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.