NC0003425_Duke Comments_20161031

!� DUKE
ENERGY,
October 31, 2016
Teresa Rodriquez, P.E.
Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Permit No.: NCO003425
Person County
Dear Ms. Rodriquez:
Marry K. Sldeds
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safely
526 S. Church Stme1
Mall Code: EC3XP
Charlotte, NC 26202
[phone]
Duke Energy Progress, LLC submits the following comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit for Roxboro Steam Electric Plant, issued for public comment by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("NCDEQ') on August 26, 2016. Duke Energy appreciates
NCDEQ's efforts to develop the Draft Permit, which addresses novel issues associated with surface
impoundment decommissioning and modifications required to facilitate those changes. Finalizing this
wastewater permit is a critical step to advance that process by authorizing decanting and dewatering. In
addition to these general comments, Duke Energy offers the following comments and requests for
modification and/or clarification on specific provisions of the Draft Permit:
1. On page 2 of 23, Please include "extracted groundwater " as a potential contributing flow to
outfall 003 and outfall 001 and "yard sump overflow" as a potential contributing overflow to
outfall 003. A new yard sump will have to be constructed to direct waters to the retention
basin. It is being constructed with duality of pumps however Duke requests that flow from the
sump be included as a flow to outfall 003 in the rare event that the sump might have an
overflow. Overflow of the sump would lead to the heated water mixing zone and eventually to
outfall 003 approximately
2. On Page 2 of 23, please list the retention basin (internal outfall 012) as a potential flow path
for internal outfall 005 (Cooling Tower Blowdown) in addition to the ash basin and the
discharge canal.
3. On Page 2 of 23, please list the retention basin (internal outfall 012) as a potential flow path
for internal outfall 008 (Domestic wastewater treatment system) in addition to the ash basin.
Upon cessation of flows to the ash basin, flows from the domestic wastewater plant will be
directed to the retention basin (internal outfall 012).

Pag- 12
4. On Page 2 of 23, please list the retention basin (internal outfall 012) as a potential flow path
for landfill leachate as discussed in our August 2016 NPDES application update submittal (item
#7 ).
5. On Page 2 of 23, please list the "anhydrous ammonia testing waters and emergency flows" as
a flow source to outfall 003. It is currently incorrectly listed as a flow source to outfall 002.
6. On page 4 of 23, the sampling frequency for Acute Toxicity should be clarified as "Quarterly" to
align with the required frequency in condition A.(14) of the permit.
7. On page 5 of 23 and page 7 of 23, the requirement related to turbidity on internal outfall 002
would not seem to apply to an internal outfall. This condition seems to be more applicable to
outfall 003. Duke requests the turbidity conditions on page 5 and 7 related to turbidity of
internal outfall 002 be deleted. If turbidity sampling is required, it would be most applicable
on outfall 003.
8. On page 5 of 23, the requirement related to bottom ash transport water states the no discharge
limit only applies to bottom ash transport water generated after November 1, 2018. Duke
requests this statement be clarified to state that the no discharge limit of bottom ash
transport water only applies to bottom ash transport water generated after April 30, 2021,
which is the same date that discharges of bottom ash transport water must cease.
9. On page 7 of 23 (Outfall 002 — dewatering), it is unclear how the flow limit of 1.0 MGD was
developed. For a facility the size of Roxboro, this flow limit is too restrictive. Current flows from
the ash basin are — 12-15 million gallons. Duke requests that the flow limit be clarified to only
apply to interstitial water treated through additional physical/chemical treatment system and
the flow limit be increased to 2.0 MGD to align with the flow limit proposed for the Mayo
Steam Electric Plant.
10. On page 7 of 23, Duke requests that pH on the internal wastestreams be removed. EPA has
previously allowed commingling as a treatment for internal flows. Please see reference
documents previously submitted on other Duke permits with this request (Attachment 1).
11. On page 9 of 23, Section A.(5), Duke requests that language be added to the to the description
of the Calling Tower Blowdown flow path to include the retention basin (internal outfall 012)
or the Heated Water mixing Zone. Currently, the language states that cooling tower blowdown
only goes to the ash basin.
12. On pages 12 and 13 of 23, Duke requests removal of footnote #4 related to pH. There is not pH
limit on this internal outfall.

Page 13
13. On page 13 of 23 footnote #2 for both Outfall 010 and 011, Duke requests the deletion of
biological treatment in footnote #2 to state "Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring
requirements listed above shall be taken prior to mixing with other sources of wastewater."
14. On page 13 of 23, Section A.(12), Duke requests that two internal outfalls be permitted as future
low waste retention ponds. Duke discussed the possibility of two such basins (located on the
east and west side of the plant) in item #1 of the August 15, 2016 NPDI_S application update
submittal. Duke requests these basins (which would both be internal flows) be permitted as
outfall 012a and outfall 012b.
15. On page 14 of 23, Duke requests the addition of the following language at the beginning of
Section A. (13) Seeps: "All previously identified seeps from this facility are contributing flows to
permitted outfalls 001 or 003. There are no seeps that discharge directly to jurisdictional
waters."
Duke Energy welcomes any further discussion on our comments or the Draft Permit. If you have any
questions, please contact Shannon Langley at 919.546.2439 or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
s� �
J
Harry Sideris
Duke Energy
Senior Vice President - Environment, Health & Safety
Attachments
cc: Mr. Jon Hennessey —Roxboro Public Hearing officer
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Page 14
bc: William I Thacker- Dan River Station Manager
Jim Wells, VP — Duke ENS CCP
Richard E. Baker Jr., P.E., P.M.P — Director, Env. Programs - EC13
Robert Howard — Sr. Environmental Specialist, Dan River CC
Shannon Langley - NCRH 15

Attachment 1
Reference document on internal pH limits
related to ELG's
October 2016 comment letter on Roxboro
DRAFT NPDES permit

SENT SY:ENU ArrFR1R5
F : 2-22-95 7:36AM ;
5`47-3 91788a218;h 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20.100
Mr. Louis Canziani
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
Two World Trade Center
New York, MY 10047
Deer Mr. Canziani:
This is to confirm our recent conversation regarding
effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power
industry (40 CFR Part 423). _
In my letter of June 22, 1984 to Ms. Ursula Basch of
your office, I summarized the applicability of the steam
electric regulation pH limitation as applicable to low volume
waste streams when such wastewaters are commingled with
(once -through) cooling waters. The interpretation that I
provided was not in accord with prior information and instruc-
tions provided to EPA and State permitting authorities on
this subject.
The pH limitation per Part 423 applies at the "end -of -
pipe" discharge to surface waters when the wastewater discharge
contains 10W volume wastewater that is commingled' with once -
through cooling water. However, the intent of Part 423 is
also that the total suspended solids and oil and grease
limitations applicable..t.o low volume waste streams be applied
to the low'volume Waste component of such a combined discharge
prior to commingling of the individual waste streams.
I apologize for any confusion in permit development or
delays in permit issuance that may have occurred in this
matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me
at (202) 382-713I.
Sincerely,
Dennis Ruddy'
Project Officer
Industrial Technology Division

W411ED STA1ES ENVIRONMENTA;. ; VOTECTIOW AGENCY
JUN 2 2 1~"'
Ms. Ursula Pasch
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 1126
2 World TradrA Cent4*r
New York, New York 10047
Dear Ms. Basch:
This is in response to -your questions during cur
discussion on June 21 rcgarding the aff3uent limitations
guidelines for the steam electric industry (40 CPR Part 423).
T e pH limitation napplicable to low volume waste streams
is int6gdeq to requires that low volume waste streams be
treated, as necessary. to comply with the pH limitation prior
to discharge. Furthermore, the basis for compliance with the
pH limitation is not buffering or dilution provided by cooling
waters or other waste streams which are commingled with low
volume wastes.
I trust that this information is responsive to your
questions. Please call me if you have any further questions.
(202-3R2-7165)
i Sincerely,
r Sl
Dennis Ruddy
Project Officer
Effluent Guidelines Division
X

v
s:
a'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i
REGION III
6TH AND WALNUT 5TREETS
PHiLAI ELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
In reply refer to
3EN21
J. H. LONG I
March 10, 1976 a
Hr. James Lang t w --
Fovea Plant Services Section o.._.
Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ?9101
Dear H . Long:
This is in response to your second progress report subeitted February 10,
1976 for the Chaster Generating Station (PA 0011614), in which you propose to d.
charge boiler blowdown, zeolite softener regenerates, and evaporator blovdwn tt
the receiving stream without pH neutralization. Please be advised that
40CFR Part 423.32(b)(1) requires the pH of all discharges from power plants
(except once -through cooling Water) to be ia_ the range of 6 - 9. Economies
were considered prior to the development of the final guideline limitations,
therefore the expense you have cited as being associated with neutralizing shear
effluent streams is not a valid argument against treatment.
A policy decision was made during the EPA -PEA meeting is Washington, D.C.
that may influence your situation with respect to neutralizing these effluent
streams. It was decided that waste streams could be combined with cooling water
for the sola pu_rpo Pkneu a , as long as the final,dischArts was
the H ran a of 6 9. This�c c not iacoas with uideliaa re e-
ments. I�shou , e noted hcwsver. that popollutant parameters other- than PH wil:
�eTimited and m;
cates-ory with cal
,ing water.
fiaac3ati �o pa- rt�c
lea
I trust this will enahla you to complete your treatment plans. If there
are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 215 597-3689.
S/iJr,�cerely Jyours r
Bruce P.Smith ✓�V
Delmarva-D.C. Section

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 trving Place, New York, N-Y. 10003
r_
September 21, 1984
Mr. Dennis Ruddy (WH-552)
Project Offices
Effluent Guidelines Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
Re: pH Limits on Power Plant
Internal Waste Streams
Dear Mr. Ruddy:
Enclosed ..for your -information".. is a -copy - of. Con' Edison'-s
comments to' NYSDEC concerning proposed pH limits and monitoring
requirements specified in the draft renewal permit for Con
Edison`s Waterside Station. These comments expand upon Con
Edison's position concerning pH limits on internal waste streams,
as expressed during our August 10 meeting and detailed in previ-
ous correspondence. (In particular, see p.5, paragraph 2,
section 3 (a) (5) , section 3 (b) and section 3 (c) for new/expanded
arguments) .
If you have any questions, please contact me at (212)
460-2522. We look forward to further discussions with you
concerning this issue.
Very truly yours,
Barry H. Cohen
Senior Environmental Engineer
Water & Waste Management
/gP
Attachment
cc: Mr. J. William Jordan (EN-336)
Chief
NPDES Technical Support Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
I

4
13
�. DE Reauirements (See w� :,Der? Limitations and Mcritcrir:g
Requirements, p . 2) :
DEC proposes to mairtair the current Q 1:mApticn (range of
6.0-9.0) for Discharge 002 and deiate the current 6.0-9.0 pF
lVitation for Discharge 001. DFC also proposes to add al'_
limitations (6.0-9.0) for internal waste streams 004
(boiler blo•a&wn) , COO Waterside No. ' demi neraliz er
regeneration wastes), 001c (floor and eauipmert drainage)
and 002a (Waterside Fc.2 demireralizer reg?ne-ati on wastes) .
it addition, DEC has prcpcsed to delete pl: moni tcrirg
requirements at Discharge 001, revise the pF rrcnitorirg
frequency for Discharge 002 frcm twice weekly to weekly and
add PH monitoring requirements Or waste" streams 001a
(weekly grub), 001b and 002a ( grab before each batch
discharge) and 001c (thrice monthly). DEC proposes that all
nevirev i sed effluent limitati.cns and monitoring requirements
rake affect immediately upon the effecci.ve date of the
renewal permit.
3

Con Edison's position with regard to DEC's proposed pH
requirements is suuna.rized below:
o Effltert limitations and/or moni torirg requirements for pF
it internal waste streams 001a, 001b, 061c, 002a or any
other internal Taste stream carrot legally be imposed in
the finial permit.
o There is no a vi rormental justi ficatrora far a pH limit on
internal waste streams. Effluent limits on internal waste
streams are redundant and unnecessary since the cur_ent pF
limit of 6.0-9.0 at the point cf discharge to the public
receiving water provides adequate protection_ of water
cuality. Furthermore, a PH limit of 6.0-9.0 has beer.
deemed acceptable by DEC at the point of discharge.
o The costs to achieve a pH limit of 6.0-9.0 on internal
waste streams v-culd be wholly disproportionate to any
limited effluent reducticr. a._d environmental bent -fits to
be derived.
o Even if it were eventually determined that pH 1=mits ma,7
legall-7 be imposed. -For waste streams.-001a, 001b, 001c and
002a (which for the reasons set' forth ir these- cements
cannot l2wfull', be the case) , in order to achi e-tre
consisterc- with the limit of 6.0-9.0 at Discharge 001,
such limitatior_s crust be less strirgent tha-n a rarge of
6.0-9.0 (applied at the point of discharge), in order to
rake fully into account pF adjustment within_ the
discharge turnels; and
c A co=l i a::ce schedule to rreet pF limits or, irterral waste
streams reed not be provided i f inch 1 mits are nct
ultimate.,- imposed. Even if it were eventually
determined that pF limits cr. waste streams ma;•
legal!r be irpcsed, a reasonable compliance schedule must
be provided to install equipment recessar;T to ac::ieve
such l Mitatiors befcre thev become effective.
The support _'cr this position is as follovs:
(a) Effluent Limitaticrs and/or 11critoring P.ecuiremerts for o1;
in --r.ternal Wcste Screams 001a, U01b, LIM,2a or Any
Other inte?-r:al Waste Stream Cannot Lesall-r be imposed
(1) The. Clear. r,,ater Act limits the au.thorin, urder Sectic;:
4C2 to controlling the ��dditi or cf �cllutants to
navi gable waters through. point source discharges
(Sections 301 and 40= Erd definitions specified i.n
Secti.crt 502, Paragraphs (1) , (7) , (ly) , (12) arid- (16)) .
Based cr. those sections, e_ffl e.nt 14-mitatier.s can or.17
be applied at the poirt the effluent enters the
Yece;ving waters, except by the corsent of the
rPrmittee. There=ore, the point cf discharge irto

navigable waters fcr Discharges 001 and 002 Ord 003)
at the Station is at the confluence of the end of the
discharge_ tunnels and the East River.
(2) EPA's NUDES (Deccrsclidated) Regulations (40 CFR 112 )
Pssentially track the authority specified under Section.
402 and require effluent l imita-ticns to be set at the
point of discharge to navigable waters. Section
122.45(a) states that all permit effluent limitations
shah. be established for "each outfall or discharge
point of the permitted fac=?'it. " Pvicept as otherwise
provided it Section 122.45(i). Section 122.45(i)(1)
states that 1'mits on ir.terral waste streams ma; be
imposed in encepticr.al cases and cniy if limitations at
the eutfall are impractical. or infeasible. Section.
122.45(i)(2) states that limits on internal waste
streams irav be imposed cr_l.r whey the Fact Sheet under
Section 4C UP. 124.56 sets `.orth the e_:ceptienal
circumstances which make such limitctions necessary,
such as when the final discharge -point is inaccessible,
the wastes are so diluted as to take monitorirg
impracticable or the interference of pollutants at the
paint of discharge :,rculd snake detection or ara? .Tsis
impracticable. Both Sections 122.45- and 126.56 are
applicable to State program_.
Based an there regulations, there car. be no exceptional
circumstance Justification for imposition cf pH limits
and/or mori.tor;ng requirements on internal waste
streams unless the final. discharge print is
inaccessible for sampling. Yor-itoring (detection and
analysis) for pp (unlike pollutants measured ir. tere:s
of mass or concentration, such as heavy metE'_s) is rot
impractical at the point of disc aree due to dilutirr•.
or interference. Based cn the di_t-'-ncticr. bet-rreen the
nature 'and mor.itoring of pu and other pc?lutar.ts, Con
Edison has accepted irternaj l:.mits cn other pci utants
it some cases (even thcigh we be f.eve that suc.- Mimits
carrot ? pgv.l? be unposed be_sed cr. the Clean Water Act
are. State Environmental Conser-yztien. Law) since in
these cases we recognize the immracticai «,r cf
dete:-r..irir.g co�rp? ier.ce with effluent Ilm_tations for
such pcilutarts at the :inal discharge (see Section 2.
of these cor^.erts) . Such impractical i.t; , hewe-.pr, does
r.ct to PF .
'."_th rwg-ard to the eues*_er_ of sampl _rg points, pF
samples for Disci-arges 001 are OC" :re currentl.:• taker.
it the dischnrL,e plume o`r the dock rather than,
directly iV' the discharge tunnels, s-'vice F`t:-E cal
Lccess to the turrets is currpntl-1 unavailable i.e. the
discharge tunne s tert irat:e under the FrR Drive, about
60 feet _`rcm the end of the dock. Fokever, Ccr. Edison.
will Grease sarplirg access points ±r the Discharge 001

and 002 -discharge tunnels by dune 1, 1985, or by the
beginning of the 1985 chlorination seaser, at Waterside,
whichever is later, as part of our ch' crime compliance
prrgram (see cctents concerning proposed ch? erine
requirements, Section_ 4(c)). There ore, there is no
=uEti-icaticr_ for internal waste streampF Baits based
cr. Secticr. 122.4.4. -- `
(3) Title 8, Article 17 of the New York State Envirormertal
Conservaticr. Law (ECL) reausirea uermiis for the
discharge of pollutarts from any outlet or point source
to the waters of the state (Section 17-0803) . The ECL
clearl,- limits DEC's authority- to contrc? ling
pollutants at the point such effluents enter the
receivirg waters (Sections 17-0803, 17-0509 and the
definitiors specified ir. 17-0105, Paragraphs
(2),(11),(15) and (16)). This limitation is reinforced
by the SPDES regulations implementing the ECL (6 r'YCRR
Parts 750-757). Although we believe that the ECL
limits DEC's authority tc impose effluent limits at the:
final discharge, Ccn Edison has accepted and will
cor.tirue to accept internal waste stream limits for
pollutants other than pli where we be' ieve ccmpi _ar.ce
mcr_itcring at the final discharge point is izrpractical,
the limitations are reasonable ar.d not more etrirge t:
than required by appropriate regulations. This is
clearly not the case for p?*.
(4) EPA Best Practicable Technology (EPT) regulations limit
the pR of all discharges frog. steam electric power
gl.ants, except once through cooling Eater, to a rerge
of 6.0-9.0 (40 CFR 423,12(b)(1); emphasis rdded).
EPP' ; carzert ETfluent T iII=it3tLOP �:t2icP.1}rem yCr p (47
FR 5230=, ?+'ovember 19, 1982) are identical to those
ccr.tained in the init_al1-7 oromuleater? Culdelires
published ir. the Federal P P' is ter cn - October 8 , 1974
(39 FR 36166). In both the original and revisee
Cuidelires, r.o pF limitations ere e-nplici_tly places' cr
an,? ir:� teral w,-..ste streams. Based on the defir.iticrk
specified iv the Clear. Water r-. the FIL A limitatiot cf
6.0-9 .0 ucu? d apply or, 1-- at the cutlets of the
discharge tunnels to the East River ant not to art;
L-te=r:al waste stream.
By letter dated 1?ay 3, l"84 (atr.achwent to E:; hi? -it 1) ,
Ccr. Edison fermalI •= reaLEsted that the C. S .
En-=_rrrtmental Frotecricn Ale era,= (EPA) ciErifv ids 3PT
a -d _ratern`l waste stream regulations as they apply to
ph. At a meeting held cn August 10, 198E between Con
Edison and EPA., the A.cerc- stated that it *houl.d take
about rne ror;th to re-iiew the ru? er.e!cirg record -rid
11.fr_rm Con Edison and DEC of its deterwination.
I C\ T- -1-- r _. 'PrPf4 IMP DEC stateE
camber l^�, i�8_7 ,

that internal waste stream monitoring is proposed for
specific low volume wastewaters since compliar_cP with
applicable limitations cannot be determined at the
final aischarge. For the fcl lowing reasons, this
explanation does not satisfy Federal (40 CF1 124.56)
and State (6 IPZCPp 753.3) regulations, which require
that Fact Sheets set forth the _legal and technical
bales of proposed limitations:
(a) The Fact Sheet does not specifically address the
rationale for the proposed pH limits. _r fact, it
cannot be determired from the Fact Sheet to which
waste strear:s Pnd pollutants the e-xplanation
provided in the Fact Sheet applies;
(b) The Fact Sheet does not specify whether the
proposed Q limits are based cn EPA's Guidelines
for Steam Electric Pcwer Plants or DEC's Eest
Professicnal Judgement (BPJ) determination of Best
Practicable Technology* APT) or Best Converntional
Technology QCT) , or any other basis;
1. rf the proposed limit is bcsed on EPA's
Guidelines, it does not specify whether DFC
interprets the 6.0-9.0 BPT pF limit to apply to
internal waste streams (and if so, the rPasens
for that intepretation) or tc finial discharges;
2. If the proposed limit is based or. BP?, it does
not address the factors specified in Sections 304
of the Clear: Water Act cr 40 CE'P. 125.3 (See
Paragraph 3.0) of these comments);
(c) The Fact Sheet does not sspecif, which sections of
the Clear. Water Act cr.d State Environmental
Conservation Law provide DEC with the author:.t, to
impose ir.terr_ai waste stre.ts limits for pF. Fcr
does it specify the sections of E4E and DEC
regulaticns which authorize such limits; and
(d) The Fact Sheet does not specif;• which of the
excepticnal circumstances specified in 40 C;1?
122.45(i), ;f any, it relied cr tc reach the srsted
ccr+ciusion that � comp' iar.ce with the 6.0-9.0 p}i
limitat?cr_ cannot be determined 47 monitoring at
the final discharge.
(b) There is Yo 4nvi rcnmerr_al Justification for pH limits cr_
irternil Tzter Streams
The current pu limitation of 6.0-Y.0 at Discharges 001 and
002 affords edeQuate prctectior cf public receiz� re water
eual ita. A pp limit of 6 .0--9.0 at the ocint of discharge
was deemed acceptable bjr MA Region s! (and DEC h_- its

Section 401 Certification) in the initial discharge permit
issued by F,egion I1 on November 30, 1974, as well as by DEC
(and Region lI in its overview capacity) ir the rer.eval
permit issued b-, DEC on ?uly 1, 1980. Both the initial and
renewal permits were based on EPA's Effluent Guidelines
promulgated cn October 8, 1974 and were to ha,re included ary
more stringent water cua?ity-based--recuiremerts. Since
applicable Effluent Guidelines fqr pH have not changed si.rce
initial permit issuance and DEC has not shown that a final
discharge pH within the range of 6.0-9.0 has caused or will
cause any adverse environmental impacts, there is no basis:
for imposition of more stringent pH limitations in the
renewal permit. In addition, b,- proposirg to maintair. t e
current 6.0-9.0 pH limitation for Discharge 002, DEC has
deemed that range acceptable at the point of discharge.
Furthermore, installatior. of a waste neutral is ation system,
which would be required to meet the proposed l mits, would
result in the addition of significar t amounts cf
neutralizing chemicals (acid/caustic), thereby increasing
the amount of pollutants discharged.
(c) The Cost To Achieve Interne? Waste
acrtlor.ate T(
Le toy erlvec
Stream PF "Limits Is
.t Reduction Beretits
The Waterside Statics has two demineralization systems,
which are housed in separate buildings. In order to achieve
the proposed pH limits fcr deminezalizer regereratior. waste
streams (001b and 002a),. installation of n7o waste
neutralization systems would be required due to the physical
layout of the facility and the relatively Large nur,ber of
regenerations performed (See SALES Application Urdate for
more detailed information ccr.cerr. irg regpreratior_ waste
streams). Each system would consist of 1-2 large
neutralization tanks, pumps , acid and caustic iniecticr:
systems instrurrer.tation ar_d controls and an elaborate
piping system. Con Edison ccnservatiUely 'estimates the
tonal capital cost of these s•-stems to be' $3-5 millirr., a
reasonable estimate taking into account the nature of the
faci li t,7 (privarily s tear^ sendcut) , age of the fa ci lity, its
ph-rsical layout and space limitations, and one relatively:
large number of reger_eratiors (due to steam ser.Gout) . These
costs would increase subs tar. tially if a pF limit of 6.0-9.0
is imposed fcr boiler blcwdo*..T r001a; and 002a ir_ current
permit) , which typical "y has a pH cf 10-10 .5. Tr. rdditicr ,
substantial operating costs (labor ar.d chemicals) would be
i;.ct:rred . These capital ar:d cppratir.g costs- would
ult:.t ate? :' be bore b.r Con Edisrr' s steam and electric
ratepayers.
As stated above, Con Edson believes that there is no
ervironv-eritai justification for a pH :.imit of 6. 0-9.0 or.
internal waste streams. Such limo is would result in little,
if ar_v, emrirorr"ertal benefits, which are wholly

disproportionate to the costs that would be borne by Can
Edison and` its ratepayers. As specified above, such
recuirener.ts =rrould, in fact, result ir_ the discharge of
increased arour t of pollutants.
(d) if It Were Eventually To Be Determined That PH t ir►its 'Mav
Le ally Be !rDcsed Fr_r Internal -In'aste Streams Duch
Limitations FusFw e_ Less Str_injent than.b.0-9.0
The existing pH limit:• of 6.0-9.0 for Discharges 001 and 002-
reflect Lest Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (EPT) as defined b;T EPA (40 CFR 423.12(b)(1)). By
limiting the pH cf internal waste streams to that same
range, DEC is, =r. effect, proposing a 1 imit more stringent
than EPT. Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act
provides for more stringent limits than 1'PT for pH and other
comyentional pollutants b;- application_ of the Lest
Conventional Pollutant Control Technolog?* (ECT). EPP_ has
deferred promulgation of ECT limitations for power plants
pending promulgation cf a revised BCT methodology.
Therefore, any BCT limits imposed in a power plant permit
must be developed cn a case-b:,-case basis, pursuant to
Setter. 402(a) (1) of the Clean 'eater Act and Article 17,
Title 8 of the State Enviroru:ental Conserva tior. La%A .
The proposed internal waste stream limitatior of 6.0-9.0
trust accordingly be based on a case-bv-case determination c.:
?CT by LcC . EPA regulati or_s (40 CFR 1_5 .3 (c)) allow the
irpositior_ of techrology based limitations to the extent
FDA-prot:ulgated effluent guidelines are inapplicable. in
these cases, the permit issuing authority (DEC) is required
to apply the appropriate -actors specified i.r Section304(b)
of the Clean Water Act. Fcr da, elcpme. t o- ECT
limitatiors, r.;;e factors specified in.. Section 304(b)(4)(B)
must be applied. These factors include "the reasonableness
of the ref a_ionship between the tests of attaining a
reduction in effluent and the effluent reductior. benefits
derived, and the comparison of the cost and level cf
reeuctior, of such pcl? utar.t from publicly owned treatment
works to the cost and level of reducti or. of such: pollutants
-rcm. a class of categor. of indust:itl source" and
"the age
r:- equipment and facilities involved, the prccess employed,
the engineering aspects of the application of -1*arious types
of control techniques, prccess charges, non -water quality
environmental impacts (including energy requirements) .(I
Cose-by-case limits must a? so cor side- the appropriate
tectincl og.r fcr the applicant's industrial category end any
unique factors relating tc t::e facili(40 CFR
125.3(c)(2)). These factors trust be considered regardless
of the permit issuing authorit_' (40 CFF 125.3 (c)).
On Yovember 1.8 , 1982, EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 124.56
ar.d 40 CFF 1-1-5 .3 to e::plici tl y specif,, the statutcry and
-t Mar 15nrrors that ir.Lst be cor,si.cered in setting

case -by -case, Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) limits and -
the information that must be ircluded in the Fact Sheet (47
L'R 52072) .. The preamble to the proposed regulations stat_e,s
that "Section 125.3(c)(2) already requires permit �,rr.iters to
consider ,"statutor-j factors" in, issuing PPJ permits, 6o
these changes simply clarify- an e;ris tir_g -requirement." (47
ER 52080). The proposed regulaticnsr therefore, would make
explicit what is already required, namely the application of
the statutory factors and any ,other factors ccnsidered in
the determination of BPI': limits and the i.nclusior. in the
Fact Sheet of any analysis of the application of these
factors and identification of an" guidance or other
documents relied upon in setting the limits.
DEC has nct provided Con. Edison wl th any documentation cf
its ecrsi.deration of the factors specified in Secticr.
304(b)(4)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) in. its development of
the proposed ECT limits for pH. Therefore, DEC cerrot at
this time impose BCT limitations more stringent than EPT.
Even if it should ultimatel- be determined that DEC may
inpt.se pH limits on internal waste streams, which for the
reasons set forth hereir we submit it carr.ot lawfull,'• do,
then such lim:tatiox,s must be less stringent than_ 6.0-9.0 sc
as not to be ir, conflict with a 6.0-9.0 linitatien at the
point of discharge. Otherwise, the internal limitations
would. be more stringent thst EPT and must be :ustifiee
taking into account the factors specified above.
(e) Even If It Were Eventuall�l To Be •DeterumirPd That pF LI- i_ts
i 21 Lejea_l- Be imposed For Tnterna :`:r_ste Strea►ui: A
Reasonable Compliance Schedule M-ust Se Provided
f it were tc eventual!-%, be deterr•.ir.ed that pH limits may
legally be-m.pcsed or%. internal waste streams and such
limitations were :.rpesed, a reasor.able schedule of
compliance c+you'd need to be provided in order to permit
procuremert and installation of recess.?= equipment Lefcre
sv.ch limits become effective.
DEC's proposed compliance deadline (effective date of the
renewal permit) :s both arbitrary are impossible to achieve.
Although DEC has nct provided its rptional e for the proposed
corp'_iance deadline, we presume that it was based ci+ the BCT
deadline cf July 1, 10.084 srecifiee.. in Secticr. 3010) (.2, (£)
r_f the CiPan Uater Act. ' Fc,�•Te-%er, sir.ce DEC's prcposed
limits carr_cr legel7.- be imposed under ?CT as discussed
pre-:iously, t::e Tu1v 1 , 1984 deadl:re eces nct app]..y.
If the proposed urrerscreble and irrpracti cable ccmpliar.ce
deadline werp to be e,rerruali •r imposed, Con Ediscr, would
ur-fairl- be put in the unterable position of immediatel;r
triclatirg the pe=,it. For purposes of fraying the issues
=or consideration in a hearing, any permit issued b_r PEC

containing pH limits on internal waste streams should
contain a realistic compliance schedule, to be subsequently
agreed uperr'°, which would encompass time periods recessarz*
I
or the procurement and installation of necessary equipment.
(f) Monitoring P,eauir emerts
Monitoring requirements for pN carrot legally be imposed for
interral waste steams for the reasons stated herein. If it
were eventuall_r to be determ_ned that pH monitoring
recuirements ma%? legally be imposed on internal wastes
streams, moni ;cri F recuirements for those waste streams
should net be required prior to a realistic compliance
deadline ezentuall,r agreed uper. (see paragraph (e) abo-%-e) ,
since the 14-mitatiers would not be effective until that
titre. We cannot currentiv cornly with the proposed
requirement of taking grab samples before each batch
discharge of demineral_zer regeneration. wastes (001b and
002z) , since there is no Provision for holding up these
wastes prior to discharge.. Etre_n if neutral zation s�,stems
are installed, this proposed requirement naV be
impracticable, if the syrstems are designed for
semi-centin-uous operation in which, when_ the effluent is
within the set pH range, discharge may occur man;r times over
a regeneraticr cycle.
In suunary, effluent limitaticr_s and monitoring requirements
for phi should not be imposed for interr.al waste streams for the
reasons specified above. The onlyr pN limits that ma_r be imposed
are the current EPT pe=.it limitations of 6.0-9.0 at Discharges
001 and 002 (and 003). This approach would be ccnsister_t with
that recommended br DEC in its Division. of Water Guidance
memorandum ►io. u4-'k-33• ("EP3 ::ethodologies - Guidance for the
P_ppl=cation of ?pest Professional Judgement (3P.3) in Determir_r_g
SPIES Ccneit_ons , " dated April 1983), which states ( Section
VIII.E.) .
Nith racard to core enti onal pc�l Iutants , the Department_
will generally, consider ?APT ar. r cceptable level of
ccr_trcl, unless effluent guidelines cr oaten qu2?ity
necessitate more stringert control." r
Since effluent €Lidelires mandate a pp
? im_t cf
6.0-9.0 at
the
oo;r.t cf discharge and water ctityr
has rcr
been shover
to
r_
necessitate a-- �^cre stringert limits,
the current limits
are
a.pnrcpr'-ate and shculd by r.mair.ta_ned.
DEC may
-
not impose a
particular tec?�rclogy 'cr rreetir.g SPIES
1iFrits.
Therefcj:e,
Ccr
Edison should be free to meet the se. limitations by the method
of
ou= choice.
+
Ever. if DEC could legally impose pH litraita.t 1 ons =car -eternal
waste streams at this facility, r compliance schedule wcu' d be
required to achieve such: limitations. in addition,
not, ithstardir.g the legal ar€urents against imposition. of pi?

requirements for interral
waste
streams, DEC n-ust
provide the
legal and
technical
bas s,
including any
supporting
dccumer.tatien,
.for any
such
requirements prier
to their
establishment
; r a. final pe=i
t .
If such rationale is eventual l-
prc%sided, Cor.
Edison Trust
be given a =easovab?e orpc_tunit;r for
evaluation and
submission
of cc=ents .
' '.R
1.
q�
rf.
11
4W