DOCSLIB.ORG

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 84 Fed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 84 Fed UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ) Effluent Limitations Guidelines and ) Standards for the Steam Electric Power ) Generating Point Source Category ) Docket ID No. ) EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 84 Fed. Reg. 64,620 (Nov. 22, 2019) ) Submitted via regulations.gov ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF EARTHJUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY PROJECT, SIERRA CLUB, CLEAN WATER ACTION, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, AND THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY January 21, 2020 Comments on EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 January 21, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY LIST ........................................................................................................................ VI I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................1 A. The Best Available Technology Is the Most Stringent Pollution Control That Is Available and Economically Achievable. ....................................................3 III. THE PROPOSED RULE IS UNLAWFUL AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE FIFTH CIRCUIT’S RECENT DECISION IN SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY...........................................................................................................6 A. Southwestern Electric Held That Surface Impoundments Are Not BAT For Legacy Wastewater and Leachate, And The Same Reasoning Applies To Other Power Plant Wastestreams. ......................................................................6 B. The 2019 Proposal Is Directly Contrary To Southwestern Electric By Proposing That Surface Impoundments Are BAT For Subcategories of the Industry. ...................................................................................................................8 C. The 2019 Proposal Is Arbitrary and Capricious Because It Moves Forward With Changes That Weaken the 2015 ELG Rule And Are Not Legally Required While Failing To Address A Court Order To Strengthen the Rule. .........................................................................................................................9 IV. THE REGULATORY OPTIONS EVALUATED BY EPA DO NOT PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................10 A. EPA Fails To Account For Pollution Loads From ‘Early Retirement’ Units ........10 B. EPA Fails To Compare Regulatory Options To The Correct Baseline .................11 C. EPA Fails To Evaluate Regulatory Options That Would Maximize Pollution Reductions ..............................................................................................12 V. THE PROPOSED WEAKENING OF BOTTOM ASH LIMITS IS UNJUSTIFIED. .................................................................................................................12 A. EPA Has Not Justified That the Proposed 10% Purge Allowance Is Needed. ..................................................................................................................13 B. The Proposed 10% Purge Allowance Is Contrary to the BAT Standard, Because It Is Not Based on the Performance of the Best-Performing Plant. .........17 VI. THE RECORD BEFORE EPA SHOWS THAT THE AGENCY MUST ADOPT A ZERO-DISCHARGE STANDARD FOR FGD WASTEWATER ...............................21 i Comments on EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 January 21, 2020 A. The Record Before EPA Demonstrates that Membrane Technology or Its Equivalent is BAT for FGD Wastewater ...............................................................22 B. Only Membrane Technology or Other Zero-Discharge Technologies Address Pollution from Bromides .........................................................................27 C. The Clean Water Act Requires EPA to Adopt a Zero-Discharge Standard for FGD Wastewater Because the Technology to do so is Available and Achievable. ............................................................................................................28 VII. EPA CANNOT WEAKEN THE BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS FOR FGD WASTEWATER. .............................................................28 A. EPA Cannot Lawfully Adopt Chemical Precipitation, By Itself, As BAT. ...........29 B. Chemical Precipitation Plus High Residence Time Reduction Systems Are Readily Available and Achievable and Meet the BAT Standard. .........................31 VIII. THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY INCENTIVE PROGRAM IS UNLAWFUL, UNNECESSARY, AND EPA’S CLAIM THAT IT WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD...................................................................................................................38 A. EPA Proposes To Provide A Compliance Extension for Sources That “Voluntarily” Meet Discharge Limits That Are Stricter Than Those EPA Otherwise Proposes. ...............................................................................................38 B. The Clean Water Act Prohibits EPA from Extending The Compliance Date for Revised Effluent Limitations Guidelines by Eight Years Following The Final Rule. .....................................................................................38 C. The Proposed Voluntary Incentive Program Unreasonably Fails to Consider Critical Issues and Lacks a Basis in The Agency’s Administrative Record. ..........................................................................................40 IX. PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR ADRESSING BROMIDE DISCHARGES DO NOT REFLECT USE OF BAT AND WILL NOT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH............................................................................................................................42 A. The Record Shows Public Health Benefits of Controlling Bromide Discharges from Power Plants are Significant. ......................................................42 B. The Record Shows FGD Wastewater Limits Must Be Strengthened to Address Bromide Discharges. ................................................................................44 X. EPA HAS NOT JUSTIFIED ANY NEW SUBCATEGORIES FOR THE INDUSTRY. ......................................................................................................................48 ii Comments on EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 January 21, 2020 A. EPA’s Authority to Create Industry Subcategories Is Constrained by the Clean Water Act. ....................................................................................................48 B. EPA’s Proposed Subcategory for Boilers Retiring by 2028 Is Not Legally Permissible and Not Supported by Evidence. ........................................................52 C. EPA’s Subcategory for Boilers Retiring by 2028 is Not Practically Enforceable. ...........................................................................................................61 D. The Proposed Subcategory for “Low Utilization” Units is Unjustified. ...............67 E. Neither the Retirement Nor the Low Utilization Subcategory Is Needed to Ensure Reliability...................................................................................................83 F. The Proposed Subcategory for Units with “High Flow” FGD Systems is Unjustified..............................................................................................................87 XI. EPA’S PROPOSED DELAY OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINES FOR FGD WASTEWATER IS UNJUSTIFID AND UNLAWFUL. ...............................................102 A. EPA’s Proposed Delay of Compliance Deadlines for FGD Wastewater is Unjustified............................................................................................................103 B. EPA’s Proposed Delay of Compliance Deadlines for FGD Wastewater is Unlawful. .............................................................................................................105 XII. EPA SHOULD MAKE CLEAR IN ANY FINAL RULE THAT COMPLIANCE MUST BE ACHIEVED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ......................................................108 XIII. THE PROPOSED RULE UNJUSTIFIABLY TRADES SMALL COST SAVINGS TO INDUSTRY FOR SIGNIFICANT LOSSES IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS.........................................................111 A. Structural Flaws in EPA’s Analysis Conceal the True Costs of EPA’s Proposed Action. ..................................................................................................111 B. EPA’s Failure to Monetize and Quantify All Costs and Benefits Further Distorts the BCA in Favor of EPA’s Preferred Alternative. ................................112 C. A Corrected BCA Would Demonstrate that Regulatory Option 4, with Certain Revisions, Is the Only Option Offering a Justifiable Change in Environmental and Health Benefits. ....................................................................118 D. Integrated Planning Models Show That No Regulatory Option Would Have Meaningful Impacts on Coal Capacity, Coal Retirements, Reliability, or Electricity Prices, While a Zero-Discharge Rule Would Maximize Environmental Benefits. .....................................................................119 iii Comments on EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 January 21, 2020 E. EPA Drastically Underestimated the Environmental Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions; a Proper Accounting Supports a Zero- Discharge Rule. ....................................................................................................123 XIV. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REQUIRES EPA TO CONSULT WITH THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE BEFORE FINALIZING THE RULE.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky
    Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Potential Paradise Plant Retirement Project Number: 2018-34 POTENTIAL PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT RETIREMENT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Muhlenberg County, Kentucky Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Knoxville, Tennessee FEBRUARY 2019 To request further information, contact: Ashley Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-632-2256 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Related Environmental Reviews .............................................................................................. 4 1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 5 1.6 Necessary Permits or Licenses and Consultation Requirements ............................................ 6 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the National Pretreatment Program Revised, 2011
    Disclaimer DISCLAIMER The discussion in this document is intended solely as a summary of existing guidance. This document is not a regulation, nor does it substitute for any requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, municipalities, or the regulated community. The general descriptions provided in this document might not apply to a particular situation based on the circumstances. This document does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations on any member of the public. Among other things, the document describes existing requirements with respect to industrial dischargers and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) under the CWA and its implementing regulations at Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 122, 123, 124, and 403 and chapter I, subchapter N. Although EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this document, a discharger’s obligations are determined, in the case of directly discharging POTWs, by the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and EPA’s regulations or, in the case of indirect dischargers, by permits or equivalent control mechanisms issued to POTW industrial users or by regulatory requirements. Nothing in this document changes any statutory or regulatory requirement. If a conflict arises between this document’s content and any permit or regulation, the permit or regulation would be controlling. EPA and local decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case- by-case basis that differ from those described in this document where appropriate and authorized by EPA regulations, state law, or local ordinances.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumberland Fossil Plant to Comply with the CCR Rule Requirements
    Cumberland Fossil Fossil Plant Plant CUMBERLAND CITY,CITY, TENNESSEETENNESSEE QUICKQUICK FACTSFACTS OH IN IL WV KY MO VA TN NC AR SC MS AL GA EPA CCR RULERule Groundwater GROUNDWATER Monitoring MONITORING for 2019 Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by Commissioning Date: 1973 This fact sheet summarizes groundwater monitoring conducted by TVA for the Output: 2,470 Megawatts TVACumberland as required Fossil Plant,by the as U.S. required Environmental by the U.S. Environmental Protection ProtectionAgency (EPA) Agency (16Output: billion 2,470 kilowatt-hours) Megawatts (16 billion Coal(EPA) CoalCombustion Combustion Residuals Residuals (CCR)(CCR) RuleRule. for The the 2019EPA calendar published year. the The EPA kilowatt-hours) published the CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- Number of homes powered: CCR Rule on April 17, 2015. It requires companies operating coal- 1.1 MillionNumber of homes powered: fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been released to fired power plants to study whether constituents in CCR have been 1.1 Million groundwater from active, inactive and new CCR impoundments, as well as active Wet to Dry / Dewatered releasedand new CCR to groundwater. landfills. This fact sheet addresses the EPA CCR ConversionWet to Dry /Program: Dewatered Activities Rule groundwater monitoring only. underwayConversion Program: Complete The CCR Rule establishes multiple phases of protective groundwater monitoring for fly ash and gypsum. Bottom ash Inincluding addition baseline to ongoing sampling, groundwater Detection Monitoring monitoring and Assessment required under Monitoring. TVAdewatering Wide CCR tank-based Conversion solution Program Total Spend: Corrective action may be necessary at the completion of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Doe Driver Listing
    DOE DRIVER LISTING 1. The lines that have been redlined are orders that have been cancelled and not replaced with anything else. 2. This list was current as of 1/1/98. DRIVERTYPE DRIVERCODE TITLE REV_DATE EO ACQUISITION EO 12873, Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention 09/25/1994 EO ALTERNATIVE FUEL EO 12844, Federal Use of Alternative Fueled Vehicles 09/25/1994 EO COMPUTER EO 12845, Requiring Agencies to Purchase Energy Efficient Compute 09/25/1994 EO CULTURAL EO 11593, Protection & Enhancement of Cultural Environment 09/25/1994 EO ENV DAMAGE EO 12286, Response to Environmental Damage 09/25/1994 EO ENV QUALITY EO 11991, Protect/Enhancement of Environmental Quality 09/25/1994 EO ENV SAFEGUARDS EO 12342, Env. Safeguards/Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands 09/25/1994 EO EXOTIC ORGANISMS EO 11987, Exotic Organisms 09/25/1994 EO FLOODPLAIN EO 11644, Floodplain Management 09/25/1994 EO OFFROAD EO 11898, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands 09/25/1994 EO POLL PREVENTION EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 09/25/1994 EO PROCUREMENT EO 12843, Procurement Requirements For Ozone-Depleting 09/25/1994 Substance EO RIGHT-TO-KNOW EO 12856, Right to Know and PPA Compliance 09/25/1994 EO SFND EO 12580, Superfund Implementation 09/25/1994 EO WETLANDS EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 09/25/1994 LAW ACID PRECIPITATION Acid Precipitation Act of 1980 11/07/1993 LAW AMERICAN INDIAN American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 11/07/1993 LAW ANADROMOUS FISH Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 11/07/1993 LAW ANTIQUITIES Antiquities
    [Show full text]
  • (2019) EPA's Final
    Attachment to Part B Comments of Earthjustice et al., EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0173 Assessment Monitoring Outcomes (2019) EPA’s Final Coal Ash Rule, 40 C.F.R. § 257.94(e)(3), requires the owners or operators of existing Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) units to prepare a notification stating that an assessment monitoring program has been established if it is determined that a statistically significant increase over background levels for one or more of the constituents listed in appendix III of the CCR Rule has occurred, without an alleged alternate source demonstration. This table identifies the CCR surface impoundments known to be in assessment monitoring and required to identify any constituent(s) in appendix IV detected at statistically significant levels (SSL) above groundwater protection standards and post notice of the assessment monitoring outcome per 40 C.F.R. § 257.95. The table includes the surface impoundments that were required to post notice of appendix IV exceedance(s), as applicable, or elected to do so as of the time of this assessment monitoring outcomes review (summer 2019). To the best of our knowledge, neither EPA nor any other entity has attempted to assemble this information and make it public. Note that this document is not confirming that the industry notifications or assessments were compliant with the CCR Rule or that additional units may not belong on this list. Assessment Monitoring Outcome # of Surface Impoundments Appendix IV Exceedance(s) 214 Appendix IV Exceedance(s), alleged Alternate Source Demonstration 16 No Appendix IV Exceedance Reported 64 Total 294 Name of Plant Appendix IV Operator CCR Unit or Site Exceedance(s) Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Ash Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Emergency Overflow Pond Yes Healy Power Plant GVEA AK Unit 1 Recirculating Pond Yes Charles R.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS Process for Review and Concurrence on Updates to Existing Alabama
    The U.S. Army Regional Environmental & Energy Office September 2015 The SOUTHERN REVIEW publishes environmental and energy STREAMLINED REQUIREMENTS FOR related developments for DOD/Army leaders and installation INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE staff. Covering the eight states in Federal Region 4, the MANAGEMENT PLANNING Southern Review gives early notice of legislative and regulatory activities relevant to DOD interests. The Review The Sikes Act requires DOD to develop and implement also helps installations meet ISO 14001 environmental management system requirements. Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) for military lands that have significant natural resources. It Find out more about the Army Regional Environmental and is DOD policy to review INRMPS annually, and a statutory Energy Offices here. Click here to browse back issues of the requirement to have INRMPS reviewed by relevant state Southern Review. To read back issues of other Regional agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) every Office Reviews, click on a region of the REEO website’s U.S. five years. map and then select “Publications.” To receive a copy of this electronic publication, send a subscription request. In a joint effort, USFWS, state agencies, and DOD are working to streamline processes for making minor updates to existing INRMPs. This effort began with the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the DOD and USFWS and the Association of Wildlife Agencies. The MOU furthers a cooperative relationship between USFWS, states, and DOD in preparing, reviewing, revising, updating, and implementing INRMPs. In June 2015, USFWS released updated Guidelines for Coordination on Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans for USFWS personnel reviewing minor changes to INRMPs.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 80, No. 212/Tuesday, November 3, 2015
    67838 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 212 / Tuesday, November 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION this regulation can be had only by filing 4. Best Available Demonstrated Control AGENCY a petition for review in the U.S. Court Technology/New Source Performance of Appeals within 120 days after the Standards 40 CFR Part 423 regulation is considered issued for 5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources [EPA–HQ–OW–2009–0819; FRL–9930–48– purposes of judicial review. Under 6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources OW] section 509(b)(2), the requirements in C. Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines this regulation may not be challenged Rulemaking History RIN 2040–AF14 later in civil or criminal proceedings V. Key Updates Since Proposal A. Industry Profile Changes Due to Effluent Limitations Guidelines and brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Retirements and Conversions Standards for the Steam Electric B. EPA Consideration of Other Federal Power Generating Point Source ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in Rules Category the docket are listed in the http:// C. Advancements in Technologies www.regulations.gov index. A detailed D. Engineering Costs AGENCY: Environmental Protection record index, organized by subject, is E. Economic Impact Analysis Agency. available on EPA’s Web site at http:// F. Pollutant Data ACTION: Final rule. www2.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power- G. Environmental Assessment Models generating-effluent-guidelines-2015- VI. Industry Description SUMMARY: This final rule, promulgated A. General Description of Industry final-rule. Although listed in the index, under the Clean Water Act (CWA), B. Steam Electric Process Wastewater and some information is not publicly protects public health and the Control Technologies available, e.g., Confidential Business environment from toxic metals and 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter NR 207 ANTIDEGRADATION and ANTIBACKSLIDING
    Published under s. 35.93, Wis. Stats., by the Legislative Reference Bureau. 43 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NR 207.03 Chapter NR 207 ANTIDEGRADATION AND ANTIBACKSLIDING Subchapter I — Antidegradation Subchapter II — Antibacksliding NR 207.01 Purpose and applicability. NR 207.10 Purpose and applicability. NR 207.02 Definitions. NR 207.11 Definitions. NR 207.03 Antidegradation evaluation procedure. NR 207.12 Antibacksliding. NR 207.04 Fish and aquatic life waters. NR 207.05 Determining significant lowering of water quality. Note: Corrections made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, August, 1997, 3. Any actual or expected increase in loading of a BCC which No. 500. is caused by or will be caused by a facility expansion, a process modification, or the connection to an existing public or private Subchapter I — Antidegradation wastewater treatment system of a substantial source of untreated or pretreated effluent containing BCCs, and which requires notifi- NR 207.01 Purpose and applicability. (1) PURPOSE. The purpose of this subchapter is to establish implementation pro- cation to the department pursuant to s. NR 205.07 (2) (a) or (3) (c) cedures for the antidegradation policy in s. NR 102.05 (1) (a). or (d). Under this subdivision, increased discharge does not This subchapter sets procedures applicable to proposed new or include any increase in the loading of BCCs that is caused by nor- increased discharges to outstanding resource waters, exceptional mal operational variability, changes in intake pollutants or resource waters, Great Lakes system waters, fish and aquatic life increasing the rate or hours of production within the existing pro- waters, and waters listed in tables 3 through 8 in ss.
    [Show full text]
  • EMISSIONS of MERCURY by PLANT (Based Upon Plant Reported Fuel Use and Mercury Tests)
    EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Monticello TX 1.04870 5.023 Martin Lake TX 0.68280 5.023 Limestone TX 0.48300 5.023 Big Brown TX 0.43450 5.023 Pirkey TX 0.40620 5.023 Sam Seymour TX 0.38640 5.023 J.T. Deely TX 0.25090 5.023 W A Parish TX 0.25080 5.023 Welsh TX 0.21940 5.023 Sandow TX 0.14470 5.023 Harrington Station TX 0.14190 5.023 Gibbons Creek TX 0.13210 5.023 J.K. Spruce TX 0.12040 5.023 Oklaunion TX 0.08839 5.023 Tolk Station TX 0.08001 5.023 Coleto Creek TX 0.07194 5.023 San Miguel TX 0.06693 5.023 TNP-One TX 0.01329 5.023 Hom er City PA 0.92600 4.979 Keystone PA 0.92570 4.979 Montour PA 0.60930 4.979 Bruce Mansfield PA 0.50400 4.979 Shawville PA 0.46400 4.979 Conemaugh PA 0.24730 4.979 Brunner Island PA 0.21820 4.979 Hatfield's Ferry PA 0.20700 4.979 1 EMISSIONS OF MERCURY BY PLANT (Based upon plant reported fuel use and mercury tests) PLANT STATE PLANT TONS STATE TONS Armstrong PA 0.15340 4.979 Cheswick PA 0.11860 4.979 Sunbury PA 0.11810 4.979 New Castle PA 0.10430 4.979 Portland PA 0.06577 4.979 Johnsonburg Mill PA 0.04678 4.979 Titus PA 0.03822 4.979 Cambria CoGen PA 0.03499 4.979 Colver Power Project PA 0.03459 4.979 Elrama PA 0.02900 4.979 Seward PA 0.02633 4.979 Martins Creek PA 0.02603 4.979 Hunlock Power Station PA 0.02580 4.979 Eddystone PA 0.02231 4.979 Mitchell (PA) PA 0.01515 4.979 AES BV Partners Beaver Valley PA 0.01497 4.979 Cromby Generating Station PA 0.00086 4.979 Northampton Generating Company L.P.
    [Show full text]
  • Stationary Source Pollution Policy and Choices for Reform
    Volume 21 Issue 3 Symposium on "Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Economy" Summer 1981 Stationary Source Pollution Policy and Choices for Reform Winston Harrington Alan J. Krupnick Recommended Citation Winston Harrington & Alan J. Krupnick, Stationary Source Pollution Policy and Choices for Reform, 21 Nat. Resources J. 539 (1981). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol21/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. STATIONARY SOURCE POLLUTION POLICY AND CHOICES FOR REFORM WINSTON HARRINGTON and ALAN J. KRUPNICK* In response to the alleged adverse effects of regulation, the recon- sideration of environmental policies now under way gives far more prominence to the economic implications of regulatory policies than has been the case in the past. Adverse economic effects associated with regulation, however, do not necessarily justify the abandonment of environmental policy objectives. Rather, these effects may be seen as emphasizing the importance of seeking alternative approaches. The environmental policies with the greatest impact on the national economy are probably those that limit industrial air and water pollu- tion. These policies are now under attack for imposing excessive com- pliance costs on households, firms, and government and for retarding innovation and investment. These costs have, in turn, been linked to excessive reliance on technology-based standards and to cumbersome and erratic procedures for obtaining permits for construction of new plant and equipment.
    [Show full text]
  • Return Receipt Requested the Hon. Regina Mccarthy, Administrator US
    January 14, 2016 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested The Hon. Regina McCarthy, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Robert J. Martineau, Jr., Commissioner Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation William R. Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, 2nd Floor Nashville, TN 37243 Via Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested Mr. Bill Johnson, President and Chief Executive Officer Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1499 RE: 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, for Violations of the Clean Water Act by Tennessee Valley Authority–TVA Cumberland Fossil Plant (CUF), NPDES No. TN0005789 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to notify the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) of ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) at the Cumberland Fossil Plant (“the Cumberland Plant”) in Cumberland City, Tennessee, owned and operated by 1371158_2 TVA-Cumberland Fossil Plant January 14, 2016 Page 2 of 35 TVA. The Sierra Club (“the Conservation Group”) and its members have identified serious and ongoing unpermitted violations of the CWA at the Cumberland Plant. TVA has caused and continues to cause unauthorized point source discharges to Tennessee waters and navigable waters of the U.S., and to cause unpermitted pollutant discharges to flow from the coal ash disposal areas at the Cumberland Plant directly into the Cumberland River, as well as into groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Cumberland River.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Administrative Procedures Act Rules 1 2 3 4 Title 11: Mississippi
    1 Administrative Procedures Act Rules 2 3 4 5 Title 11: Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 6 7 Part 6: Wastewater Pollution Control Regulations 8 9 Part 6, Chapter 1: Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality National Pollutant 10 Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Underground Injection Control (UIC) 11 Permits, State Permits, Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations and Water Quality 12 Certification 13 14 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 16 17 Subchapter 1 Wastewater Permit Regulations 18 19 Rule 1.1.1 General Requirements 20 21 A. Definitions of Terms 22 23 B. Applicability and Required Permits 24 25 C. Permits: Preliminary Determinations and Siting Criteria 26 27 Rule 1.1.2 Permit Applications 28 29 A. Permits: Applications, Filing Procedures and Requirements 30 31 B. Permits: Application Exemptions 32 33 C. Permit Applications and Other Forms: Valid Signature 34 35 D. Application Requirements Regarding Toxicity for Existing Discharges 36 37 E. Misrepresentation of Information on Application Forms and Other Reports 38 39 Rule 1.1.3 Procedural Aspects of Permit Issuance 40 41 A. Permits: Preliminary Determinations, Draft Permits, Certificates of Coverage and 42 Variances 43 44 B. Public Notice of Draft Permits and Preliminary Determinations 45 46 C. Public Notice and Fact Sheets 1 1 D. Draft Permits: Transmittal to Regional Administor (or his/her designee), Deficiencies, 2 Additional Data Requirements 3 4 E. Public Access to Forms, Commission Files and Records 5 6 F. Protection of Confidential Information 7 8 G. Draft Permits: Public Hearings 9 10 H. Permit Board Determinations, Issuance or Denial of Permits 11 12 I.
    [Show full text]