure via fish human health in multiple ways. discharged pollutants under the final consumption. Exposure to pollutants in steam electric rule relative to the baseline. EPA then Table XII–2 summarizes the monetary power plant discharges via consumption estimated the value of these changes by value of changes in quantified and of fish from affected waters can cause a using different monetization methods monetized health outcomes associated wide variety of adverse health effects, for different health benefit endpoints. with consumption of contaminated fish including cancer, kidney damage, EPA estimated changes in health risks tissue under the final rule relative to the nervous system damage, liver damage, from the consumption of contaminated baseline. In addition, EPA estimates no circulatory damage, vomiting, diarrhea, fish from waterbodies within 50 miles of changes in cancer incidence due to brain damage, IQ loss, fatigue, households. EPA used Census Block arsenic exposure via fish consumption irritability, and many others. Exposure Group population data and state- under the final rule relative to the to drinking water containing specific average fishing participation baseline. Accordingly, EPA estimates no halogenated disinfection byproducts rates to estimate the exposed change in social benefits for this health could cause adverse health effects such population. EPA used population endpoint. Chapter 5 of the BCA report as cancer and reproductive and fetal cohort-specific fish consumption rates provides additional detail on EPA’s development issues. Because the final and waterbody-specific fish tissue methodologies. rule is expected to change discharges of concentration estimates to calculate steam electric pollutants into surface potential exposure to pollutants from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64695

TABLE XII–2—ESTIMATED MONETARY VALUES OF CHANGES IN HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS UNDER THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO BASELINE [Millions of 2018$, annualized]a

3% Discount 7% Discount Human health benefits rate rate

Reduced Lead Exposure for Children ...... ¥$0.02 b <$0.00 Reduced Mercury Exposure for Children ...... ¥$0.32 ¥$0.11

Total Monetized Benefits ...... ¥$0.34 ¥$0.11 a Negative values represent forgone benefits. b ‘‘<$0.00’’ indicates that monetary values are greater than ¥$0.01 million but less than $0.00 million.

There is evidence of linkages between harmful pollutants such as arsenic, positive in some segments, and segment adverse human health effects, including cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, level WQI changes overall range from bladder cancer, and exposure to mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, ¥0.7 to 1.5 (median change is halogenated disinfection byproducts in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended ¥8.1×10¥5). The positive changes in drinking water. Reductions in halogen sediment relative to the baseline. As a WQI in some reaches derive from levels in source waters for drinking result, the usability of some of the projected plant participation in the VIP. water treatment plants can contribute to waters for recreation relative to baseline EPA estimated the change in reductions in halogenated disinfection conditions could change under the final monetized benefit values using an byproduct levels in drinking water. EPA rule, thereby affecting recreational updated version of the meta-regressions analyzed the populations served by users. Changes in pollutant loadings can of surface water valuation studies used drinking water treatment plants with also change the attractiveness of waters in the benefit analysis for the 2015 rule intakes on surface waters to which usable for recreation by making and 2019 proposal. The meta- steam electric power plants discharge. recreational trips more or less enjoyable. regressions quantify average household EPA used Safe Drinking Water The final rule may also change nonuse willingness to pay (WTP) for Information System (SDWIS) and U.S. values stemming from bequest, altruism, incremental improvements in surface Census data to estimate the exposed and existence motivations. Individuals water quality. This WTP is the population. EPA estimated reductions may value water quality maintenance, maximum amount of money a person is ecosystem protection, and healthy in source water halogen concentrations willing to give up for a given under this final rule relative to the species populations independent of any improvement in water quality. Chapter baseline. EPA estimates that following use of those attributes. 6 of the BCA report provides additional implementation of wastewater treatment EPA uses a water quality index (WQI) detail on the valuation methodology. upgrades to meet the revised ELGs (i.e., to translate water quality measurements, Overall, the final rule is estimated to starting in 2029), 323 drinking water gathered for multiple parameters that result in small reductions in water treatment plants serving a total are indicative of various aspects of quality relative to baseline, which is population of 7.3 million people will water quality, into a single numerical reflected in negative average annual experience a reduction in source water indicator that reflects water quality household WTP values ranging from halogen concentrations under the final suitable for certain uses. The WQI ¥$0.40 to ¥$0.20 (central estimate rule relative to baseline. These halogen includes seven parameters: Dissolved ¥$0.31). reduction benefits derive from projected oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, plant participation in the VIP.139 fecal coliform, total nitrogen, total Table XII–3 presents annualized total Additional details on this analysis, phosphorus, suspended solids, and an WTP values for water quality changes including a discussion of uncertainties, aggregate subindex for toxics. For the associated with modified toxic pollutant are provided in Chapter 4 of the BCA purposes of this analysis, EPA modeled (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, report. changes in four of these parameters, and lead, mercury, selenium, zinc, and held the remaining parameters nickel), nutrient pollutant (phosphorus 2. Ecological Condition and (dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen and nitrogen), and sediment pollutant Recreational Use Effects From Changes demand, and fecal coliform) constant. discharges to approximately 10,610 in Surface Water Quality Relative to baseline, EPA estimates that reach miles affected by the final rule. EPA evaluated whether the final rule the final rule will result in small An estimated 82.4 million households would alter aquatic habitats and human reductions in water quality during the reside in census block groups within welfare by changing concentrations of period being analyzed. During the 2021 100 miles of affected reaches. The though 2028 time period, the change in central tendency estimates of the total 139 Estimated halogen concentrations increase WQI is uniformly negative or zero, with annualized benefits of water quality relative to baseline for some drinking water surface water segment-level changes changes for the final rule range from treatment plants due to BA requirements under this ¥ ¥ final rule, but the magnitude of these increases is ranging from 5.8 to 0.0 (median $12.5 million (7 percent discount rate) ¥ × ¥4 ¥ generally much smaller than the magnitude of change is 3.8 10 ). From 2029 to $11.8 million (3 percent discount decreases at plants experiencing reductions. through 2047, the change in WQI is rate).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64696 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE XII–3—ESTIMATED TOTAL WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY FOR WATER QUALITY CHANGES UNDER THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO BASELINE a [Millions of 2018$; annualized]

Number of Total willingness-to-pay for water quality changes affected households 3% discount rate 7% discount rate (millions) Low Central High Low Central High

82.4 ¥$15.3 ¥$11.8 ¥$7.4 ¥$16.4 ¥$12.5 ¥$8.0 a Negative values represent forgone benefits.

3. Effects on Threatened and applications. EPA estimates that the 6. Changes in Air Quality-Related Endangered Species final rule will affect the quantity of BA Effects EPA assessed the potential for handled wet relative to the baseline. EPA expects the final rule will affect impacts on threatened and endangered The estimated increase in BA handled air pollution through three main (T&E) species, both aquatic and wet is small (total of 246,871 tons per mechanisms: (1) Changes in auxiliary terrestrial, relative to the baseline, by year at five plants). Given the small electricity use by steam electric power analyzing the overlap between waters magnitude of these changes and the plants to operate wastewater treatment, expected to change their wildlife uncertainty associated with projecting ash handling, and other systems that national recommended water quality plant-specific changes in marketed ash, EPA predicts plants would use under criteria (NRWQC) exceedance status EPA did not to monetize this benefit the final rule; (2) changes in under the final rule and the known category in the final rule analysis. See transportation-related air emissions due habitat ranges of T&E species listed Chapter 2 in the BCA report for to changes in trucking of CCR waste to under the Endangered Species Act. EPA additional details. landfills; and (3) changes in the profile examined the life history traits of of electricity generation due to changes potentially affected T&E species and 5. Changes in Dredging Costs in costs to generate electricity at steam categorized them by potential for The final rule would affect discharge electric power plants affected by the population impacts due to surface water final rule. of multiple pollutants, including quality changes. EPA estimated that Changes in the electricity generation sediment, thereby changing the rate of there are 194 species whose known profile can increase or decrease air habitat range overlaps with surface sediment deposition in affected pollutant emissions because emission waters that receive discharges from waterbodies, including navigable factors vary for different types of electric steam electric power plants. Five of the waterways and reservoirs that require EGUs. For this analysis, the changes in 194 T&E species have habitat ranges that dredging for maintenance. air emissions relative to the baseline are intersect with waters that EPA estimates Navigable waterways, including based on the change in dispatch of have changes in NRWQC exceedances rivers, lakes, bays, shipping channels generation units as projected by IPM v6 under the final rule relative to the and harbors, are an integral part of the given the overlaying of costs for baseline, four of which correspond to United States transportation network. complying with the final rule onto estimated increases in NRWQC They are liable to reduced functionality steam electric EGUs’ production costs. exceedances during the 2021–2028 due to sediment buildup, which can As discussed in Section VIII of this period, and one of which corresponds to reduce the navigable depth and width of preamble, the IPM v6 analysis accounts an estimated reduction in NRWQC the waterway. In many cases, costly for the effects of other regulations on the exceedances starting in 2029 following electric power sector. implementation of wastewater treatment periodic dredging is necessary to keep them passable. Reservoirs serve many EPA evaluated potential effects technologies to achieve the revised resulting from net changes in air functions, including storage of drinking limitations. Principal sources of emissions of three pollutants: NOX, SO2, and irrigation water, flood control, uncertainty in this analysis include the primary PM2.5, and CO2. NOX and SOX specifics of how the final rule could hydropower supply, and recreation. are precursors to fine particles sized 2.5 impact T&E species (e.g., exposure Streams and rivers can carry sediment microns and smaller (PM2.5) and NOX is levels, species reactions to exposure into reservoirs, where it can settle and an ozone precursor. These air pollutants levels), exact species spatial cause buildup of sediment layers. cause a variety of adverse health effects distributions, and additional species Sedimentation reduces reservoir including premature death, non-fatal that were not considered. Chapter 7 of capacity and useful life unless measures heart attacks, hospital admissions, the BCA report provides additional such as dredging are taken to reclaim emergency department visits, upper and details on EPA’s methodology. capacity. Chapter 10 of the BCA report lower respiratory symptoms, acute 4. Changes in Ability to Market Coal provides additional details on EPA’s bronchitis, aggravated asthma, lost work Combustion Byproducts methodology for this benefit category. and school days, and acute respiratory symptoms.140 CO is a key greenhouse The final rule could affect the ability EPA estimates that sediment 2 deposition in navigable waterways and of steam electric power plants to market 140 U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) coal combustion byproducts for reservoirs will increase under the final for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2009). U.S. beneficial use by converting from wet to rule relative to baseline, increasing Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, dry handling of BA. In particular, EPA maintenance dredging costs by less than EPA/600/R–08/139F, 2009; U.S. EPA. Integrated $0.01 million (3 or 7 percent discount Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final evaluated the potential effects of Report, 2019), U.S. Environmental Protection changes in marketability of BA as a rates). Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–19/188; U.S. substitute for sand and gravel in fill EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64697

gas linked to a wide range of domestic the monetary value of impacts EPA, 2009; 143 U.S. EPA, 2011; 144 NRC, effects. Other than mercury (Hg) and associated with marginal changes in 2002).145 hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions, EPA CO2 emissions in a given year. The SC– In general, EPA is more confident in did not estimate changes in any other CO2 estimates used in the analysis for the size of the risks estimated from air pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide) this final rule focus on the direct simulated PM2.5 concentrations that emissions that may occur as a result of impacts of climate change that are coincide with the bulk of the observed the final rule due to methodology and anticipated to occur within U.S. PM concentrations in the resource limitations. borders. epidemiological studies that are used to Table XII–4 shows the changes in Table XII–5 shows the total estimate the benefits. Likewise, EPA is emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and annualized monetary values associated less confident in the risk EPA estimates primary PM2.5 based on the estimated with changes in emissions of primary from simulated PM2.5 concentrations changes in the profile of electricity that fall below the bulk of the observed PM2.5, SO2 and NOX under the final rule. 146 generation, including increased To give readers insight to the data in these studies. Furthermore, generation from coal-fired EGUs (see distribution of estimated benefits when setting the 2012 PM NAAQS, the Table VIII–3) under the final rule displayed in Table XII–5, EPA also former EPA Administrator also relative to baseline. acknowledged greater uncertainty in reports the PM benefits according to EPA estimated the monetized value of specifying the ‘‘magnitude and alternative concentration cut-points and human health benefits among significance’’ of PM-related health risks concentration-response parameters. EPA populations exposed to changes in PM at PM concentrations below the 2.5 uses two long-term epidemiological and ozone. The final rule is expected to NAAQS. As noted in the preamble to studies to estimate risk, Krewski et al. alter the emissions of primary PM , the 2012 PM NAAQS final rule, ‘‘EPA 2.5 (2009) 141 and Lepeule et al. (2012).142 SO and NO , which will in turn affect concludes that it is not appropriate to 2 X Small shares of avoided PM -related the level of PM and ozone in the 2.5 place as much confidence in the 2.5 premature deaths occur above the atmosphere. Using photochemical magnitude and significance of the annual mean PM NAAQS of 12 mg/ modeling, EPA predicted the change in 2.5 associations over the lower percentiles m3, with percentages depending on the the annual average PM2.5 and summer of the distribution in each study as at season ozone across the U.S. EPA next year and epidemiological studies. The and around the long-term mean quantified the human health impacts shares range from less than 1 percent to concentration.’’ 147 and economic value of these changes in up to 2 percent based on Lepeule et al. Estimates of monetized co-benefits air quality using the environmental (2012) and from less than 1 percent to shown here do not include several Benefits Mapping and Analysis 3 percent based on Krewski et al. (2009). important benefit categories, such as Program—Community Edition Table XII–6 reports the combined direct exposure to SO2, NOX, and HAPs (BenMAP–CE). EPA quantified effects human health benefits and domestic including mercury and hydrogen using concentration-response climate benefits attributable to changes chloride. Although EPA does not have parameters which are consistent with in SO2, NOX, primary PM2.5, and CO2 sufficient information or modeling those employed by the Agency in the emissions estimated with 3 percent and available to provide monetized PM NAAQS, Ozone NAAQS, and ACE 7 percent discount rates. This table estimates of changes in exposure to RIAs (U.S. EPA, 2012; 2015; 2019). reports the air pollution effects these pollutants for the final rule, EPA To estimate the climate benefits calculated using PM2.5 log-linear no includes a discussion of these associated with changes in CO2 threshold concentration-response unquantified benefits in the BCA. For emissions, EPA applied a measure of the functions that quantify risk associated more information on the benefits domestic social cost of carbon (SC–CO2). with the full range of PM2.5 exposures analysis, see Chapter 8 of the BCA The SC–CO2 is a metric that estimates experienced by the population (U.S. Report.

TABLE XII–4—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM CHANGES IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION PROFILE UNDER THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO BASELINE a

CO2 NOX SO2 Primary PM2.5 Year (million short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year)

2021 ¥0.079 ¥0.25 ¥1.4 ¥0.028 2023 2.9 3.0 ¥2.6 0.45 2025 2.2 1.6 ¥0.70 0.91 2030 2.7 0.69 1.7 0.48 2035 0.88 ¥0.57 1.8 0.81

Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report, 142 Lepeule, J., Laden, F., Dockery, D., Schwartz, 146 The Federal Register notice for the 2012 PM 2013). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, J., 2012. Chronic exposure to fine particles and NAAQS states, ‘‘In considering this additional Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–10/076F; and U.S. mortality: An extended follow-up of the Harvard population level information, the Administrator EPA. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Six Cities study from 1974 to 2009. Environ. Health recognizes that, in general, the confidence in the Related Photochemical Oxidants (Final Report, Perspect. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104660. magnitude and significance of an association 2020) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 143 U.S. EPA, 2009. Integrated Science identified in a study is strongest at and around the Washington, DC, EPA/600/R–20/012. Assessment for Particulate Matter. U.S. long-term mean concentration for the air quality 141 Krewski, D., Jerrett, M., Burnett, R.T., Ma, R., Environmental Protection Agency, National Center Hughes, E., Shi, Y., Turner, M.C., Pope, C.A., for Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle distribution, as this represents the part of the Thurston, G., Calle, E.E., Thun, M.J., Beckerman, B., Park, NC. distribution in which the data in any given study DeLuca, P., Finkelstein, N., Ito, K., Moore, D.K., 144 U.S. EPA, 2011. Policy Assessment for the are generally most concentrated. She also Newbold, K.B., Ramsay, T., Ross, Z., Shin, H., Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient recognizes that the degree of confidence decreases Tempalski, B., 2009. Extended follow-up and Air Quality Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC. as one moves towards the lower part of the spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society 145 NRC, 2002. Estimating the Public Health distribution.’’ See 78 FR 3159 (Jan. 15, 2013). study linking particulate air pollution and Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. 147 See 78 FR 3154, January 15, 2013. mortality. Res. Rep. Health. Eff. Inst. 5–114–36. National Research Council. Washington, DC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64698 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE XII–4—ESTIMATED CHANGES IN AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM CHANGES IN ELECTRICITY GENERATION PROFILE UNDER THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO BASELINE a—Continued

CO2 NOX SO2 Primary PM2.5 Year (million short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year) (thousand short tons/year)

2040 1.0 ¥1.6 ¥2.9 ¥0.22 2045 2.8 0.15 0.92 0.44 a All values in this table are rounded to two significant figures. Negative values represent emission reductions and positive values represent emission increases.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64699

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:43 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 ER13OC20.004 64700 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE XII–6—ESTIMATED MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CHANGES IN AIR EMISSIONS FOR THE FINAL RULE COMPARED TO BASELINE a [Millions 2018$; annualized]

3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate Benefit category Lower bound b Upper bound c Lower bound b Upper bound c

Climate change ...... ¥$14 ¥2.3

Human health ...... $28 $65 $25 $56

Total ...... 14 51 23 54 a All values in this table are rounded to two significant figures. Negative values represent forgone benefits and positive values represent real- ized benefits. Climate benefits reflect the value of domestic impacts from CO2 emissions changes. The human health benefits reflect the sum of the PM2.5 and ozone benefits and reflect the range based on adult mortality functions. The health co-benefits do not account for direct exposure to NO2, SO2, and HAP; ecosystem effects; or visibility impairment. b Lower bound is based on human health benefit point estimates using Krewski et al. (2009) for PM2.5 and Smith et al (2009) for ozone. c Upper bound is based on human health benefit point estimates using Lepeule et al. (2012) for PM2.5 and Jerrett et al. (2009) for ozone.

7. Changes in Water Withdrawals increase in groundwater withdrawal (in C. Total Monetized Benefits gallons per year) by water costs of Steam electric power plants use water approximately $1,347 per acre-foot Using the analysis approach described for handling BA and operating wet FGD (326,000 gallons; 2018$). Chapter 9 of above, EPA estimated the total monetary scrubbers. By changing the use of water the BCA report provides the details of value of annualized benefits of the final in sluicing operations or prompting the this analysis. EPA estimates the changes rule for all monetized categories. Table recycling of water in FGD wastewater in annualized benefits of increased XII–7 summarizes the total annualized treatment systems, the final rule may groundwater withdrawals are ¥$0.01 monetary value of social welfare effects affect the amount of water withdrawn million (3 percent and 7 percent using 3 percent and 7 percent discount from surface waters or aquifers. Using discount rates). Due to data limitations, rates. The total monetary value of the same methodology used for the 2015 EPA was not able to estimate the benefits under the final rule range from rule, EPA estimated the monetary value monetary value of changes in surface ¥$1.7 million to $43.3 million using a of increased groundwater withdrawals water withdrawals. Chapter 9 of the 3 percent discount rate and from $6.5 based on increased costs of groundwater BCA report and Section 7 of the million to $45.9 million using a 7 supply. The final rule is expected to Supplemental TDD provide additional percent discount rate. increase water withdrawal from aquifers details on the estimated changes in relative to baseline. EPA multiplied the surface water withdrawals.

TABLE XII–7—SUMMARY OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE [Millions of 2018$; annualized] a

3% Discount 7% Discount Benefit category rate rate

Human Health ...... ¥$0.3 ¥$0.1 Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure to lead b ...... <$0.0 <$0.0 Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure to mercury ...... ¥$0.3 ¥$0.1 Ecological Conditions and Recreational Uses Changes ...... ¥$15.3 to ¥$16.4 to ¥$7.4 ¥$8.0 Use and nonuse values for water quality changes c ...... ¥$15.3 to ¥$16.4 to ¥$7.4 ¥$8.0 Market and Productivity ...... <$0.0 <$0.0 Changes in dredging costs b ...... <$0.0 <$0.0 Changes in water withdrawals b ...... <$0.0 <$0.0 Air Quality-related effects ...... $14 to $51 $23 to $54 Domestic climate benefits d ...... ¥$14 ¥$2.3 Health benefits de ...... $28 to $65 $25 to $56

Total Monetized Benefits f ...... ¥$1.7 to $6.5 to $45.9 $43.3 a Negative values represent forgone benefits and positive values represent realized benefits. b ‘‘<$0.0’’ indicates that monetary values are greater than ¥$0.1 million but less than $0.00 million. c The range reflects the lower and upper bound willingness-to-pay estimates. d Values for air-quality related effects are rounded to two significant figures. e The range reflects the lower and upper bound estimates of human health effects from changes in PM2.5 and ozone levels. f Values for individual benefit categories may not sum to the totals due to independent rounding.

D. Unmonetized Benefits account for all anticipated effects of the benefit categories. Examples of effects final rule because, as described above, not reflected in the monetary estimates The monetary value of the final rule’s EPA is unable to monetize certain include changes in bladder cancer effects on social welfare does not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64701

incidence and other human health reasonably represents the calendar day technology identified as the basis for effects associated with changes in for purposes of sampling.’’ effluent limitations (e.g., CP + LRTR) drinking water disinfection byproduct and demonstrate consistently diligent 1. Overview of the Limitations and levels; changes in ecosystem, visibility, and optimal operation. Application of Standards and human health effects due to direct this criterion typically eliminates any exposure to NOX, HAP, and SO2 air EPA’s objective in establishing daily plant with treatment other than the emissions; changes in certain non- maximum limitations is to restrict the model technology. EPA generally cancer human health risks (e.g., effects discharges on a daily basis at a level that determines whether a plant meets this of cadmium on kidney functions and is achievable for a plant that designs criterion based on site visits, bone density); impacts of pollutant and operates its treatment to achieve the discussions with plant management, discharge changes on threatened and long-term average performance that and/or comparison to the endangered species; and ash EPA’s statistical analyses show the characteristics, operation, and marketability changes. The BCA report BAT/PSES technology can attain (i.e., performance of treatment systems at discusses changes in these effects the mean of the underlying statistical other plants. EPA reviews available qualitatively and indicates their distribution of daily effluent values). information to determine whether data potential magnitude where possible. EPA recognizes that variability around submitted were representative of normal the long-term average occurs during operating conditions for the plant and XIII. Development of Effluent normal operations. This variability equipment. As a result of this review, Limitations and Standards means that plants occasionally may EPA typically excludes the data from A. FGD Wastewater discharge at a level that is higher than plants that have not optimized the the long-term average, and at other performance of their treatment systems. Consistent with the proposal, EPA is times will discharge at a level that is A second criterion generally requires finalizing several sets of new, lower than the long-term average. To that the influents and effluents from the concentration-based, numeric effluent allow for these possibly higher daily treatment components represent typical limitations and pretreatment standards discharges and provide an upper bound wastewater from the industry, without that apply to discharged FGD for the allowable concentration of 148 incompatible wastewater from other wastewater from existing sources. pollutants that may be discharged, sources. Application of this criterion The specific limitations that apply to while still targeting achievement of the results in EPA selecting those plants any particular plant are determined by long-term average, EPA has established where the commingled wastewaters did whether it qualifies for one of the rule’s the daily maximum limitation. A plant not result in substantial dilution, subcategories or whether it chooses to consistently discharging at a level near unequalized slug loads resulting in participate in the VIP. EPA developed the daily maximum limitation would be frequent upsets and/or overloads, more the numeric effluent limitations and symptomatic of a plant that is not concentrated wastewaters, or pretreatment standards in this rule operating its treatment to achieve the wastewaters with different types of using long-term average effluent values long-term average. Targeting treatment pollutants than those generated by the and variability factors that account for to achieve the daily limitation, rather wastestream for which EPA is variations in performance at well- than the long-term average, is not establishing effluent limitations and operated plants that employ the consistent with the capability of the pretreatment standards. technologies that constitute the bases for BAT/PSES technology basis and may A third criterion typically ensures control. EPA’s methodology for result in values that periodically exceed that the pollutants are present in the derivation of limitations in ELGs is the limitations due to routine variability influent at sufficient concentrations to longstanding and has been upheld in in treated effluent. evaluate treatment effectiveness. If a court. See, e.g., Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA’s objective in establishing data set for a pollutant shows that the EPA, 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989); Nat’l monthly average limitations is to pollutant was not present at a treatable Wildlife Fed’n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554 provide an additional restriction to help concentration at sufficient frequency (D.C. Cir. 2002). EPA establishes the ensure that plants target their average (e.g., the pollutant was below the level final effluent limitations and standards discharges to achieve the long-term of detection in all influent samples), as ‘‘daily maximums’’ and ‘‘maximums average. The monthly average limitation EPA excludes the data for that pollutant for monthly averages.’’ Definitions requires dischargers to provide ongoing at that plant when calculating the provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the control that supplements controls limitations. daily maximum limitation is the imposed by the daily maximum A fourth criterion typically requires ‘‘highest allowable ‘daily discharge’ ’’ limitation. In order to meet the monthly that the data are valid and appropriate and the maximum for monthly average average limitation, a plant must for their intended use (e.g., the data limitation is the ‘‘highest allowable counterbalance a value near the daily must be analyzed with a sufficiently average of ‘daily discharges’ over a maximum limitation with one or more sensitive analytical method). Also, EPA calendar month, calculated as the sum values well below the daily maximum does not use data associated with of all ‘daily discharges’ measured during limitation. periods of treatment upsets because a calendar month divided by the these data would not reflect the number of ‘daily discharges’ measured 2. Criteria Used to Select Data performance from well-designed and during that month.’’ Daily discharges In developing effluent limitations well-operated treatment systems. In are defined as the ‘‘ ‘discharge of a guidelines and standards for any applying the fourth criterion, EPA may pollutant’ measured during a calendar industry, EPA qualitatively reviews all evaluate the pollutant concentrations, day or any 24-hour period that the data related to effluent treatment to analytical methods and the associated identify data that represent proper quality control/quality assurance data, 148 Effluent limitations for EGUs with nameplate operation of the technology that forms flow values, mass loading, plant logs, capacity of 50 MW or smaller and for EGUs that the basis for the limitations. EPA test reports, and other available will retire by December 31, 2028, are not discussed in this section. The proposed limitations for these typically uses four criteria to assess the information. As part of this evaluation, generating units are based on the previously data. The first criterion requires that the EPA reviews the process or treatment established BPT limitations on TSS. plants have the model treatment conditions that may have resulted in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64702 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

extreme values (high and low). As a 3. Data Used To Calculate Limitations 4. Long-Term Averages and Effluent consequence of this review, EPA may and Standards Limitations and Standards for FGD exclude data associated with certain Wastewater The Supplemental TDD provides a time periods or other data outliers that EPA received numerous comments on description of the data and methodology reflect poor performance or analytical the development of the CP+LRTR used to develop long-term averages, anomalies by an otherwise well- limitations. First, the Agency received variability factors, and limitations and operated site. comments arguing that the limitations standards for this rule. The effluent The fourth criterion also is applied in calculations should have included or limitations and pretreatment standards excluded individual data points or data EPA’s review of data from the initial for the low utilization subcategory and commissioning period of treatment sets, for a number of reasons. For high FGD flow subcategory are based on example, one commenter asserted that systems and startup periods of pilot test chemical precipitation. The derivation plant 2027’s mercury data set used an equipment. Most industries incur of the limitations for these subcategories improper method under EPA’s criteria, commissioning periods during which and the data used are described in another asserted that plant 2066 had adjustments must be made to newly section 13 of the 2015 TDD. The new unrepresentative influent pollutant installed treatment systems. During this limitations and pretreatment standards concentrations, and another asserted acclimation and optimization process, for plants not in those subcategories, that excluded data points from plant the effluent concentration values tend to and for the VIP, were derived from a 2019 were actually representative of be highly variable, with occasional statistical analysis of effluent data potential operating conditions. EPA also extreme values (high and low). This collected by plants during extended received comments that limitations occurs because the treatment system testing of the LRTR technology and should be developed with data from typically requires some ‘‘tuning’’ by the membrane filtration technology, full-scale systems and that nitrate/nitrite plant staff and equipment and chemical respectively. The duration of the test limitations are unnecessary for a well- vendors. They work together to programs at these plants varied from operated biological treatment system. determine the optimum chemical approximately one month for Finally, EPA was aware of an additional addition locations and dosages, vessel membranes to more than a year for data set which it discussed at proposal, hydraulic residence times, internal LRTR, enabling EPA to evaluate long- and had requested, but which the treatment system recycle flows (e.g., term performance of these technologies Agency did not receive until after the filter backwash frequency, duration and under conditions that can contribute to comment period closed. EPA agrees with comments that the flow rate, return flows between influent variability, including varying mercury data set for Plant 2027 did not treatment system components), and power demand, changes in coal use an EPA-approved method and that other operational conditions, such as suppliers, and changes in operation of the air pollution control system. The the method used had an improper clarifier sludge wasting protocols. It mercury detection limitation (not may also take time for treatment system tests occurred over different seasons of the year and demonstrate that the sufficiently sensitive). Accordingly, the operators to gain expertise in operating Agency has excluded those mercury technologies operate effectively under the new treatment system, which also data from its calculation of the final different climate conditions. contributes to treatment system mercury limitations. With respect to variability during the commissioning During the development of the final plant 2066, EPA compared this plant’s period. After this initial adjustment limitations and pretreatment standards, data to other plants and found that it period, the systems should operate at EPA identified certain data that neither had the lowest influent steady state with relatively low warranted exclusion because: (1) The concentrations nor met the test for variability around a long-term average samples were analyzed using a method statistical outliers.150 In the absence of over many years. Because that is not sensitive enough to reliably a valid statistical rationale for excluding commissioning periods typically reflect quantify the pollutants present (e.g., use these data, which meet all of the criteria one-time operating conditions unique to of EPA Method 245.1 to measure the detailed above, EPA used these data in the first time the treatment system concentration of mercury in effluent its calculations of the final limitations. begins operation, EPA generally samples); (2) the analytical results were With respect to plant 2019, the data in excludes such data in developing the identified as questionable due to quality question were excluded by the Agency limitations.149 control issues associated with the because that data was collected during laboratory analysis or sample collection, periods where the pilot study operators 149 Examples of conditions that are typically or were analytical anomalies; (3) the attempted to test the operating unique to the initial commissioning period include samples were collected prior to steady- limitations of (i.e., ‘‘break’’) the operator unfamiliarity or inexperience with the state operating conditions and do not biological treatment system by spiking system and how to optimize its performance; the influent with large quantities of wastewater flow rates that vary widely from represent BAT/PSES level of engineering design, altering hydraulic residence performance; (4) the samples were constituents and/or drastically altering times, chemical contact times, and/or clarifier collected during a period where influent the flow. Contrary to the assertions by overflow rates, and potentially causing large composition did not reflect the FGD commenters that there could be changes in planned chemical dosage rates or the operating conditions like these in the need to substitute alternative chemical additives; wastewater (e.g., untreated FGD equipment malfunctions; fluctuating wastewater wastewater was mixed with large future, these pilot conditions were flow rates or other dynamic conditions (i.e., not volumes of non-FGD wastewater prior to intentionally designed not to be steady state operation); and initial purging of entering the treatment system); (5) the representative of the BAT/PSES level of contaminants associated with installation of the performance, and thus do not satisfy the treatment system, such as initial leaching from treatment system was operating in a coatings, adhesives, and susceptible metal manner that does not represent BAT/ selection criteria (specifically, criterion components. These conditions differ from those PSES level of performance; or (6) the associated with the restart of an already- samples were collected from a location 150 For example, this plant’s data are well within commissioned treatment system, such as may occur the range of the Interquartile Range Rule. See from a treatment system that has undergone either that is not representative of treated Section 8 of the Supplemental TDD for more short or extended duration shutdown. effluent. discussion.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64703

5) above.151 Remaining comments pilot of a ZVI system showed high sets relied too heavily on non-detect suggesting inclusion of individual data selenium removal efficiency but did not data also made very compelling points were reasonable and adhered to consistently remove nitrogen (DCN arguments that EPA should have sound engineering principles. Since SE05619). Neither the chemical- evaluated membrane filtration with EPA agrees with commenters that these precipitation-based systems or ZVI pretreatment using chemical are valid, representative data, EPA systems would consistently treat nitrate/ precipitation, as discussed with respect included them in the final limitations nitrite and thus, while they may be a to updated costs in Section VIII above. calculations. more advanced technology than In light of these compelling comments, The Agency agrees with commenters chemical precipitation alone and meet and for consistency, EPA re-evaluated that full-scale system data is typically the limitations for mercury, arsenic, and the data used to develop the proposed preferable to pilot study data. selenium included in this final rule, VIP limitations. The record indicates Nevertheless, EPA weighed the neither would achieve full compliance. that one pilot plant incorporated potential benefit of waiting for full-scale Finally, EPA received an additional microfiltration rather than chemical LRTR system data (which due to the LRTR pilot data set conducted at the precipitation for a portion of its pilot recency of LRTR installations is only Kingston power plant. EPA had data set, and therefore EPA decided that just being collected) versus the potential mentioned this pilot at proposal, but the the microfiltration-only subset of data harm of delaying a final rule where the full study and analysis of data were only should be excluded as it is not 2015 rule compliance dates are this completed in January 2020. While representative of the BAT technology year, and determined such a course of commenters did not have an ability to basis for the final rule (see Section action is not warranted. The Agency has comment on the data per se, EPA VII(B)(1) above). As a result, EPA agrees always maintained, and courts have continues to rely on the same criteria for that some of the monthly data sets relied upheld, its ability to establish selecting and including representative heavily on non-detect data, and due to limitations based on pilot data. See Am. data, and the same methodology for the inability to calculate monthly Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d analyzing those data in development of variability factors with the reduced data 1027, 1063 (3d Cir. 1975); Weyerhaeuser the long-term averages and limitations, set, has not finalized a monthly v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1054 n.70 (D.C. and other data, all of which were subject limitation for selenium or bromide.153 Cir. 1978). Furthermore, the Agency to public comment. The data meet the This also resulted in daily limitations does not need to wait for better criteria specified above, and EPA has for selenium and bromide that are just information when the information determined these are valid, one-half and one-third of those available is sufficient. See Texas Oil and representative data. Therefore, EPA has proposed, respectively. In contrast, EPA gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 935 (5th supplemented the LRTR data used for found that monthly limitations for Cir. 1998) (‘‘An agency’s choice to development of the final limitations mercury, nitrate/nitrite, and TDS were proceed on the basis of ‘imperfect with the Kingston data set. See BASF still appropriately calculated from information’ is not arbitrary and Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d detected concentrations. Importantly, capricious unless ‘there is simply no 637, 644–46 (1st Cir. 1979) (holding that the Agency has not eliminated the daily rational relationship’ between the EPA’s use of new data in a final rule did maximum limitations for these means used to account for any not deprive the public of a fair constituents, and it finds that the very imperfections and the situations to opportunity to comment on the data). low monthly average TDS limitations which those means are applied.’’) The outcome of the changes described ensure that VIP systems are obtaining (citation omitted). Here the Agency above was generally to lower long-term sufficient pollutant removals at plants determined that the pilot data are averages but increase daily variability that do not eliminate their discharges sufficiently representative, and therefore factors. This results in, for example, completely (e.g., by recycling permeate the marginal adjustments in limitations higher daily arsenic limitations while or distillate). that might result from full-scale system monthly arsenic limitations were lower. Table XIV–1 presents the final performance data do not warrant the EPA also received comments on the effluent limitations and standards for delayed pollutant reductions of these VIP limitations. As with the CP+LRTR FGD wastewater. For comparison, the limitations going into effect. limitations comments, commenters table also presents the long-term average EPA also disagrees that nitrate/nitrite argued that EPA should not have treatment performance calculated for limitations are unnecessary. While excluded certain data points, and that each parameter. Due to routine commenters are correct that a properly such exclusions had made the variability in treated effluent, a power operated and maintained biological limitations too stringent. Commenters plant that targets discharging its treatment system will necessarily also argued that EPA had relied too wastewater at a level near the values of remove nitrate/nitrite prior to reduction the daily maximum limitation or the of selenium, it is the nitrate/nitrite heavily on non-detects. Commenters suggested that EPA monthly average limitation may limitations themselves that in part include certain individual data points periodically experience values ensure that the BAT technology or other because the data were reasonable and exceeding the limitations. For this comparable technology is used. In the reason, EPA recommends that plants absence of a nitrate/nitrite limit, two adhered to sound engineering principles. EPA agrees with commenters design and operate their treatment electric utilities described how the use system to achieve the long-term average of chemical precipitation-based systems that these are valid, representative data. for the model technology. A system that might be used to treat selenium in the EPA has included these data in the final is designed and operated to achieve the selenite form if the limitation is raised VIP limitations calculations. The long-term average BAT/PSES level of from the 2015 rule limit.152 Another situation with non-detect data was more complicated. The same commenters control would meet the limitations. EPA expects that plants will be able 151 However, to the extent such artificial who suggested that the monthly data conditions could be representative of an upset, the to meet their effluent limitations or Agency still finds that these data may be useful for higher fraction of selenite (a form of dissolved plants to consider when designing their systems. selenium which, with optimization, can be 153 Monthly average limits for arsenic were not 152 TVA suggested that a sulfide analyzer would precipitated to a high degree, even without a calculated for the proposal, and thus this is not a allow it to monitor ORP in the FGD to produce a biological treatment stage). change.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64704 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

standards at all times. If an exceedance effluent performance for regulated final rule and VIP, may need to improve is caused by an upset condition, the pollutants at the long-term average their treatment systems, process plant would have an affirmative defense concentration for the BAT/PSES controls, and/or treatment system to an enforcement action if the technology. Additionally, some plants operations in order to consistently meet requirements of 40 CFR 122.41(n) are may need to upgrade or replace existing the final effluent limitations and met. Exceedances caused by a design or treatment systems to ensure that the pretreatment standards. This is operational deficiency, however, are treatment system is designed to achieve consistent with the CWA, which indications that the plant’s performance performance that targets the effluent requires that BAT/PSES discharge does not represent the appropriate level concentrations at the long-term average. limitations and standards reflect the of control. For the final limitations and This is consistent with EPA’s costing best available technology economically pretreatment standards, EPA finds that approach and its engineering judgment, achievable. such exceedances can be controlled by developed over years of evaluating diligent operational practices for the wastewater treatment processes for See Section 8 of the Supplemental process and wastewater treatment steam electric power plants and other TDD for more information about the system, such as regular monitoring of industrial sectors. EPA recognizes that calculation of the limitations and influent and effluent wastewater some dischargers, including those that pretreatment standards presented in the characteristics and adjusting dosage are currently operating technologies tables below. rates for chemical additives to target representing the technology basis for the

TABLE XIV–1—LONG-TERM AVERAGES AND EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR FGD WASTEWATER FOR EXISTING SOURCES (BAT/PSES)a

Daily Monthly Subcategory Pollutant Long-Term maximum average average limitation limitation

Requirements for all plants not in the VIP or subcategories speci- Arsenic (μg/L ...... 4.98 18 8 fied below (BAT & PSES). Mercury (ng/L) ...... 13.48 103 34 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/ 2.14 4 3 L). Selenium (μg/L) ...... 15.87 70 29 Voluntary Incentives Program for FGD Wastewater (existing di- Arsenic (μg/L) ...... b 5.0 5 NA rect dischargers). Mercury (ng/L) ...... 5.44 23 10 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/ 0.89 2.0 1.2 L). Selenium (μg/L) ...... 7.35 10 NA Bromide (mg/L) ...... 0.200 0.2 NA TDS (mg/L) ...... 86.06 306 149 Low utilization subcategory-AND-High FGD flow subcategory Arsenic (μg/L) ...... 5.98 11 8 (BAT & PSES). Mercury (ng/L) ...... 159 788 356 a BAT effluent limitations for EGUs that will permanently cease the combustion of coal by December 31, 2028, are based on the previously es- tablished BPT limitations on TSS and are not shown in this table. The BAT effluent limitations for TSS for these EGUs are: Daily maximum of 100 mg/L; and monthly average of 30 mg/L. b Long-term average is the arithmetic mean of the quantitation limitations because all observations were not detected. c Limitation is set equal to the quantitation limit for the data evaluated. d Monthly average limitation is not established when the daily maximum limitation is based on the quantitation limit.

EPA notes that some limitations are model treatment technology (high (2016) noted that infrequent discharges higher than corresponding limitations in recycle rate systems) to maintain water happened at some plants, it did not the 2015 rule (or even the 2019 chemistry or water balance.154 EPRI include such events in its discharge proposal), and in other cases limitations (2016) presents discharge data from calculations. As a result, EPA looked to of additional pollutants or lower seven currently operating wet BA EPRI (2018), which presents limitations for pollutants regulated in transport water systems at six plants. hypothetical maximum discharge the 2015 rule have also been calculated. These plants were able to recycle most volumes and the estimated frequencies B. BA Transport Water Limitations or all BA transport water from these of such infrequent events for currently seven systems, resulting in discharges of operating wet BA systems.155 For 1. Maximum 10 Percent 30-Day Rolling between zero and two percent of the purposes of calculating the maximum Average Purge Rate system volume. EPA’s goal in allowance percentage associated with establishing the purge rate was to In contrast to the concentration-based, such infrequent events, EPA divided the provide a requirement based on process numeric limitations estimated for discharge associated with an estimated needs, as reflected in the EPRI (2016) specific pollutants above, EPA is maintenance and precipitation event by data, as well as infrequent precipitation finalizing a pollutant discharge the volume of the system, and then and maintenance events. While EPRI allowance in the form of a site-specific

percentage purge rate for BA transport 155 154 Although the technology basis includes dry Although presented in EPRI (2018), EPA did water with a maximum cap. To develop handling, the limitation is based on the necessary not consider events such as pipe leaks, as these this requirement, EPA first collected purge volumes of a wet, high recycle rate BA would not be reflective of proper system operation data on the discharge needs of the system. (see DCN SE06920).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64705

averaged the resulting percent over 30 discharge event; (3) with only a used to develop effluent limitations and days. maintenance-related discharge event; pretreatment standards for individual Finally, EPA added each reported and (4) with both a precipitation-related pollutants, EPA selected a 95th regular discharge percent from EPRI and maintenance-related discharge percentile of total system volume as (2016) to the averaged infrequent event. These potential discharge needs representative of a 30-day rolling discharge percent under four scenarios: are reported in Table XIV–2 below. average, which results in a limitation of (1) With no infrequent discharge event; Consistent with the statistical approach 10 percent of total system volume.156 (2) with only a precipitation-related

TABLE XIV–2—30-DAY ROLLING AVERAGE DISCHARGE VOLUME AS A PERCENT OF SYSTEM VOLUME a

Infrequent discharge needs as estimated in EPRI Regular discharge needs to maintain water chemistry and/or water balance as (2018) characterized in EPRI (2016) 30-day Type of infrequent discharge event rolling Plant F- Plant F- average Plant A Plant B Plant C Plant D Plant E system 1 system 2

0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.0% 2.0% Neither Event...... 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 2.0% 2.0% Precipitation Only...... 5.4% 5.5% 5.4% 6.4% 5.4% 6.2% 7.4% 7.4% Maintenance Only...... 3.3% 3.4% 3.3% 4.3% 3.3% 4.1% 5.3% 5.3% Both Events...... 8.7% 8.8% 8.7% 9.7% 8.7% 9.5% 10.7% 10.7% a These estimates sum actual, reported, plant-specific regular discharge needs with varying combinations of hypothetically estimated, infre- quent discharge needs.

EPA received a significant range of 100-year/24 hour storms, multiple large under Section 307 of the CWA. NPDES comments on the calculation of this 10 storms, etc.—EPA notes that the NPDES permits or control mechanisms issued percent purge. Many comments regulations contain flexibilities for upset after this rule’s effective date must concerned the treatment of infrequent and bypass. See 40 CFR 122.41(m) and incorporate the ELGs, as applicable. purges, especially those relating to (n). Where permits with the 2015 rule precipitation. The range of comments limitations have already been issued, 2. Best Management Practices Plan demonstrates, among other things, that EPA expects that the final rule a nationwide limitation for As described in Section VII of this requirements will be incorporated precipitation-related purges can be too preamble, the final rule requires a through permit modifications in most stringent in some geographic areas and subcategory of plants discharging BA cases. Also, under CWA section 510, not stringent enough in others. EPA, transport water and having a low CUR states can require effluent limitations therefore, made modifications in the to develop and implement a BMP plan under state law as long as they are no final rule that require the NPDES to recirculate BA transport water back to less stringent than the requirements of permitting authority to develop a site- the BA handling system (see Section VII this rule. Finally, in addition to specific purge percentage that is capped of this preamble for more details). requiring application of the technology- at 10 percent.157 EPA recognizes that The final BMP provisions require based ELGs in this rule, CWA section some plants may need to improve their subject plants to develop a plan to 301(b)(1)(C) requires the permitting equipment, process controls, and/or minimize the discharge of pollutants by authority to impose more stringent operations to consistently meet the recycling as much BA transport water as effluent limitations, as necessary, to limitations included in this final rule; feasible back to the BA handling meet applicable water quality standards. however, this is consistent with the system.158 After determining the 1. Timing CWA, which requires that BAT/PSES amount of BA transport water that could discharge limitations and standards be feasibly recycled and developing and The direct discharge limitations in reflect the best available technology implementing a plant-specific BMP this rule apply only when implemented economically achievable. plan, plants are required to review the in an NPDES permit issued to a The remainder of comments on the 10 plan annually and revise it as necessary. discharger. Under the CWA, the percent purge calculation recommended XIV. Regulatory Implementation permitting authority must incorporate additional circumstances in which EPA these ELGs into NPDES permits as a should allow a purge beyond 10 A. Implementation of the Limitations floor or a minimum level of control. The percent. EPA disagrees with these and Standards final rule provides the plant’s comments because the 10 percent purge The limitations and standards in this permitting authority with certain cap that EPA estimated is reflective of rule apply to discharges from steam discretion to determine the date when properly operated and maintained high electric power plants through the new effluent limitations for FGD recycle rate systems, the technology that incorporation into NPDES permits wastewater and BA transport water will EPA selected as BAT. In the rare cases issued by EPA or by authorized states apply to a given discharger. The rule when precipitation-related events result under Section 402 of the CWA, and specifies that the earliest date these new in a purge of greater than 10 percent— through local pretreatment programs limitations can apply to a discharger is

156 While there were further decimal points for authority as it results in a simple decimal point percent, upset provisions provide a potentially the actual calculated 95th percentile, EPA notes movement for calculations. appropriate affirmative defense. that 10 percent is two significant digits, consistent 157 As discussed in Section VIII(b)(2) above, to the 158 Since the BMP plan requirements include with the limitations for FGD wastewater pollutants. extent that a precipitation event such as a hurricane periodic updates, a change in treatment technology Furthermore, a 10 percent volumetric limit will be were to occur and result in a plant needing to (for instance due to the CCR rule) would be easier for implementation by the permitting discharge in excess of the established purge reflected automatically in the BMP plan.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64706 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

October 13, 2021. Except for the information to suggest that a chemical modified as soon as practicable and limitations in certain subcategories, for precipitation system at a high flow plant consistent with any new rule any final effluent limitation that is could be installed any more quickly; provisions.159 specified to become applicable after however, to the extent that an earlier The ‘‘as soon as possible’’ date is October 13, 2021, the specified date date is feasible at a high FGD flow plant, October 13, 2021, unless the NPDES must be as soon as possible after that the permitting authority can already permitting authority determines another date, but in no case later than December account for this under current 40 CFR date after receiving relevant information 31, 2025. Consistent with the proposal, 423.11(t). submitted by the discharger.160 The for dischargers choosing to meet the VIP Pretreatment standards, unlike final rule does not revise the specified effluent limitations for FGD wastewater, effluent limitations, are directly factors that the NPDES permitting the date for meeting those limitations is enforceable and must be met three years authority must consider in determining December 31, 2028. after the effective date of any final rule. the as soon as possible date under the For FGD wastewater and BA transport CWA section 307(b)(1). Under EPA’s 2015 rule. Assuming that the NPDES water from EGUs permanently ceasing General Pretreatment Regulations for permitting authority receives relevant the combustion of coal by 2028, the Existing and New Sources, POTWs with information from each discharger, in final BAT limitations for this flows in excess of 5 Mgd must develop order to determine what date is ‘‘as soon subcategory apply on the date that an pretreatment programs meeting as possible’’ within the implementation NPDES permit is issued to a discharger. prescribed conditions, including the period, the factors established in the The final rule does not build in an legal authority to require compliance 2015 rule are: implementation period for meeting with applicable general and categorical (a) Time to expeditiously plan these limitations, as the BAT limitation pretreatment standards and control the (including to raise capital), design, on TSS is equal to the previously introduction of pollutants to the POTW procure, and install equipment to promulgated BPT limitation on TSS. through permits, orders or similar comply with the requirements of the Consistent with the proposal, for FGD means, to ensure the contribution to the final rule.161 wastewater and BA transport water from POTW by each industrial user is in (b) Changes being made or planned at low utilization EGUs and FGD compliance with applicable the plant in response to greenhouse gas wastewater from high FGD flow plants, pretreatment standards and regulations for new or existing fossil the final BAT limitations for these requirements. POTWs with approved fuel-fired plants under the CAA, as well subcategories would apply on or after pretreatment programs act as the control as regulations for the disposal of coal October 13, 2021. The specified date authorities for their industrial users. combustion residuals under subtitle D must be as soon as possible after that Among the responsibilities of the of the Resource Conservation and date, but in no case later than December control authority are the development of Recovery Act. 31, 2023. EPA considered earlier and the specific discharge limitations for the (c) For FGD wastewater requirements later dates than December 31, 2023. POTW’s industrial users. Because only, an initial commissioning period to With respect to later dates, the pollutant discharge limitations in optimize the installed equipment. limitations in these subcategories are categorical pretreatment standards may (d) Other factors as appropriate. less stringent than the limitations in the be expressed either as concentrations or EPA proposed to clarify that the 2015 rule, which the Agency found mass limitations, the control authority, discharger must provide relevant, site- were achievable by 2023. Nothing in the in many cases, must convert the specific information for consideration of Agency’s record since then would pretreatment standards to limitations these factors by the permitting suggest otherwise. Thus, the Agency did applicable to a specific industrial user authority. However, commenters stated not select a later date. With respect to and then include these in POTW that in many cases, information earlier dates, EPA acknowledges that permits or another control instrument. developed to inform these decisions some of the limitations might be Regardless of when a plant’s NPDES may reflect fleet-wide or company-wide implemented sooner at some plants. permit is ready for renewal, EPA operations, maintenance or financial Nevertheless, the Agency is retaining recommends that each plant information and may not be ‘‘site- the December 31, 2023 date. For immediately begin evaluating how it specific’’ to a single plant or EGU. Thus, LUEGUs, the Agency is allowing intends to comply with the the key is that the information be demonstration of the required CUR by requirements of any final rule. In cases demonstrated to be relevant to the plant December 31, 2023, in response to where significant changes in operation in question, but need not be based on comments, as discussed in Section are appropriate, EPA recommends that XIV(A)(3) below. Since it would be the plant discuss such changes with its 159 In some circumstances, if a permit cross- inconsistent to require compliance with permitting authority and evaluate references or incorporates the regulation by reference, if state law allows, it is possible that the these limitations prior to demonstration appropriate steps and a timeline for the changes finalized today might be automatically that the LUEGU CUR requirements are changes as soon as a final rule is issued, incorporated. However, this is unlikely to be the met, setting a ‘‘no later than date’’ even prior to the permit renewal case in many permits, and plants should carefully earlier than December 31, 2023, would process. review their permits before drawing this not adequately support this modified In cases where a plant’s final NPDES conclusion. 160 Information in the record indicates that most requirement of the final rule. For high permit was issued before these ELGs facilities should be able to complete all steps to FGD flow plants, EPA is also retaining were finalized and includes limitations implement changes needed to comply with the outside compliance date of for BA transport water and/or FGD proposed BA transport water requirements within December 31, 2023. In an FDF variance wastewater from the 2015 rule, the 15–23 months, and the FGD wastewater requirements within 26 to 34 months. request filed for the single known high permitting authority may modify the 161 Cooperatives and municipalities presented flow plant, that plant indicated that it permit based on promulgation of this information to EPA suggesting that obtaining did not have chemical precipitation, rule pursuant to 40 CFR 122.62(a)(3). financing for these projects can be more challenging and preliminary estimates were that EPA recommends that the plant and than for investor-owned utilities. Under this factor, permitting authorities may consider whether the chemical precipitation would take until permitting authority determine whether type and size of owner and difficulty in obtaining 2023 to construct, commission, and such a permit should be modified in the expected financing might warrant additional optimize. The EPA does not have any light of this rule, and if so, that it be flexibility up to the ‘‘no later than’’ date.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64707

site-specific operations, maintenance or effluent limitations for FGD wastewater 25-year storm event. EPA agrees that financial information. The Agency based on membranes, the NPDES such a change makes the requirements agrees with these comments, and thus permitting authority must allow the consistent with those for coal pile the final rule does not include a plant up to December 31, 2028, to meet runoff.164 Second, commenters pointed requirement for unique, site-specific those limitations, consistent with the to a 30-day rainfall event in Tennessee information. documentation received from the plant. in which individual 24-hour As specified in factor (b), the Again, the permit must make clear that precipitation events may not have permitting authority must also consider the plant must meet the limitations by exceeded a 10-year storm event, but scheduling for installation of December 31, 2028. multiple 24-hour periods of equipment, which includes a precipitation taken together did exceed consideration of plant changes planned 2. Determining the Site-Specific Bottom Ash Purge Water Volume and Treatment a 10-year, 30-day storm event. At or being made to comply with certain proposal EPA had used the phrase other key rules that affect the steam While EPA is establishing a maximum ‘‘multiple consecutive events’’ to electric power generating industry. As 10 percent volumetric cap on bottom capture such a possibility; however, the specified in factor (c), for the FGD ash purge water, the NPDES permitting more precise characterization of the wastewater requirements only, the authority is to determine the site- event in the Tennessee example would permitting authority must consider specific volumes and technology-based be a 10-year, 30-day storm event. 163 whether it is appropriate to allow more BAT effluent limitations using BPJ. Therefore, the Agency now uses the time for implementation in order to To assist the NPDES permitting phrase ‘‘or longer duration’’ to denote ensure that the plant has appropriate authority in making these all 10-year events of a duration longer time to optimize any relevant determinations, EPA is requiring than 24-hours.165 technologies. information on the types of discharges The ‘‘as soon as possible’’ date and available treatment technologies in Permitting authorities may initially determined by the permitting authority the reporting and recordkeeping determine which of these two classes of may or may not be different for each requirements discussed below. purge are necessary at any given site. wastestream. The NPDES permitting However, having reviewed the Where necessary purges fall into the authority should provide a well- information available in the record, EPA first class, and result in relatively documented justification of how it has distilled certain basic principles consistent volumes and water quality, determined the ‘‘as soon as possible’’ that may be useful for a permitting such a discharge may be more amenable date in the fact sheet or administrative authority to consider. to treatment technologies beyond record for the permit. If the permitting Information in EPA’s record indicates physical settling. Necessary purges fall authority determines a date later than that purges can be classified into two into the second class, and result in October 13, 2021, the justification distinct classes. The first class infrequent and potentially very large would explain why allowing additional comprises purges that must be made on volumes; such a discharge may make time to meet the final limitations is a regular or continuous basis. These treatment beyond physical settling appropriate, and why the discharger purges are typically related to system challenging. In both of these cases, cannot meet the effluent limitations as water chemistry or water balance and where only a single class of purge is of October 13, 2021. In cases where the are permissible under 40 CFR expected, the permitting authority’s job plant is already operating the BAT 423.13(k)(2)(i)(A)(2) and (3). Based on will be more straightforward. technology basis for a specific EPA’s record, once a plant has taken A more challenging scenario occurs wastestream (e.g., high recycle rate steps to manage such purges, these when the NPDES permitting authority system for BA transport water), operates purges should typically comprise a determines that both classes of purge the majority of the proposed BAT small portion of system volume, and in will be present. In such cases a technology basis (e.g., FGD chemical some cases may have volumes close to permitting authority could consider precipitation and biological treatment, zero. The second class of purges are whether tiered or differentiated purges without sulfide addition), or expects those that are made less frequently. or purge treatment might be warranted. that relevant treatment and process Based on information in EPA’s record, For example, during periods where no changes would be in place prior to discharges from storm events larger than large precipitation or maintenance October 13, 2021 (for example due to a 10-year, 24-hour or longer duration events occur, continuous purges may be the CCR rule), it would not usually be event, or maintenance events not properly limited to a smaller volume, appropriate to allow additional time included in 40 CFR 423.13(k)(2)(i)(A)(1) with more advanced treatment with a beyond that date to comply with the through (A)(3)—such as those associated second limitation permitting larger final rule limitations and standards. with EGU outages or decommissioning volumes and less advanced treatment Regardless, in all cases, the permitting of the high recycle rate system—are during periods where the plant records authority would make clear in the expected in many cases to occur at most a qualifying event. There is no across- permit by what date the plant must meet once per year and are permissible under the-board formula for determining the final limitations, and that date is no 40 CFR 423.13(k)(2)(i)(A)(1) and (4). appropriate purge limitations, as long as later than December 31, 2025.162 EPA notes that the storm events the bottom ash purge volume does not Where a discharger chooses to included in (A)(1) are: Different from exceed 10 percent of the primary active participate in the VIP and be subject to those included at proposal in two ways. wetted bottom ash system volume on a First, commenters suggested that EPA 30-day rolling average basis. 162 For BA purge water, permitting authorities use a 10-year storm event rather than a may determine the appropriate timeframe for any limitations imposed as a result of a BPJ analysis on 164 40 CFR 423.12(b)(10). this wastestream; however, EPA strongly 163 BPJ limits established by the permitting 165 NOAA ATLAS 14 POINT PRECIPITATION encourages state and tribal permitting authorities to authority only apply to discharges from high FREQUENCY ESTIMATES include the following invest the time and resources necessary to establish recycle rare systems and do not apply to BA 10-year events in this range: 24-hour, 2-day, 3-day, BPJ limits for BA purge water and issue permits transport water discharges from LUEGUs or EGUs 4-day, 7-day, 10-day, 20-day, 30-day, 45-day, and timely to allow facilities to install the necessary permanently ceasing coal combustion, as plants 60-day storm events. Available online at: https:// equipment within the compliance deadlines in the eligible for those subcategories are subject to the hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html final rule. TSS limitations established in this final rule. (DCN SE09100).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64708 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

3. Implementation for the Low eliminate the potentially unnecessary The EPA is also establishing Utilization Subcategory paperwork burden of a separate deadlines by which such transfers must The final rule establishes a calculations and information gathering occur. Transfers into the LUEGU subcategory for LUEGUs with a two-year and allow the NPDES permitting subcategory must occur no later than average capacity utilization rate (CUR) authority to verify the accuracy of the December 31, 2023, the latest date by of less than 10 percent per year. CUR is reported values more easily. The use of which compliance dates for this calculated as the total MWh of a two-year average will ensure that a subcategory would fall. For all other production divided by the hours per low utilization EGU responding to a transfers, the EPA is selecting December year times the nameplate capacity. single extreme demand event in one 31, 2025 as the latest date for three Unlike other subcategories, which often year (e.g., unexpectedly high peak reasons. First, the ability to transfer require that a plant possess some static demand in summer or winter) can still under Section 257.103 of the CCR Rule characteristic (e.g., less than 50 MW qualify for this subcategory if its average will terminate before this date, giving CUR over the two years remains below nameplate capacity), the low utilization plants certainty as to their CCR 10 percent. Furthermore, the plant must subcategory is based on the fluctuating compliance strategies. Thus, it is annually provide the permitting CUR. Thus, EPA is clarifying how consistent with the CCR rule. Second, authority an updated two-year average permitting authorities can determine the first five-year permitting cycle will CUR for each subcategorized EGU whether a plant qualifies for this have ended, and EPA expects that within 60 days of submitting production subcategory. plants subject to NPDES permitting If a plant seeks to have the limitations information to the EIA to ensure that it under this rule will have determined remains an LUEGUs. from this subcategory applied to their compliance path by then. Lastly, discharges from one or more EGUs, the 4. Transitioning Between Limitations some of the provisions that can be transferred to in this rule include plant needs to provide the permitting EPA received a significant number of authority its calculation of the average compliance dates for the generally comments that it should harmonize the applicable limitations of no later than of the most recent two calendar years of CCR and ELG rules to the extent CUR for the subject EGU(s). EPA December 31, 2025. In such cases, practicable. As discussed above, EPA allowing transfer to such provisions at received some comments that plants agrees that such harmonization is should be allowed to certify to future a later date could create disparities for important. One major set of features compliance with these genearlly low utilization operations, even where EPA attempted to harmonize this final applicable limitations within the current operations are not low rule with are the alternative closure industry. Thus, a final transfer date of utilization. Other comments stated that provisions of Paragraphs 257.103(f)(1) December 31, 2025, creates a consistent additional reporting and recordkeeping and (f)(2) of the CCR rule. In response time frame for all plants to make should be required to prevent abuse. to comments on the CCR Part A decisions and achieve compliance with EPA agrees with both comments. It was Proposed Rule (one of which, the the generally applicable limitations, not the Agency’s intent for plants on a USWAG comment, was incorporated by whether they initially start in another downward utilization trajectory to be reference into a public comment barred from the LUEGU subcategory, subcategory or not. submitted for this ELG rule), EPA added Consistent with the CCR Part A final where current operations exceed the a provision to the final CCR Part A Rule required less than 10 percent CUR rule requirements, a plant seeking to that provides for transfer between these transfer between the ELG rule threshold. Thus, the NPDES permitting paragraphs. A plant that had applied for authority should refrain from provisions must demonstrate a site-specific alternative closure compliance with all requirements of establishing a ‘‘no later than date’’ that extension to extend its cease receipt of would restrict a plant from both the provision transferred from and waste date under paragraph the provision transferred to, and demonstrating two years of reduced 257.103(f)(1) could, for example, now CUR. However, NPDES permitting continue to meet requirements that were transfer into the provision that requires applicable if that applicability date has authorities also need to know when to permanent cessation of a coal-fired EGU provide flexibility and when to dutifully passed. This ensures that a plant does under paragraph 257.103(f)(2). not miss or circumvent otherwise set a compliance date which is ‘‘as soon Similarly, EPA has discussed transfer as possible.’’ Thus, EPA is requiring in applicable deadlines or cease operating between ELG subcategories with electric equipment already installed, operated, the rule that a plant seeking to qualify utilities. Thus, to align with the for this subcategory must file a Notice and maintained to comply with flexibilities of the CCR Part A final rule deadlines that have passed. of Planned Participation (NOPP) by and make implementation of this rule October 13, 2021, even if it would not The first objective addresses, for easier, EPA is finalizing provisions example, a plant converting from the yet qualify, and must operate below this allowing for a plant with a permit to threshold before the latest compliance permanent cessation of coal combustion transfer between two subcategories, or subcategory with deadlines of 2028, to dates of December 31, 2023. Upon between a subcategory and the VIP, receipt of a NOPP, the NPDES the LUEGU subcategory, with deadlines without undergoing a permit no later than 2023. EPA does not want permitting authority can properly modification.166 consider that NOPP in the ‘‘other a plant to miss or circumvent the lastest LUEGU compliance dates of December factors’’ of 40 CFR 423.11(t)(4). 166 Categorical pretreatment standards are directly Once a plant reaches the ‘‘as soon as enforceable and are not implemented through 31, 2023, because the plant initially possible’’ date determined by the NPDES permits issued to indirect dischargers. Indirect dischargers, however, may be subject to to categorical pretreatment standards under EPA’s permitting authority, it must thereafter enforceable individual local permits or equivalent pretreatment regulations must comply with these provide annual certifications of its 24- individual control mechanisms issued to individual standards. What pretreatment standards will apply month average CUR. This average indirect dischargers by a POTW with an approved depends on whether an indirect discharger is should primarily be calculated using pretreatment program or the appropriate control subject to a particular subcategory as provided in authority. Because indirect dischargers do not have the regulation. As such, in the event the data developed for reporting to the EIA, NPDES permits, the NPDES provisions for pretreatment standards change, the indirect since MWh production information transferring between limits in a permit do not apply dischargers will be subject to the modified already collected for the EIA will both to indirect dischargers. Indirect dischargers subject standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64709

intends to meet the 2028 requirements were withdrawn or delayed voluntarily Stafford Act.170 These events encompass and later changes its mind. Such a due to changed circumstances. While scenarios such as the current Covid–19 scenario could, for example, result in both the voluntary and involuntary pandemic, floods, hurricanes, and other the plant failing to meet the 2023 changes to announced retirements were scenarios that may not be predictable, LUEGU requirements for five years infrequent, EPA acknowledges that such but may impact the need for, and between 2023 and 2028. changes will necessarily impact a availability of, electricity. The benefit of The second objective would mean plant’s status with regard to some of the adding these terms to the emergency that, for example, where a plant is subcategories in the final rule. These orders and must run agreements already already implementing a BMP plan for situations are discussed below. For detailed in section 423.18(a) is that it BA transport water under the LUEGU further information on announced would prevent an EGU from being subcategory and then decided to convert retirements, see DCN SE07207. noncompliant if operations during such to the subcategory for permanent an emergency or major disaster would cessation of coal combustion, the plant a. Involuntary Retirement Delays have otherwise caused it to exceed the would continue to implement the BMP At least five plants with announced rule’s capacity utilization threshold. plan until such cessation occurs. This retirement dates had those dates Stafford Act declarations of major ensures that technology-based involuntarily delayed as a result of the disaster or emergency are made by the requirements that were applicable DOE issuing orders under Section 202(c) President at the request of the Governor would continue to be met, furthering the of the Federal Power Act, or a PUC or Chief Executive of an Indian Tribe. goals of eliminating discharges to the issuing a reliability must-run agreement. See 42 U.S.C. 5170 and 5191. For extent technologically available and Such involuntary operations have raised emergency declarations involving achievable under section 301(b) of the questions about the conflict between primary federal responsibility, the CWA. legal obligations to produce electricity President does not need a request from This new set of provisions is also and legal obligations under the Governor, but may make an appropriate as a practical matter to environmental statutes.167 Today’s final emergency determination (42 U.S.C. implement the subcategories as rule would subcategorize LUEGUs and 5191(b)). Furthermore, these events are finalized. While EPA proposed for EGUs permanently ceasing coal limited in geographic scope and in plants to certify to a subcategory combustion by 2028, subjecting those duration. Thus, while they would immediately, based on public subcategories to less stringent advance the protection for future comments. EPA has finalized provisions limitations. However, both utilization LUEGUs to operate in emergency allowing plants to file an initial notice and decisions to permanently cease coal situations above the required capacity, of planned participation such that the combustion could be impacted by they would be relatively rare, thus plant could certify differently within the involuntary orders and agreements. maintaining the majority of pollutant compliance time frame. In many cases, Thus, EPA is establishing in this final removals expected under this final rule a plant may require local or state rule an NPDES permit condition that in the long run. regulatory approval prior to reducing its would be included in all permits where utilization or planning to retire. These c. Voluntary Retirement Withdrawals a plant seeks limitations under one of and Delays changes in the final rule allow plants to these two subcategories. Such a notify their permitting authority of their provision protects a plant that Units at five plants with announced intent to particpiate in a subcategory, involuntarily fails to qualify for the retirement dates had those dates but also allows time to obtain local or subcategory for low utilization EGUs or voluntarily withdrawn or delayed due state approval, if necessary, before the EGUs permanently ceasing coal to changed situations, including market compliance deadline. By allowing combustion by 2028, and it allows that conditions, unavailability of natural gas automatic transfer between alternatives, plant to prove that, but for the order or pipelines, changes in environmental the final rule also avoids unecessarily agreement, it would have qualified for regulations, and sale of the plant. Like burdensome permit modifications that the subcategory. EPA received the involuntary retirement delays can further extend timelines to make comments that the enumerated orders in discussed in the section above, these plant changes, including equipment the proposal were too narrow, and that situations could impact a plant’s upgrades. alternative regulatory bodies (e.g., qualification for the subcategories for Finally, the Agency notes that with Independent System Operators) might LUEGUs and EGUs ceasing combustion later dates for certification and the also issue these types of orders. EPA of coal by 2028. Unlike the involuntary ability to transfer between alternative agrees with these commenters, and thus, retirement delays, these voluntary limitations for a period of time, there is has modified the language in section delays and withdrawals can be no longer a need for tiered limitations 423.18(a) of the final rule. accounted for through normal integrated in the LUEGU subcategory. Thus, the resource planning. Thus, the final rule proposed tiering of limitations are not b. Emergencies and Major Disasters does not include a similar protection being finalized. Under the Stafford Act provision for such units. Instead, a plant 5. Addressing Unexpected Changes in The final rule also includes in the should carefully plan its Generation section 423.18(a) provision implementation of the ELGs. ‘‘Emergency’’ 168 and ‘‘Major Since the 2015 rule, EPA has learned B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Disaster’’ 169 events as defined by the of several instances when plants have Requirements withdrawn or delayed retirement 167 Moeller, James. 2013. Clean air vs. electric To implement the rule’s provisions announcements for coal-fired EGUs and reliability: The case of the Potomac River providing for subcategories and a site- plants. These instances can be grouped Generating Station. September. Available online at: specific determination of controls on BA into two categories. First, some delays https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/ purge water, this final rule includes viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/ were involuntary, resulting from orders &httpsredir=1&article=1077&context=jece. (DCN eight reporting and recordkeeping issued by the Department of Energy SE09101) requirements. There were two (DOE) or Public Utility Commissions 168 42 U.S.C. 5122(1). (PUCs). The remaining announcements 169 42 U.S.C. 5122(2). 170 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64710 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

overarching goals of these requirements. EPA is requiring that the plant submit aware of the situation. Thus, EPA is also The first goal was to balance the a NOPP to certify one or more LUEGUs. requiring in the rule annual progress additional flexibilities for certifying to Once any limitations of this subcategory reports to confirm that the EGU is on subcategories or VIP limitations at a are applicable, the final rule requires track to complete its retirement or fuel later date with additional reporting and that such a plant annually recertify that conversion on time. This requirement is recordkeeping to provide extra certainty the EGU continues to meet the meant to provide the NPDES permitting that the plant still intends to avail itself requirements of this subcategory, along authority further evidence that an EGU of those provisions. A second goal was with an updated two-year average CUR will, in fact, cease the combustion of to adopt provisions consistent with calculation and information for each coal by December 31, 2028. those of the CCR rule where an initial applicable EGU. If an EGU exceeds the Fifth, EPA is finalizing reporting and notice is provided to EPA, followed by CUR requirements of this subcategory, recordkeeping requirements for plants regular progress reports to avoid last- no further recordkeeping or reporting invoking the protective NPDES permit minute surprises that might result in would be required for this subcategory, conditions described above, which unexpected noncompliance.171 as the EGU would leave the subcategory allow a plant to continue to be subject First, EPA is finalizing a reporting and permanently. to limitations for low utilization EGUs recordkeeping requirement for plants Third, as described in Section VII.C.2, or those ceasing combustion of coal by operating high recycle rate BA systems. plants with EGUs that qualify for the 2028 in the event of an emergency EPA is requiring that such plants submit low-utilization subcategory and that order, must-run agreement, national the calculation of the primary active discharge BA transport water, are emergency, or major disaster. EPA is wetted BA system volume, which means required to develop and implement a requiring in the rule that such plants the maximum volumetric capacity of BMP plan to minimize the discharge of must demonstrate that an EGU would bottom ash transport water in all non- pollutants by recycling as much BA have qualified for the subcategory at redundant piping (including transport water as feasible back to the issue, if not for the emergency order, recirculation piping) and primary tanks BA handling system.172 As part of any must-run agreement, national (e.g., bins, troughs, clarifiers, and NPDES permit renewal or any re- emergency, or major disaster as hoppers) of a wet bottom ash system, opening, such plants need to submit described above. Furthermore, EPA is excluding the volumes of surface their plant-specific plan, certified that it requiring in the rule that the plant impoundments, secondary bottom ash meets the proposed requirements of 40 submit to the NPDES permitting system equipment (e.g., installed spares, CFR 423.13(k)(3)) along with authority a copy of such order or redundancies, and maintenance tanks), certification that the plan is being agreement as an attachment to the and non-bottom ash transport systems implemented. For each NPDES permit submission. that may direct process water to the renewal, the plan and professional Sixth, EPA is finalizing reporting and bottom ash system. This ensures that the engineer certification needs to be recordkeeping requirements for plants permitting authority can verify the updated and provided to the permitting participating in the VIP. As with the volume of discharge allowed for a high authority. retirement subcategory, given the long Fourth, EPA is finalizing reporting time frames, a lack of reporting recycle rate system. Because the NPDES permitting and recordkeeping requirements for combined with missed deadlines could plants seeking subcategorization for an lead to situations in which a plant fails authority is basing the site-specific EGU(s) achieving permanent cessation to complete the installation of a VIP purge percentage and limitations on of coal combustion by December 31, technology as scheduled and BPJ, EPA is also requiring the following: 2028. EPA is requiring that a plant file immediately falls into noncompliance (1) A list of all potential discharges, a NOPP to certify one or more such without the permitting authority being the expected volume of each discharge, EGUs, including whether the retirement aware. Thus, EPA is requiring in the and the expected frequency of each or fuel conversion has already been rule annual progress reports to confirm discharge. approved by the regulatory authority. that the plant is on track to complete its (2) Material assumptions, information, EPA received comments suggesting that VIP technology installation. This and calculations used by the certifying additional information should be requirement is meant to provide the professional engineer to determine the required regularly from such EGUs. EPA NPDES permitting authority further expected volume and frequency of each agrees that, given the time frame for evidence that an EGU will, in fact, be discharge. retiring or repowering some EGUs, a able to meet the VIP limitations by (3) A list of all wastewater treatment lack of reporting combined with missed December 31, 2028. systems currently at the plant, or deadlines could lead to situations where Seventh, the final rule includes otherwise required by a date certain a plant fails to permanently cease coal reporting and recordkeeping under this section. combustion as scheduled and requirements for plants transitioning (4) A narrative discussion of each immediately falls into noncompliance between compliance alternatives. For treatment system, including the system without the permitting authority being example, a plant may initially file a type, design capacity, and current NOPP for participation in the operation. 172 EPA is finalizing the same requirements for permanent cessation of coal combustion Second, EPA is finalizing a reporting determining feasibility that were included in the subcategory, but then several years later and recordkeeping requirement for proposal: Segregation of bottom ash transport water it may determine that it is profitable to plants seeking to qualify as an LUEGU. from other process water, minimization of the introduction of stormwater by diverting (e.g., remain in operation, and instead curbing, using covers) stormwater to a segregated comply with the VIP. Under such 171 While the initial notice in the CCR rule is collection system, recycling bottom ash transport scenarios, where the permitting termed a ‘‘notice of intent’’ because that is a CWA water back to the bottom ash transport water term of art related to NPDES permitting that has a system, recycling bottom ash transport water for use authority has included alternative different meaning than intended here, this final rule in the FGD scrubber, optimization of existing limitations subject to eligibility provides a ‘‘notice of planned participation.’’ The equipment (e.g., pumps, pipes, tanks) and installing requirements, EPA is requiring in the intended result is the same for both rules, to give new equipment where practicable to achieve the rule that the plant provide a notice to the permitting authority advanced notice that a maximum amount of recycle, and utilization of ‘‘in- plant intends to avail itself of provisions other than line’’ treatment of transport water (e.g., pH control, the NPDES permitting authority of what those generally applicable to the industry. fines removal) where needed to facilitate recycle. transition the plant will make.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64711

Finally, the final rule includes a drinking water treatment plants of the water quality-based effluent limitations requirement that a plant provide notice discharge of bromide. established by NPDES permitting of any material delays, meaning a delay In addition to the comments regarding authorities for the small number of that could result in non-compliance EPA’s analysis of bromide-related steam electric power plants that may (with the compliance date set forth in pollutant loadings, DBP formation, and impact downstream drinking water the permit) within 30 days of health benefits (discussed in Section XII treatment plants. Such an approach experiencing such a delay.173 For above), EPA also received many allows the permitting authority to tailor instance, if such a delay might preclude comments on the bromide-focused sub- any monitoring or other requirement to permanent cessation of coal combustion options discussed in the 2019 proposal. the watershed and plants at issue, by December 31, 2028, a plant shall file Some commenters supported avoiding many of the individual a notice of material delay with the implementation of one or more of the concerns raised about specific permitting authority (or the control proposed options, while other monitoring programs. While EPA is not authority in the case of an indirect comments did not support the proposed finalizing monitoring or other options. Electric utility commenters discharger) to facilitate resolution before requirements, EPA believes that some were split. Some electric utility the compliance date. The notice information provided in comments comments disagreed that these sub- requirement does not change the 2028 discussed below may be particularly options were warranted, with one trade date in this rule but provides the helpful for NPDES permitting permitting authority adequate notice to association stating that these sub- options were not sufficiently described authorities in devising a water quality- seek a resolution. The contents of such based approach. a notice shall include the reason for the to allow meaningful comment. Other delay, the projected length of the delay, electric utility comments supported a Duke Energy provided an example of and a proposed resolution to maintain monitoring-only approach. One a successful site-specific bromide compliance. commenter also provided an example of approach instituted on the Broad River a site-specific approach on the Broad in South Carolina.174 As detailed in the C. Site-Specific Water Quality-Based River, which is discussed further below. settlement agreement attached to Duke Effluent Limitations Environmental group commenters also Energy’s public comment (EPA–HQ– disagreed with the proposed bromide EPA regulations at 40 CFR OW–2009–0819–8320), this approach sub-options; they argued that membrane 122.44(d)(1), implementing section relied upon the establishment of an in- filtration should be BAT, and thus these river bromide concentration of 0.6 ppm, 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA, require that sub-options should either not be each NPDES permit shall include any below which there was ‘‘. . . no implemented or should be implemented significant impact upon the requirements, in addition to or more on top of more stringent limitations. stringent than effluent limitations Downstream Plants’ ability to meet the Drinking water utilities, though MCL for TTHMs.’’ As part of this guidelines or standards promulgated supporting the selection of membrane pursuant to sections 301, 304, 306, 307, approach, the plant discharging bromide filtration over these sub-options, also had to establish a collection point where 318 and 405 of the CWA, necessary to recommended that in the absence of achieve water quality standards the process water could be transferred selecting more stringent limitations for off-site for treatment or disposal, and established under section 303 of the discharges of FGD wastewater, EPA CWA, including state narrative criteria USGS data were used to determine the should finalize requirements for average flow of the river each week. for water quality. Those same monitoring and a bromide minimization regulations require that limitations must Using the river flow from the previous plan. week and the concentrations in the control all pollutants, or pollutant The final rule does not include process water, the discharging plant had parameters (either conventional, limitations on bromide for FGD nonconventional, or toxic pollutants) wastewater beyond the removals that to determine the volume of process which the Director determines are or would be required of plants choosing to water to divert to the collection point. may be discharged at a level which will meet the VIP limitations. EPA agrees The discharging plant had to take 24- cause, have the reasonable potential to with the wide variety of commenters hour composite samples of its effluent cause, or contribute to an excursion that the selection of BAT based on the one or more times per week and use above any state water quality standard, statutory factors, combined with the those data to estimate in-river bromide including state narrative criteria for imposition of water quality-based concentrations, taking additional steps water quality. effluent limitations where appropriate, should those estimates exceed 0.6 ppm. Bromide was discussed in the rather than these sub-options, is the EPA notes that this approach could be preamble to the 2015 rule as a parameter proper way to address impacts from modified and applied at any particular for which water quality-based effluent bromides at this time. watershed by determining the in-river limitations may be appropriate. EPA The records for the 2015 rule, the bromide concentrations that affect the stated its recommendation that 2019 proposal, and this final rule ability of drinking water treatment permitting authorities carefully consider continue to suggest that permitting plants to meet the MCL for TTHMs, whether water quality-based effluent authorities should consider establishing whether the bromide level is set higher limitations for bromide or TDS would water quality-based effluent limitations or lower than the 0.6 ppm level be appropriate for FGD wastewater that are protective of populations served established for the Broad River. discharged from steam electric power by downstream drinking water In December 2019, AWWA also plants upstream of drinking water treatment plants. As described in finalized Methods to Assess intakes. EPA also stated its Section XII, the analysis of changes in Anthropogenic Bromide Loads from recommendation that the permitting downstream bromide concentrations Coal-fired Power Plants and Their authority notify any downstream associated with changes in bromide Potential Effect on Downstream discharges are concentrated at a small 173 Note: It is unlikely that a delay would be number of sites. This supports EPA’s 174 See Attachment E of Document ID: EPA–HQ– material after 2028, as all requirements of the rule determination that potential discharges OW–2009–0819–8320, available online at will have been implemented industry-wide. are best addressed using site-specific, www.regulations.gov.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64712 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Drinking Water Utilities.175 This see Section 6 of the Supplemental TDD prepared an analysis of the estimated document describes methodologies, data and EPA’s response to comments social costs and benefits associated with sources, and considerations for document. this action. This analysis is presented in constructing an approach to bromide Chapter 13 of the BCA, available in the XV. Related Acts of Congress, Executive issues on a site-specific basis. This docket. The analysis in the BCA builds Orders, and Agency Initiatives document presents additional data on compliance costs and certain other sources that could be used by NPDES Additional information about these assumptions regarding compliance years permitting authorities to establish site- statutes and Executive Orders can be discussed in the RIA to analyze and specific, water quality-based effluent found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- update estimated incremental social limitations (see, e.g., figure 29 in regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. costs and benefits of the final rule and AWWA’s document). The document revisions relative to the baseline. A. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory also provides examples of where states Table XV–1 presents the annualized Planning and Review) and 13563 have already taken similar action. For value of the social costs and benefits of (Improving Regulation and Regulatory example, the AWWA cites California’s the final rule. These costs and benefits Review) 0.05 mg/L standard for in-river bromide are annualized over 27 years and to protect public health for specific This final rule is an economically discounted using three and seven waterways and drinking water treatment significant regulatory action that was percent discount rates. In the table, systems. submitted to the Office of Management negative costs indicate avoided costs EPA also received a variety of and Budget (OMB) for review. Any (i.e., cost savings) and negative benefits comments on iodides. For a discussion changes made in response to OMB indicate forgone benefits (positive of iodides, including data limitations recommendations have been benefits values represent realized and EPA’s response to these comments, documented in the docket. EPA benefits).

TABLE XV–1—TOTAL MONETIZED ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF THE FINAL RULE AT 3% AND 7% DISCOUNT RATES AS COMPARED TO BASELINE [Millions of 2018$; annualized] a

Discount rate Total social costs b Total monetized benefits cd

3% ...... ¥$127.1 ¥$1.7 to $43.3 7% ...... ¥$153.4 $6.5 to $45.9 a All social costs and benefits were annualized over 27 years using 3% and 7% discount rates. Negative costs indicate avoided costs and neg- ative benefits indicate forgone benefits. b Total social costs are compliance costs to plants accounting for when those costs are incurred. c Total monetized benefits exclude other benefits discussed qualitatively. d The range reflects the lower and upper bound willingness-to-pay estimates and air quality-related effects.

B. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing certifications and applicable BMP plans. Accordingly, EPA estimated no net Regulation and Controlling Regulatory See Section VII of this preamble. change (i.e., no increase or decrease) in Costs) However, some plants will also realize the cost burden to federal or state governments or dischargers associated The final rule is an Executive Order savings relative to the baseline by no with the final rule. EPA does not believe 13771 deregulatory action. Details on longer monitoring pollutants discharged that any updates are needed to that ICR the estimated cost savings of the final by some subcategories of EGUs and so it has not submitted it to OMB for rule are in the RIA, and in Table XV– because their applicable limitations and review under the PRA. 1 above. standards are based on less costly technologies. EPA projects that the D. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act burden associated with the new OMB has previously approved the paperwork requirements will be largely The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) information collection requirements offset by the reduced burden associated generally requires an agency to prepare contained in the current regulations 40 with less monitoring; therefore, the a regulatory flexibility analysis of any CFR part 423 under the provisions of Agency projects that the final rule will rule subject to notice-and-comment the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. have no net effect on the burden of the rulemaking requirements under the 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB approved information collection Administrative Procedure Act or any control number 2040–0004. The OMB requirements. With respect to other statute, unless the agency certifies control numbers for EPA’s regulations permitting authorities, based on the that the rule will not have a significant in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. information in its record, EPA also does economic impact on a substantial EPA estimated small changes in not expect the final rule to increase or number of small entities. Small entities monitoring costs at steam electric power decrease their burden. The final rule include small businesses, small plants under the final rule relative to the will not change permit application organizations, and small governmental baseline. These changes apply to plants requirements or the associated review; jurisdictions. to which the subcategories are the final rule will not affect the number The Agency certifies that this action applicable. In some cases, in lieu of of permits issued to steam electric will not have a significant economic these monitoring requirements, plants power plants; nor will the final rule impact on a substantial number of small will have additional paperwork burden materially change the efforts involved in entities under the RFA. The basis for such as that associated with developing or reviewing such permits. this finding is summarized below. For

175 Availabile online at www.awwa.org/Portals/0/ 17861ManagingBromideREPORT.pdf?ver=2020-01- AWWA/ETS/Resources/ 09-151706-107 (DCN SE08643).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64713

further details, including analysis of may result in expenditures of $160 under the final rule as compared to the other regulatory options considered, see million (in 2018 dollars) or more for baseline is ¥$1.2 million. Based on this Chapter 8 of the RIA. state, local, and tribal governments in information, EPA concludes that this EPA estimates that 231 to 459 entities, the aggregate, or the private sector in action will not impose substantial direct of which 76 to 127 are small, own steam any one year. Chapter 9 of the RIA compliance costs on state or local electric power plants to which the final report provides details of these analyses. governments. rule applies. These small entities own a This action is also not subject to the total of 138 steam electric power plants. requirements of UMRA section 203 G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation EPA considered the impacts of the final because it contains no regulatory and Coordination With Indian Tribal rule on small businesses using a cost-to- requirements that might significantly or Governments revenue test. The analysis compares the uniquely affect small governments. To This action does not have tribal cost of implementing controls for BA assess whether the final rule would implications, as specified in E.O. 13175 and FGD wastewater under the final affect small governments in a way that (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will rule to those costs under the baseline is disproportionately burdensome in not have substantial direct effects on (which reflects the 2015 rule, as comparison to the effect on large tribal governments, on the relationship explained in Section V of this governments, EPA compared total between the federal government and the preamble). EPA used cost-to-revenue incremental costs and incremental costs Indian tribes, or on the distribution of ratios of three percent and one percent per plant for small governments and power and responsibilities between the as indicative of potentially significant large governments. EPA also compared federal government and Indian tribes, as impact. EPA’s analysis shows that no the changes in per plant costs incurred specified in E.O. 13175. small entities exceed the three percent for small-government-owned plants EPA assessed potential tribal impact threshold. Three small entities with those incurred by non-government- implications for the final rule arising (one cooperative and two owned plants. The Agency evaluated from three main changes: (1) Direct municipalities) are expected to incur both average and maximum annualized compliance costs incurred by plants; (2) costs equal to or greater than one incremental costs per plant. These impacts on drinking water systems percent (but less than three percent) of analyses find that small governments downstream from steam electric power revenue to meet the 2015 rule. Cost will not be significantly or uniquely plants; and (3) administrative burden on savings provided under the final rule affected by the final rule. For further governments that implement the NPDES reduce to two the number of small discussion, including results for other program. entities incurring costs equal to or regulatory options, see Chapter 9 of the Regarding direct compliance costs, greater than one percent of revenue. The RIA. EPA’s analyses show that no steam number of small entities exceeding the electric power plants with BA transport F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism one percent impact threshold in the water or FGD discharges are owned by baseline is small in the absolute and This action does not have federalism tribal governments. Regarding impacts represents a small percentage of the implications. It will not have substantial on drinking water systems, EPA total estimated number of small entities; direct effects on the states, on the identified 14 public water systems the cost savings provided by the final relationship between the national operated by tribal governments that may rule further support EPA’s finding of no government and the states, or on the have waters that receive halogen significant impact on a substantial distribution of power and discharges from steam electric power number of small entities (No SISNOSE). responsibilities among the various plants. These systems serve a total of levels of government. Under Executive approximately 28,000 people. EPA E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Order (E.O.) 13132, EPA may not issue estimated changes in source water EPA finds that this action is not an action that has federalism halogen concentrations for these subject to the requirements of UMRA implications, that imposes substantial systems under the final rule relative to section 203 because the expenditures direct compliance costs, and that is not the baseline. This analysis, which is are less than $160 million or more in required by statute, unless the federal described in Chapter 4 of the BCA any one year. As detailed in Chapter 9 government provides the funds report, finds very small changes in of the RIA, for its assessment of the necessary to pay the direct compliance source water halogen concentrations impact of changes in compliance costs incurred by state and local between the baseline and the final rule. requirements on small governments governments, or EPA consults with state Finally, regarding administrative (governments with jurisdiction over and local officials early in development burden, no tribal governments are populations of less than 50,000), EPA of the action. currently authorized pursuant to section estimated the changes in costs for EPA anticipates that the final rule will 402(b) of the CWA to implement the compliance with the final rule relative not impose incremental administrative NPDES program. Based on this to the baseline for different categories of burden on states due to issuing, information, EPA concludes that the entities. The final rule results in lower reviewing, and overseeing compliance final rule will not have substantial compliance costs (cost savings) when with discharge limitations and direct effects on tribal governments. compared to the baseline. Compared to standards. $113.5 million in the baseline, the As detailed in Chapter 9 of the RIA in H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Agency estimates that the final rule will the docket for this action, EPA has Children From Environmental Health reduce the maximum cost in any one identified 157 steam electric plants Risks and Safety Risks year to state, local, or tribal governments owned by state or local governments, of This action is not subject to E.O. by ¥$74.1 million. Compared to $1,313 which 13 plants are estimated to incur 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) million in baseline, the incremental cost costs to comply with the BA transport because EPA does not expect that the in any given year to the private sector water and FGD limitations in the 2015 environmental health risks or safety under the final rule is ¥$914 million. rule. However, the final rule provides risks associated with steam electric From these incremental cost values, estimated cost savings as compared to power plant discharges addressed by EPA determines that the final rule does the baseline. The difference in the this action present a disproportionate not constitute a federal mandate that maximum annualized costs per plant risk to children. This action’s health risk

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64714 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

assessments are described in Chapters 4 see Section 10.7 in the RIA, available in plants (up to 50 miles) that have higher and 5 of the BCA report and are the docket. proportions of low-income or minority summarized below. populations than the national and/or J. National Technology Transfer and state average. EPA identified several ways in which Advancement Act this final rule could affect children, EPA’s analysis considered the including potentially increasing health The final rule does not involve distribution of estimated effects on risks due to an increase in exposure to technical standards. populations near both immediate and pollutants present in steam electric K. Executive Order 12898: Federal downstream reaches, in downstream power plant FGD wastewater and BA Actions To Address Environmental PWS service areas, and in adjacent transport water discharged, and through Justice in Minority Populations and airsheds to assess whether low-income those pollutants’ potential impacts on Low-Income Populations and/or minority populations may be disproportionately affected by changes public water systems’ source water The EPA believes that this action may quality. This increase arises from less under the final rule. The analysis shows have disproportionate effects on that the EJ population subgroups are not stringent pollutant limitations and later minority populations, low-income deadlines for meeting effluent excluded from the benefits of the final populations and/or indigenous peoples, rule. For example, projected air quality limitations under the final rule relative as specified in Executive Order 12898 to the baseline. In particular, EPA changes under the final rule may (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). EPA disproportionately benefit minority and quantified the changes in IQ losses from conducted two main analyses, described lead exposure among pre-school low-income populations based on the in Chapter 14 of the BCA, to evaluate socioeconomic characteristics of children and from mercury exposure in the environmental justice (EJ) utero deriving from maternal fish populations of counties with changes in considerations for the final rule: (1) PM2.5 and ozone levels during the consumption under the final rule Summarizing the demographic relative to the baseline. EPA also period of analysis. Additionally, characteristics of the households living estimated foregone benefits related to estimated changes in the number of in proximity to steam electric power children with very high blood lead water quality changes may plants, plant air emissions and surface disproportionately affect minority and concentrations. Finally, EPA estimated water discharges, and to the changes in concentrations of halogens in subsistence fisher populations. downstream reaches affected by plant However, the magnitude of the changes source waters for drinking water discharges; and (2) Analyzing the treatment plants. Under certain (positive and negative) and associated distribution of estimated human health benefits (including foregone benefits) is circumstances, halogens can contribute impacts among minority and/or low- small, relative to the baseline, both to the formation of halogenated income populations from estimated overall across the exposed population, disinfection byproducts in drinking changes in exposure to pollutants in and across socioeconomic and fisher water, for which there is evidence of a drinking water, self-caught fish, and the subgroups.. linkage to bladder cancer incidence. air. EPA did not estimate children-specific The first analysis provides insight on L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) exposure to changes in halogen the distribution of estimated regulatory This action is subject to the CRA, and concentrations because these adverse option effects (e.g., estimated effects on EPA will submit a rule report to each health effects normally follow long-term water quality and air pollutant House of Congress and to the exposure. These analyses show that emissions) on communities in proximity Comptroller General of the United today’s final rule will have a small, and to steam electric power plants. The States. This action is a ‘‘major rule’’ as not disproportionate, impact on second analysis seeks to provide more defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). children. specific insight on the distribution of Appendix A to the Preamble: estimated changes in adverse health I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Definitions, Acronyms, and effects and benefits and to assess Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Abbreviations Used in This Preamble Distribution, or Use whether minority and/or low-income populations incur disproportionately The following acronyms and abbreviations This action is not a ‘‘significant high environmental impacts and/or will are used in this preamble. These terms are energy action,’’ as defined by E.O. 13211 be disproportionately excluded from provided for convenience to the reader and they are not regulatory definitions with the (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it realizing benefits under the regulatory is not likely to have a significant force or effect of law, nor are they to be used options. as guidance for implementation of this final adverse effect on the supply, Overall, the various analyses show rule. distribution, or use of energy. that estimated environmental changes Administrator. The Administrator of the The Agency analyzed the potential under the regulatory options analyzed, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. energy effects of the final rule relative including the final rule, may affect Agency. U.S. Environmental Protection to the baseline and found minimal or no minority and/or low income Agency. impacts on electricity generation, populations to different degrees across BAT. Best available technology generating capacity, cost of energy economically achievable, as defined by CWA environmental media, exposure sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2)(B). production, or dependence on a foreign pathways, and over time, but the Bioaccumulation. General term describing supply of energy. Specifically, the estimated effects (positive or negative) a process by which chemicals are taken up Agency’s analysis found that the final of the changes will be small. by an organism either directly from exposure rule will not reduce electricity Communities living near steam to a contaminated medium or by production by more than 1 billion electric power plants (i.e., up to 50 consumption of food containing the kilowatt hours per year or by 500 miles) tend to have a lower proportion chemical, resulting in a net accumulation of megawatts of installed capacity, nor will of low-income households and minority the chemical by the organism. BMP. Best management practice. the final rule increase U.S. dependence population than the national average, BA. The ash, including EGU slag, which on foreign supplies of energy. For when considered in the aggregate, but settles in the furnace or is dislodged from details on the potential energy effects of there may be localized EJ considerations furnace walls. Economizer ash is included the other regulatory options considered, for some communities near individual when it is collected with BA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64715

BA Purge Water. The water discharged FA. Fly Ash. is applied that causes it to behave like a from a wet BA handling system that recycles Facility. Any NPDES ‘‘point source’’ or any fluid. some, but not all, of its BA transport water. other facility or activity (including land or Paste landfill. A landfill that receives any BPT. The best practicable control appurtenances thereto) that is subject to paste designed to set into a solid after the technology currently available as defined by regulation under the NPDES program. passage of a reasonable amount of time. sections 301(b)(1) and 304(b)(1) of the CWA. FGD. Flue Gas Desulfurization. Point source. Any discernible, confined, CBI. Confidential Business Information. FGD Wastewater. Wastewater generated and discrete conveyance, including but not CCR. Coal Combustion Residuals. specifically from the wet FGD scrubber limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, CSC. Compact Submerged Conveyor. system that comes into contact with the flue conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, Clean Water Act (CWA). The Federal Water gas or the FGD solids, including, but not rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 limited to, the blowdown or purge from the operation, vessel, or other floating craft from (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended, e.g., by FGD scrubber system, overflow or underflow which pollutants are or may be discharged. the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–217), from the solids separation process, FGD The term does not include agricultural and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. solids wash water, and the filtrate from the stormwater discharges or return flows from 100–4). solids dewatering process. Wastewater irrigated agriculture. See CWA section Combustion residuals. Solid wastes generated from cleaning the FGD scrubber, 502(14), 33 U.S.C. 1362(14); 40 CFR 122.2. associated with combustion-related power cleaning FGD solids separation equipment, POTW. Publicly owned treatment works. plant processes, including fly and BA from cleaning FGD solids dewatering equipment, See CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 coal-, petroleum coke-, or oil-fired units; FGD or that is collected in floor drains in the FGD CFR 122.2, 403.3 solids; FGMC wastes; and other wastewater process area is not considered FGD PSES. Pretreatment Standards for Existing treatment solids associated with combustion wastewater. Sources. wastewater. In addition to the residuals that Fly Ash. The ash that is carried out of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works. Any are associated with coal combustion, this also furnace by a gas stream and collected by a device or system owned by a state or includes residuals associated with the capture device such as a mechanical municipality that is used in the treatment combustion of other fossil fuels. precipitator, electrostatic precipitator, and/or (including recycling and reclamation) of Direct discharge. (a) Any addition of any fabric filter. Economizer ash is included in municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a ‘‘pollutant’’ or combination of pollutants to this definition when it is collected with FA. liquid nature. This includes sewers, pipes, or ‘‘waters of the United States’’ from any Ash is not included in this definition when other conveyances only if they convey ‘‘point source,’’ or (b) any addition of any it is collected in wet scrubber air pollution wastewater to a POTW providing treatment. pollutant or combination of pollutant to control systems whose primary purpose is CWA section 212, 33 U.S.C. 1292; 40 CFR waters of the ‘‘contiguous zone’’ or the ocean particulate removal. 122.2 and 403.3. from any point source other than a vessel or Groundwater. Water that is found in the RCRA. The Resource Conservation and other floating craft which is being used as a saturated part of the ground underneath the Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. means of transportation. This definition land surface. Remote MDS. BA handling system that includes additions of pollutants into waters Indirect discharge. Wastewater discharged collects BA at the bottom of the EGU, then of the United States from: Surface runoff that or otherwise introduced to a POTW. uses transport water to sluice the ash to a is collected or channeled by man; discharges IPM. Integrated Planning Model. remote MDS that dewaters BA using a similar through pipes, sewers, or other conveyances Landfill. A disposal facility or part of a configuration as the MDS. The remote MDS owned by a state, municipality, or other facility or plant where solid waste, sludges, is considered a wet BA handling system person that do not lead to a treatment works; or other process residuals are placed in or on because the ash transport mechanism is and discharges through pipes, sewers, or any natural or manmade formation in the water. other conveyances that lead into privately earth for disposal and which is not a storage RFA. Regulatory Flexibility Act. owned treatment works. This term does not pile, a land treatment facility, a surface SBA. Small Business Administration. include addition of pollutants by any impoundment, an underground injection Sediment. Particulate matter lying below ‘‘indirect discharger.’’ well, a salt dome or salt bed formation, an water. Direct discharger. A plant that discharges underground mine, a cave, or a corrective Surface water. All waters of the United treated or untreated wastewaters into waters action management unit. States, including rivers, streams, lakes, of the U.S. MDS. Mechanical drag system. reservoirs, and seas. DOE. Department of Energy. Mechanical drag system. BA handling Toxic pollutants. As identified under the Dry BA handling system. A system that system that collects BA from the bottom of CWA, 65 pollutants and classes of pollutants, does not use water as the transport medium the EGU in a water-filled trough. The water of which 126 specific substances have been to convey BA away from the EGU. It includes bath in the trough quenches the hot BA as designated priority toxic pollutants. See systems that collect and convey the bottom it falls from the EGU and seals the EGU gases. Appendix A to 40 CFR part 423. ash without using any water, as well as A drag chain operates in a continuous loop Transport water. Wastewater that is used to systems in which BA is quenched in a water to drag BA from the water trough up an convey FA, BA, or economizer ash from the bath and then mechanically or pneumatically incline, which dewaters the BA by gravity, ash collection or storage equipment, or EGU, conveyed away from the EGU. Dry BA draining the water back to the trough as the and has direct contact with the ash. handling systems do not include wet sluicing BA moves upward. The dewatered BA is Transport water does not include low systems (such as remote MDS or complete often conveyed to a nearby collection area, volume, short duration discharges of recycle systems). such as a small bunker outside the EGU wastewater from minor leaks (e.g., leaks from Effluent limitation. Under CWA section building, from which it is loaded onto trucks valve packing, pipe flanges, or piping) or 502(11), any restriction, including schedules and either sold or transported to a landfill. minor maintenance events (e.g., replacement of compliance, established by a state or the The MDS is considered a dry BA handling of valves or pipe sections). Administrator on quantities, rates, and system because the ash transport mechanism UMRA. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. concentrations of chemical, physical, is mechanical removal by the drag chain, not Wet BA handling system. A system in biological, and other constituents that are the water. which BA is conveyed away from the EGU discharged from point sources into navigable Mortality. Death rate or proportion of using water as a transport medium. Wet BA waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or deaths in a population. systems typically send the ash slurry to the ocean, including schedules of NAICS. North American Industry dewatering bins or a surface impoundment. compliance. Classification System. Wet BA handling systems include systems EIA. Energy Information Administration. NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge that operate in conjunction with a traditional ELGs. Effluent limitations guidelines and Elimination System. wet sluicing system to recycle all BA standards. ORCR. Office of Resource Conservation transport water (remote MDS or complete E.O. Executive Order. and Recovery. recycle system). EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Paste. A substance containing solids in a Wet FGD system. Wet FGD systems capture Agency. fluid which behaves as a solid until a force sulfur dioxide from the flue gas using a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64716 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

sorbent that has mixed with water to form a valves or pipe sections), FGD paste (x) The term ‘‘high FGD flow’’ means wet slurry, and that generates a water stream equipment cleaning water, or bottom the maximum daily volume of FGD that exits the FGD scrubber absorber. ash purge water wastewater that could be discharged by List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 423 * * * * * a facility is above 4 million gallons per (t) The phrase ‘‘as soon as possible’’ day after accounting for that facility’s Environmental protection, Electric ability to recycle the wastewater to the power generation, Power facilities, means November 1, 2018 (except for purposes of § 423.13(g)(1)(i) and maximum limits for the FGD system Waste treatment and disposal, Water materials of construction. pollution control. (k)(1)(i), in which case it means October 13, 2021), unless the permitting (y) The term ‘‘capacity utilization Andrew Wheeler, authority establishes a later date, after rating’’ means the total MWh Administrator. receiving site-relevant information from production of an electric generating unit the discharger, which reflects a over a calendar year divided by the For the reasons stated in the product of the number of hours in that preamble, the Environmental Protection consideration of the following factors: (1) Time to expeditiously plan year times the nameplate capacity. Agency amends 40 CFR part 423 as (z) The term ‘‘low utilization electric follows: (including to raise capital), design, procure, and install equipment to generating unit’’ means any electric PART 423—STEAM ELECTRIC POWER comply with the requirements of this generating unit for which the facility GENERATING POINT SOURCE part. owner certifies, and annually recertifies, CATEGORY (2) Changes being made or planned at under § 423.19(e) that the two-year the plant in response to: average annual capacity utilization ■ 1. The authority citation for part 423 (i) New source performance standards rating is less than 10 percent. continues to read as follows: for greenhouse gases from new fossil (aa) The term ‘‘primary active wetted fuel-fired electric generating units, bottom ash system volume’’ means the Authority: Secs. 101; 301; 304(b), (c), (e), maximum volumetric capacity of and (g); 306; 307; 308 and 501, Clean Water under sections 111, 301, 302, and Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act 307(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Air Act, as bottom ash transport water in all non- Amendments of 1972, as amended; 33 U.S.C. amended, 42 U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, redundant piping (including 1251; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), and (g); 1316; 7607(d)(1)(C); recirculation piping) and primary 1317; 1318 and 1361). (ii) Emission guidelines for bottom ash collection and recirculation ■ 2. Amend § 423.11 by revising greenhouse gases from existing fossil loop tanks (e.g., bins, troughs, clarifiers, paragraphs (n), (p), and (t) and adding fuel-fired electric generating units, and hoppers) of a wet bottom ash paragraphs (u), (v), (w), (x), (y), (z), (aa), under sections 111, 301, 302, and 307(d) system, excluding the volumes of (bb), (cc), and (dd) to read as follows. of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 surface impoundments, secondary U.S.C. 7411, 7601, 7602, 7607(d); or bottom ash system equipment (e.g., § 423.11 Specialized definitions. (iii) Regulations that address the installed spares, redundancies, and * * * * * disposal of coal combustion residuals as maintenance tanks), and non-bottom ash (n) The term flue gas desulfurization solid waste, under sections 1006(b), transport systems that may direct (FGD) wastewater means any 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 4004, and process water to the bottom ash. wastewater generated specifically from 4005(a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (bb) The term ‘‘tank’’ means a the wet flue gas desulfurization scrubber of 1970, as amended by the Resource stationary device, designed to contain system that comes into contact with the Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, an accumulation of wastewater which is flue gas or the FGD solids, including but as amended by the Hazardous and Solid constructed primarily of non-earthen not limited to, the blowdown from the Waste Amendments of 1984, 42 U.S.C. materials (e.g., wood, concrete, steel, FGD scrubber system, overflow or 6906(b), 6907(a), 6912(a), 6944, and plastic) which provide structural underflow from the solids separation 6945(a). support. (cc) The term ‘‘bottom ash purge process, FGD solids wash water, and the (3) For FGD wastewater requirements water’’ means any water being filtrate from the solids dewatering only, an initial commissioning period discharged subject to § 423.13(k)(2)(i) or process. Wastewater generated from for the treatment system to optimize the 423.16(g)(2)(i). cleaning the FGD scrubber, cleaning installed equipment. (dd) The term ‘‘30-day rolling FGD solids separation equipment, (4) Other factors as appropriate. average’’ means the series of averages cleaning FGD solids dewatering (u) The term ‘‘FGD paste’’ means any using the measured values of the equipment, FGD paste equipment combination of FGD wastewater treated preceding 30 days for each average in cleaning water, treated FGD wastewater with fly ash, lime, Portland cement, the series. permeate or distillate used as boiler and/or other pozzolanic material prior ■ makeup water, or water that is collected to being landfilled, and which is 3. Amend § 423.12 by revising in floor drains in the FGD process area engineered to form a solid through paragraph (b)(11) to read as follows. is not considered FGD wastewater. pozzolanic reactions. § 423.12 Effluent limitations guidelines * * * * * (v) The term ‘‘FGD paste equipment representing the degree of effluent (p) The term transport water means cleaning water’’ means any wastewater reduction attainable by the application of any wastewater that is used to convey generated from the cleaning of pugmills, the best practicable control technology fly ash, bottom ash, or economizer ash piping, or other equipment used to currently available (BPT). from the ash collection or storage make, process, or transport FGD paste * * * * * equipment, or boiler, and has direct from its point of generation to a landfill. (b)(11) The quantity of pollutants contact with the ash. Transport water (w) The term ‘‘permanent cessation of discharged in FGD wastewater, flue gas does not include low volume, short coal combustion’’ means the owner or mercury control wastewater, duration discharges of wastewater from operator certifies under § 423.19(f) that combustion residual leachate, minor leaks (e.g., leaks from valve an electric generating unit will cease gasification wastewater, or bottom ash packing, pipe flanges, or piping), minor combustion of coal no later than purge water shall not exceed the maintenance events (e.g., replacement of December 31, 2028. quantity determined by multiplying the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64717

flow of the applicable wastewater times the concentration listed in the table 7:

TABLE 7 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(11)

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

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

* * * * * § 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines concentration listed in the table 1 representing the degree of effluent following this paragraph (g)(1)(i). ■ 4. Amend § 423.13 by: reduction attainable by the application of Dischargers must meet the effluent ■ a. Revising paragraphs (g)(1)(i); (g)(2) the best available technology economically achievable (BAT). limitations for FGD wastewater in this and (g)(3)(i); paragraph by a date determined by the * * * * * ■ permitting authority that is as soon as b. Revising paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (g) * * * (k)(2); (1) * * * possible beginning October 13, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2025. ■ c. Adding paragraphs (k)(3), and (o). (i) FGD wastewater. Except for those discharges to which paragraph (g)(2) or These effluent limitations apply to the The additions and revisions read as (g)(3) of this section applies, the discharge of FGD wastewater generated follows: quantity of pollutants in FGD on and after the date determined by the wastewater shall not exceed the permitting authority for meeting the quantity determined by multiplying the effluent limitations, as specified in this flow of FGD wastewater times the paragraph.

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(1)(i)

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

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 18 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 103 34 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 70 29 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/L) ...... 4 3

* * * * * times the concentration listed for TSS in limitations for FGD wastewater in this (2)(i) For any electric generating unit § 423.12(b)(11). paragraph by a date determined by the with a total nameplate capacity of less (ii) For FGD wastewater discharges permitting authority that is as soon as than or equal to 50 megawatts, that is an from a high FGD flow facility, the possible beginning October 13, 2021, but no later than December 31, 2023. oil-fired unit, or for which the owner quantity of pollutants in FGD wastewater shall not exceed the These effluent limitations apply to the has submitted a certification pursuant to quantity determined by multiplying the discharge of FGD wastewater generated § 423.19(f), the quantity of pollutants flow of FGD wastewater times the on and after the date determined by the discharged in FGD wastewater shall not concentration listed in the table permitting authority for meeting the exceed the quantity determined by following this paragraph (g)(2)(ii). effluent limitations, as specified in this multiplying the flow of FGD wastewater Dischargers must meet the effluent paragraph.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64718 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6 TO PARAGRAPH (g)2)(ii)

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

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

(iii) For FGD wastewater discharges possible beginning October 13, 2021, wastewater shall not exceed the from a low utilization electric but no later than December 31, 2023. quantity determined by multiplying the generating unit, the quantity of These effluent limitations apply to the flow of FGD wastewater times the pollutants in FGD wastewater shall not discharge of FGD wastewater generated concentration listed in the table exceed the quantity determined by on and after the date determined by the following this paragraph (g)(3)(i). multiplying the flow of FGD wastewater permitting authority for meeting the Dischargers who choose to meet the times the concentration listed in the effluent limitations, as specified in this effluent limitations for FGD wastewater table following paragraph (g)(2)(ii). paragraph. in this paragraph must meet such Dischargers must meet the effluent (3)(i) For dischargers who voluntarily limitations by December 31, 2028. These limitations for FGD wastewater in this choose to meet the effluent limitations effluent limitations apply to the paragraph by a date determined by the for FGD wastewater in this paragraph, discharge of FGD wastewater generated permitting authority that is as soon as the quantity of pollutants in FGD on and after December 31, 2028.

TABLE 7 OF PARAGRAPH (g)(3)(i)

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

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 5 NA Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 23 10 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 10 NA Nitrate/Nitrite (mg/L) ...... 2.0 1.2 Bromide (mg/L) ...... 0.2 NA TDS (mg/L) ...... 306 149

* * * * * comply with the discharge limitation in (2) To maintain system water balance (k)(1)(i) Bottom ash transport water. this paragraph. When the bottom ash when regular inflows from wastestreams Except for those discharges to which transport water is used in the FGD other than bottom ash transport water paragraph (k)(2) of this section applies, scrubber, it ceases to be bottom ash exceed the ability of the bottom ash or when the bottom ash transport water transport water, and instead is FGD system to accept recycled water and is used in the FGD scrubber, there shall wastewater, which must meet the segregating these other wastestreams is be no discharge of pollutants in bottom requirements in paragraph (g) of this not feasible; or ash transport water. Dischargers must section. (3) To maintain system water meet the discharge limitation in this * * * * * chemistry where installed equipment at paragraph by a date determined by the the facility is unable to manage pH, permitting authority that is as soon as (2)(i)(A) The discharge of pollutants possible beginning October 13, 2021, in bottom ash transport water from a corrosive substances, substances or but no later than December 31, 2025. properly installed, operated, and conditions causing scaling, or fine This limitation applies to the discharge maintained bottom ash system is particulates to below levels which of bottom ash transport water generated authorized under the following impact system operation or on and after the date determined by the conditions: maintenance; or permitting authority for meeting the (1) To maintain system water balance (4) To conduct maintenance not discharge limitation, as specified in this when precipitation-related inflows are otherwise included in paragraphs paragraph. Except for those discharges generated from storm events exceeding (k)(2)(i)(A) (1), (2), or (3) of this section to which paragraph (k)(2) of this section a 10-year storm event of 24-hour or and not exempted from the definition of applies, whenever bottom ash transport longer duration (e.g., 30-day storm transport water in § 423.11(p), and when water is used in any other plant process event) and cannot be managed by water volumes cannot be managed by or is sent to a treatment system at the installed spares, redundancies, installed spares, redundancies, plant (except when it is used in the FGD maintenance tanks, and other secondary maintenance tanks, and other secondary scrubber), the resulting effluent must bottom ash system equipment; or bottom ash system equipment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64719

(B) The total volume that may be water additions and removals from the discharge of bottom ash transport water, discharged for the above activities shall bottom ash transport system, including: including the following: be reduced or eliminated to the extent (A) Water removed from the BA (A) The anticipated initiation and achievable using control measures transport system: completion dates of construction and (including best management practices) (1) To the discharge outfall. installation associated with the that are technologically available and (2) To the FGD scrubber system. technology components or process economically achievable in light of best (3) Through evaporation modifications specified in the plan. industry practice. The total volume of (4) Entrained with any removed ash (B) The anticipated dates that the the discharge authorized in this (5) To any other mechanisms not discharger expects the technologies and subsection shall be determined on a specified above. process modifications to be fully case-by-case basis by the permitting (B) Water entering or recycled to the implemented on a full-scale basis, authority and in no event shall such BA transport system: which in no case shall be later than discharge exceed a 30-day rolling (1) Makeup water added to the BA December 31, 2023. average of ten percent of the primary transport water system. (C) The anticipated change in active wetted bottom ash system (2) Bottom ash transport water discharge volume and effluent quality volume. The volume of daily discharges recycled back to the system in lieu of associated with implementation of the used to calculate the 30-day rolling makeup water. plan. average shall be calculated using (3) Any other mechanisms not (viii) Description establishing a measurements from flow monitors. specified above. method for documenting and (ii) For any electric generating unit (iv) Measures to be employed by all demonstrating to the permitting/control with a total nameplate generating facilities: authority that the recycle system is well (A) Implementation of a capacity of less than or equal to 50 operated and maintained. comprehensive preventive maintenance megawatts, that is an oil-fired unit, or (ix) Performance of weekly flow program to identify, repair and replace for which the owner has certified to the monitoring for the following: equipment prior to failures that result in permitting authority that it will cease (A) Make up water to the bottom ash the release of bottom ash transport combustion of coal pursuant to transport water system. water. § 423.19(f), the quantity of pollutants (B) Bottom ash transport water sluice (B) Daily or more frequent inspections discharged in bottom ash transport flow rate (e.g., to the surface of the entire bottom ash transport water water shall not exceed the quantity impoundment(s), dewatering bins(s), system, including valves, pipe flanges determined by multiplying the flow of tank(s), remote mechanical drag and piping, to identify leaks, spills and the applicable wastewater times the system). other unintended bottom ash transport concentration for TSS listed in (C) Bottom ash transport water water escaping from the system, and § 423.12(b)(4). discharge to surface water or POTW. (iii) For bottom ash transport water timely repair of such conditions. (D) Bottom ash transport water recycle generated by a low utilization electric (C) Documentation of preventive and back to the bottom ash system or FGD generating unit, the quantity of corrective maintenance performed. scrubber. pollutants discharged in bottom ash (v) Evaluation of options and transport water shall not exceed the feasibility, accounting for the associated * * * * * quantity determined by multiplying the costs, for eliminating or minimizing (o)(1) Transfer between applicable flow of the applicable wastewater times discharges of bottom ash transport limitations in a permit. Where, in the the concentration for TSS listed in water, including: permit, the permitting authority has § 423.12(b)(4), and shall incorporate the (A) Segregation of bottom ash included alternative limits subject to elements of a best management practices transport water from other process eligibility requirements, upon timely plan as described in (k)(3) of this water. notification to the permitting authority section. (B) Minimization of the introduction under § 423.19(i), a facility can become (3) Where required in paragraph of stormwater by diverting (e.g., curbing, subject to the alternative limits under (k)(2)(iii) of this section, the discharger using covers) storm water to a the following circumstances: shall prepare, implement, review, and segregated collection system. (i) On or before December 31, 2023 a update a best management practices (C) Recycling bottom ash transport facility may convert: plan for the recycle of bottom ash water back to the bottom ash transport (A) From limitations for electric transport water, and must include: water system. generating units permanently ceasing (i) Identification of the low utilization (D) Recycling bottom ash transport coal combustion under paragraphs coal-fired generating units that water for use in the FGD scrubber. (g)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this section to contribute bottom ash to the bottom ash (E) Optimization of existing limitations for low utilization electric transport system. equipment (e.g., pumps, pipes, tanks) generating units under paragraphs (ii) A description of the existing and installing new equipment where (g)(2)(iii) or (k)(2)(iii) of this section; or bottom ash handling system and a list practicable to achieve the maximum (B) From voluntary incentives of system components (e.g., remote amount of recycle. program limitations under paragraph mechanical drag system, tanks, (F) Utilization of ‘‘in-line’’ treatment (g)(3)(i) of this section or generally impoundments, chemical addition). of transport water (e.g., pH control, fines applicable limitations under paragraph Where multiple generating units share a removal) where needed to facilitate (k)(1)(i) of this section to limitations for bottom ash transport system, the plan recycle. low utilization electric generating units shall specify which components are (vi) Description of the bottom ash under paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) or (k)(2)(iii) associated with low utilization recycle system, including all of this section. generating units. technologies, measures, and practices (ii) On or before December 31, 2025 a (iii) A detailed water balance, based that will be used to minimize discharge. facility may convert on measurements, or estimates where (vii) A schedule showing the (A) From voluntary incentives measurements are not feasible, sequence of implementing any changes program limitations under paragraph specifying the volume and frequency of necessary to achieve the minimized (g)(3)(i) of this section to limitations for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64720 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

electric generating units permanently applicable limitations under paragraph § 423.16 Pretreatment standards for ceasing coal combustion under (k)(1)(i) of this section; or existing sources (PSES). paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section; or (E) From limitations for low * * * * * (B) From limitations for electric utilization electric generating units (e)(1) FGD wastewater. Except as generating units permanently ceasing under paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) or (k)(2)(iii) provided for in paragraph (e)(2) of this coal combustion under paragraphs of this section to limitations for electric section, for any electric generating unit (g)(2)(i) or (k)(2)(ii) of this section to generating units permanently ceasing with a total nameplate generating voluntary incentives program coal combustion under paragraphs capacity of more than 50 megawatts, limitations under paragraphs (g)(3)(i) of (g)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) of this section. that is not an oil-fired unit, and that the this section or generally applicable (2) A facility must be in compliance owner has not certified to the permitting limitations under (k)(1)(i) of this with all of its currently applicable authority that it will cease the coal section; or requirements to be eligible to file a combustion pursuant to § 423.19(f), the (C) From limitations for low notice under § 423.19(i) and to become quantity of pollutants in FGD utilization electric generating units subject to a different set of applicable wastewater shall not exceed the under paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) or (k)(2)(iii) requirements under paragraph (o)(1) of quantity determined by multiplying the of this section to generally applicable this section. flow of FGD wastewater times the limitations under paragraphs (g)(1)(i) or (3) Where a facility seeking a transfer concentration listed in table 3 to this (k)(1)(i) of this section; or under paragraph (o)(1)(ii) of this section paragraph (e)(1). Dischargers must meet (D) From limitations for low is currently subject to more stringent the standards in this paragraph by utilization electric generating units limitations than the limitations being October 13, 2023 except as provided for under paragraphs (g)(2)(iii) or (k)(2)(iii) sought, the facility must continue to in paragraph (e)(2) of this section. These of this section to voluntary incentives meet those more stringent limitations. standards apply to the discharge of FGD program limitations under paragraphs 2. Amend § 423.16 by revising wastewater generated on and after (g)(3)(i) of this section or generally paragraphs (e) and (g) to read as follows: October 13, 2023.

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1)

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

Arsenic, total (ug/L) ...... 18 8 Mercury, total (ng/L) ...... 103 34 Selenium, total (ug/L) ...... 70 29 Nitrate/nitrite as N (mg/L) ...... 4 3

(2)(i) For FGD wastewater discharges Dischargers must meet the standards in years from the date such a from a low utilization electric this paragraph by October 13, 2023. recertification was required, the generating unit, the quantity of (ii) If any low utilization electric quantity of pollutants in FGD pollutants in FGD wastewater shall not generating unit fails to timely recertify wastewater shall not exceed the exceed the quantity determined by that the two year average capacity quantity determined by multiplying the multiplying the flow of FGD wastewater utilization rating of such a electric flow of FGD wastewater times the times the concentration listed in the generating unit is below 10 percent per concentration listed in the Table 3 to table 4 to paragraph (e)(2)(ii). year as specified in § 423.19(e), paragraph (e)(1). regardless of the reason, within two

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(2)(ii)

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

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

* * * * * generating unit with a total nameplate not certified to the permitting authority (g)(1) Except for those discharges to generating capacity of more than 50 that the electric generating unit will which paragraph (g)(2) applies, or when megawatts, that is not an oil-fired unit, cease the cessation of coal combustion the bottom ash transport water is used that is not a low utilization electric pursuant to § 423.19(f), there shall be no in the FGD scrubber, for any electric generating unit, and that the owner has discharge of pollutants in bottom ash

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64721

transport water. This standard applies to discharge exceed a 30-day rolling pursuant to § 423.13(k)(2)(i) or the discharge of bottom ash transport average of ten percent of the primary 423.16(g)(2)(i). water generated on and after October 13, active wetted bottom ash system (1) Initial Certification Statement. For 2023. Except for those discharges to volume. The volume of daily discharges sources seeking to discharge bottom ash which paragraph (g)(2) of this section used to calculate the 30-day rolling transport water pursuant to applies, whenever bottom ash transport average shall be calculated using § 423.13(k)(2)(i) or 423.16(g)(2)(i), an water is used in any other plant process measurements from flow monitors. initial certification shall be submitted to or is sent to a treatment system at the (iii) For bottom ash transport water the permitting authority by the as soon plant (except when it is used in the FGD generated by a low utilization electric as possible date determined under scrubber), the resulting effluent must generating unit, the quantity of § 423.11(t), or the control authority by comply with the discharge standard in pollutants discharged in bottom ash October 13, 2023 in the case of an this paragraph. When the bottom ash transport water shall incorporate the indirect discharger. transport water is used in the FGD elements of a best management practices (2) Signature and certification. The scrubber, the quantity of pollutants in plan as described in § 423.13(k)(3). certification statement must be signed bottom ash transport water shall not ■ 5. Add § 423.18 to read as follows. and certified by a professional engineer. exceed the quantity determined by (3) Contents. An initial certification multiplying the flow of bottom ash § 423.18 Permit conditions. shall include the following: transport water times the concentration All permits subject to this part shall (A) A statement that the professional listed in the table in paragraph (e) of include the following permit conditions: engineer is a licensed professional this section. (a) An electric generating unit shall engineer. (2)(i) The discharge of pollutants in qualify as a low utilization electric (B) A statement that the professional bottom ash transport water from a generating unit or permanently ceasing engineer is familiar with the regulation properly installed, operated, and the combustion of coal by December 31, requirements. maintained bottom ash system is 2028, if such qualification would have (C) A statement that the professional authorized under the following been demonstrated absent the following engineer is familiar with the facility. conditions: qualifying event: (D) The primary active wetted bottom (A) To maintain system water balance (1) An emergency order issued by the ash system volume in § 423.11(aa). when precipitation-related inflows are Department of Energy under Section (E) Material assumptions, generated from a 10-year storm event of 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, information, and calculations used by 24-hour or longer duration (e.g., 30-day (2) A reliability must run agreement the certifying professional engineer to storm event) and cannot be managed by issued by a Public Utility Commission, determine the primary active wetted installed spares, redundancies, or bottom ash system volume. maintenance tanks, and other secondary (3) Any other reliability-related order (F) A list of all potential discharges bottom ash system equipment; or or agreement issued by a competent under § 423.13(k)(2)(i)(A)(1) through (4) (B) To maintain system water balance electricity regulator (e.g., an or § 423.16(g)(2)(i)(A) through (D), the when regular inflows from wastestreams independent system operator) which expected volume of each discharge, and other than bottom ash transport water results in that electric generating unit the expected frequency of each exceed the ability of the bottom ash operating in a way not contemplated discharge. system to accept recycled water and when the certification was made; or (G) Material assumptions, segregating these other wastestreams is (4) The operation of the electric information, and calculations used by feasible; or generating unit was necessary for load the certifying professional engineer to (C) To maintain system water balancing in an area subject to a determine the expected volume and chemistry where current operations at declaration under 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., frequency of each discharge including a the facility are unable to currently that there exists: narrative discussion of why such water (i) An ‘‘Emergency,’’ or manage pH, corrosive substances, cannot be managed within the system (ii) A ‘‘Major Disaster,’’ and substances or conditions causing (iii) That load balancing was due to and must be discharged. scaling, or fine particulates to below the event that caused the ‘‘Emergency’’ (H) A list of all wastewater treatment levels which impact system operation or or ‘‘Major Disaster’’ in paragraph (a)(4) systems at the facility currently, or maintenance; or of this section to be declared, otherwise required by a date certain (D) To conduct maintenance not (b) Any facility providing the required under this section. otherwise included in paragraphs documentation pursuant to § 423.19(g) (I) A narrative discussion of each (g)(2)(i)(A)(1), (2), or (3) of this section may avail itself of the protections of this treatment system including the system and not exempted from the definition of permit condition. type, design capacity, and current or transport water in§ 423.11(p), and when expected operation. ■ 6. Add § 423.19 to read as follows. water volumes cannot be managed by (d) Requirements for a bottom ash best installed spares, redundancies, § 423.19 Reporting and recordkeeping management practices plan. maintenance tanks, and other secondary requirements. (1) Initial and annual certification bottom ash system equipment. (a) Discharges subject to this part statement. For sources required to (ii) The total volume that may be must comply with the following develop and implement a best discharged to a POTW for the above additional reporting requirements. management practices plan pursuant to activities shall be reduced or eliminated (b) Signature and certification. Unless § 423.13(k)(3), an initial certification to the extent achievable as determined otherwise provided below, all shall be made to the permitting by the control authority. The control certifications and recertifications authority with a permit application or authority may also include control required in this part must be signed and within two years of October 13, 2021, measures (including best management certified pursuant to 40 CFR 122.22 for whichever is later, or to the control practices) that are technologically direct dischargers or 40 CFR 403.12(l) authority no later than October 13, 2023 available and economically achievable for indirect dischargers. in the case of an indirect discharger, and in light of best industry practice. In no (c) Requirements for facilities an annual recertification shall be made event shall the total volume of the discharging bottom ash transport water to the permitting authority, or control

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 64722 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

authority in the case of an indirect (3) Initial and annual certification combustion. Each timeline shall include discharger, within 60 days of the statement. For sources seeking to interim milestones and the projected anniversary of the original plan. qualify as a low utilization electric dates of completion. (2) Signature and certification. The generating unit under this part, an (3) Annual Progress Report. Annually certification statement must be signed initial certification shall be made to the after submission of the Notice of and certified by a professional engineer. permitting authority, or to the control Planned Participation in paragraph (f)(1) (3) Contents for initial certification. authority in the case of an indirect of this section, a progress report shall be An initial certification shall include the discharger, no later than December 31, filed with the permitting authority, or following: 2023, and an annual recertification shall control authority in the case of an (A) A statement that the professional be made to the permitting authority, or indirect discharger. engineer is a licensed professional control authority in the case of an (4) Contents. An Annual Progress engineer. indirect discharger, within 60 days of Report shall detail the completion of (B) A statement that the professional submitting annual electricity production any interim milestones listed in the engineer is familiar with the regulation data to the Energy Information Notice of Planned Participation since requirements. Administration. the previous progress report, provide a (C) A statement that the professional (4) Contents. A certification or annual narrative discussion of any completed, engineer is familiar with the facility. recertification shall be based on the missed, or delayed milestones, and (D) The best management practices information submitted to the Energy provide updated milestones. plan. Information Administration and shall (g) Requirements for facilities seeking (E) A statement that the best include copies of the underlying forms the protections of § 423.18. management practices plan is being submitted to the Energy Information (1) Certification statement. For implemented. Administration, as well as any sources seeking to apply the protections (4) Additional contents for annual supplemental information and of the permit conditions in paragraph certification. In addition to the required calculations used to determine the two § 423.18, and for each instance that contents of the initial certification in year average annual capacity utilization § 423.18 is applied, a one-time paragraph (c)(3) of this section an rating. certification shall be submitted to the annual certification shall include the (f) Requirements for units that will permitting authority, or control following: achieve permanent cessation of coal (A) Any updates to the best authority in the case of an indirect combustion by December 31, 2028. discharger, no later than: management practices plan. (1) Notice of Planned Participation. (B) An attachment of weekly flow (A) In the case of an order or For sources seeking to qualify as an measurements from the previous year. agreement under § 423.18(a)(1), 30 days (C) The average amount of recycled electric generating unit that will achieve from receipt of the order or agreement bottom ash transport water in gallons permanent cessation of coal combustion attached pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(B) per day. by December 31, 2028, under this part, of this section; or (D) Copies of inspection reports and a a Notice of Planned Participation shall (B) In the case of an ‘‘Emergency’’ or summary of preventative maintenance be made to the permitting authority, or ‘‘Major Disaster’’ under § 423.18(a)(2), performed on the system. to the control authority in the case of an 30 days from the date that a load (E) A statement that the plan and indirect discharger, no later than balancing need arose. corresponding flow records are being October 13, 2021. (2) Contents. A certification statement maintained at the office of the plant. (2) Contents. A Notice of Planned must include the following: (e) Requirements for low utilization Participation shall identify the electric (A) The qualifying event from the list electric generating units. generating units intended to achieve the in § 423.18(a), the individual or entity (1) Notice of Planned Participation. permanent cessation of coal that issued or triggered the event, and For sources seeking to qualify as a low combustion. A Notice of Planned the date that such an event was issued utilization electric generating units, a Participation shall include the expected or triggered. Notice of Planned Participation shall be date that each electric generating unit is (B) A copy of any documentation of submitted to the permitting authority or projected to achieve permanent the qualifying event from the individual control authority no later than October cessation of coal combustion, whether or entity listed under paragraph 13, 2021. each date represents a retirement or a (g)(2)(A) of this section, or, where such (2) Contents. A Notice of Planned fuel conversion, whether each documentation does not exist, other Participation shall identify the potential retirement or fuel conversion has been documentation with indicia of low utilization electric generating unit. approved by a regulatory body, and reliability for the permitting authority to The notice shall also include a what the relevant regulatory body is. confirm the qualifying event. statement of at least two years’ capacity The Notice of Planned Participation (C) An analysis and accompanying utilization rating data for the most shall also include a copy of the most narrative discussion which recent two years of operation of each recent integrated resource plan for demonstrates that a electric generating low utilization electric generating unit which the applicable state agency unit would have qualified for the and a statement that the facility has a approved the retirement or repowering subcategory at issue absent the event good faith belief that each low of the unit subject to the ELGs, detailed in paragraph (g)(2)(A), utilization electric generating unit will certification of electric generating unit including the material data, continue to operate at the required cessation under 40 CFR 257.103(b), or assumptions, and methods used. capacity utilization rating. Where the other documentation supporting that the (3) Termination of need statement. most recent capacity utilization rating electric generating unit will For sources filing a certification does not meet the low utilization permanently cease the combustion of statement under paragraph (g)(1) above, electric generating unit requirement, a coal by December 31, 2028. The Notice and for each such certification discussion of the projected future of Planned Participation shall also statement, a one-time termination of utilization shall be provided, including include, for each such electric need statement shall be submitted to the material data and assumptions used to generating unit, a timeline to achieve permitting authority, or control make that projection. the permanent cessation of coal authority in the case of an indirect

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 198 / Tuesday, October 13, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 64723

discharger, no later than 30 days from progress report shall be filed with the to the permitting authority, or to the when the source is no longer subject to permitting authority, or control control authority in the case of an increased production from the authority in the case of an indirect indirect discharger, no later than the qualifying event. discharger. dates stated in § 423.13(o)(1). (4) Contents. A termination of need (4) Contents. An Annual Progress (2) Contents. A Notice of Planned statement must include a narrative Report shall detail the completion of Participation shall include a list of the discussion including the date the interim milestones presented in the electric generating units for which the qualifying event terminated, or if it has engineering dependency chart from the source intends to change compliance not terminated, why the source believes Notice of Planned Participation since alternatives. For each such electric the capacity utilization will no longer be the previous progress report, provide a generating unit, the notice shall list the elevated to a level requiring the narrative discussion of completed, specific provision under which this protection of § 423.18. missed, or delayed milestones, and transfer will occur, the reason such a (h) Requirements for facilities provide updated milestones. voluntarily meeting the limits in transfer is warranted, and a narrative (5) Rollover certification. Where, prior discussion demonstrating that each 423.13(g)(3)(i). to the effective date, a discharger has (1) Notice of Planned Participation. electric generating unit will be able to already provided a notice to the For sources opting to comply with the maintain compliance with the relevant permitting authority of opting to comply Voluntary Incentives Program provisions. with the Voluntary Incentives Program requirements of section 423.13(g)(3)(i) (j) Notice of material delay. (1) Notice. requirements of § 423.13(g)(i), such by December 31, 2028, a Notice of Within 30 days of experiencing a notice will satisfy paragraph (h)(1) of Planned Participation shall be made to material delay in the milestones set this section. However, where details the permitting authority no later than forth in paragraphs (f)(2) or (h)(2) of this required by (h)(2) of this sectionwere October 13, 2021. section and where such a delay may missing from the previously provided (2) Contents. A Notice of Planned preclude permanent cessation of coal notice, those details must be provided Participation shall identify the facility combustion or compliance with the in the first Annual Progress Report, no opting to comply with the Voluntary voluntary incentives program later than October 13, 2021. Incentives Program requirements of limitations by December 31, 2028, a 423.13(g)(3)(i), specify what technology (i) Requirements for facilities seeking facility shall file a notice of material or technologies are projected to be used to transfer between applicable delay with the permitting authority, or to comply with those requirements, and limitations in a permit under control authority in the case of an provide a detailed engineering § 423.13(o). indirect discharger. dependency chart and accompanying (1) Notice of Planned Participation. (2) Contents. The contents of such a narrative demonstrating when and how For sources which have filed a Notice of notice shall include the reason for the the system(s) and any accompanying Planned Participation under paragraphs delay, the projected length of the delay, disposal requirements will be achieved (e)(1), (f)(1), or (h)(1) of this section and and a proposed resolution to maintain by December 31, 2028. intend to make changes that would (3) Annual progress report. After qualify them for a different set of compliance. submission of the Notice of Planned requirements under § 423.13(o), a Notice [FR Doc. 2020–19542 Filed 10–9–20; 8:45 am] Participation in paragraph (h)(1), a of Planned Participation shall be made BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:22 Oct 09, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13OCR2.SGM 13OCR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2