NC0003425_Comments on Draft Permit_20161103

(> DUKE
ENERGY
Harry K. Sideds
Senior Vice President
Environmental, Health & Safety
526 S. Church Street
Mail Code: EC3XP
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]
October 31, 2016
Teresa Rodriquez, P.E. V'�a�er cjuall'q
Division of Water Resources �er�itti91q �ecyUr
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for Roxboro Steam Electric Plant
Permit No.: NC0003425
Person County
Dear Ms. Rodriquez:
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 ("NCDE(X) 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).

• Page 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 Coiling 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 NPDES 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,
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 15
Attachment 1
Reference document on internal pH limits
related to ELG's
October 2016 comment letter on Roxboro
DRAFT NPDES permit

SENT BY:ENV AFFAIRS P 2-22-9= 7:36AM ; 53473 917888218;4 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WAB(HINIGTON, D.C. 20450
Mr. Louis Canziani
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
Two world Trade Center-
New
enter-New York, HY 10047
Deer lir. 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 limitat-ion 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 low 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 cnmmingiing of the individual waste streams.
1 apologize for any confusion in permit development or
delays in permit issuance that may have occurred in this
matter.
��//� Iryoou have any further questions, please contact me
at ( 2 0 2) 382-31.
I 1
Sincerely,
Dennis Ruddy'
Project Officer
Industrial Technology Division

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL i`ROTECTION AGENCY
JUN 2 2 ti,,,�,n
Ms. Ursula Basch
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
2 World Trarie Ct-nt¢r
New 'fork, New York 1€3047
Dear Ms. Basch:
This is in response to- your ggzestinns during our
discussion on June 2.1 regarding the effluent limitations
guidelines for the steam electric industry (40 CFR Part 423).
Tp -e- pil limitationa,,,ppl icable to low volume waste streams
is int ded to re.qui-r-e "that low volume waste streams he
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 inforr.�ation is responsive to your
questions. Please call me if you have any further questions,
(202-392-7165)
Sincerely,
�..Sf
Dennis Ruddy
Project Officer.
Effluent Guidelines Divisio;
M

14
i
t6
U
A
I
_t
M
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
6TH AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
In reply refar to
3 Eid 21- —
March 10, 1976 •F,,�; �• �QN�
...:� NG
Mr. .Tames Long
Power Plant Services Section �+,•,•
..rte �wp
..
Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Dear Mr. Long:
This is in response to your second progress report subaitted February 10,
1976 for the Chestdr Generating Station (PA 0011614), in which you propose to d:
charge boiler blowdown, zeolite softener regenerates, and evaporator blovdmn u
the receiving stream without pH neutralization. Please be advised that
4007R Part 423.32(b)(1) requires the pH of all discharges from power plants
(except once -through cooling water) to be in the range of 6 - 9. Economics
were considered prior to the development of the final guideline limitations,
therefore the expense you have cited as being associated with neutralizing thes4
effluent streams is not a valid argument against. treatment.
A policy decision vas made during the -EPA -PEA meeting in 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 watea
for the sole pujbbye neu a as ong as _thenal disc r>:e was U
the -2# ran a of b - 9. Thiso cy not inconsistent with guideline reguire-
ments. It should a noted havaver, that pollutant parameters other than pH vil:
Be—limited and moaiLore r oz to fie com-b'�nat`3oa -o_f a part cu ar waste source
category with coo33ng water.
I trust this will enable you to complete your treatment plans. If there
are any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 215 597-3689.
Si ycere yours r
Bruce P.Smith
Delmarva -D.C. Section

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 irvina Place, New York, N.Y. 30003
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: pig Limits on Power Plant
Internal Waste Streams
Dear Mr. Ruddy:
" :..Enclosed"..for you ".in£orMatiQnz .. 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
1gp
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
1

?. p� i?eauireuer.ts (See .rr�.uent Timitat-or.s aid, Mcr_itcrir_g
:Requirements, p.2).
DEC proposes to ma.intair tine current r_I?. 14_r4_tzt4_.cn (range of
6.0-9.0) for Discharge 002' and clelPte the current 6.0-9.0 nF
limitation frnr Discharge 001. DEC also proposes tc add ail_
limi testi ens (6.0-9.0) Fcr inter+ al waste strear:s 00l a
(boi ler blowdo-wnr) , COlb (r aterside l.o. 1 deTineraIizer
regeneration wastes), 001c ('LIccr and eeuipmert drainage)
and. 002a (Waterside Fo.2 demirera.lizer reCPrel-atior. wastes) .
In addition, DEC has proposed to delete pH moniterir_g
requirements at Discharge 001, re V4 p�' .cni torr€
frnauencl- for Disne-ze 002 from, twice tr,-eekl? to weekly and
add off? mcni toring recui remer_ts fcr waste streams 00? a
(v=eekly grab) , 001b zine 002a ( grab before each batch
eischarge) acd. 001c (twice monthly) . DE'C -or-poses 'that all
new!rev.4sed effluent limitaticr,s and mcr_toring reezirements
take eL-`ect iu:ediately upon the effective date of the
renewal permit.
3

Cor. Edison's position with regard to DEC's proposed pH
requirements is su=na.rized below:
o Effluert limitatior_s and/or r:oni torirg requirements for pH
in internal waste streams 001a, 001b, 001c, 002a or any
other internal waste stream cannot 3egally be imposed it
the final permit. -
o 'there is no environmental justifica t-ron for a pi- 14 -mit on
internal waste streams. Effluent limits on internal waste
streams are redundant and unnecessary since the current pF
'_frit of 6.0-9.0 at the point of discharge to the public
receiving water provides adequate protection_ of water
cua.L y. Furthermore, a pp- limit of 6.0-9.0 has beer.
deemed acceptable by DEC at the point of discharge.
o The costs to achieve a pF limit of 6.0-9.0 or, internal
waste streams would be wholly disproportionate to any
limited effluent reducticr_ and environmental benefits to
be derived.
o Even if it were eventually determined that pF limits nar
?egall7 be irvosed-for waste streams.,001a, 001b, 001c and
002a (which dor the reasons set' forth in thes-p- cements
cannot la_@irullu be the case) , in order to achie-.e
cor_sister_c- with the limit of 6.0-9.0 at rischa_ze 001,
such limitations must be less strirrent than a rarge of
6.0-9.0 (applied at the point of df.schzrge), 'n order to
take fully ir_to account plI adjustment vr-i thin the
discharge tunnels; and
c A coTmliance schedule to meet PH limits on internal waste
streams reed net Je prcvided if Such limits are riot
ultlmatei-:7 imposed. Even if it were e-;entua??--
dete=. ir:ed that pF 1 -wits or. irterr_al waste .streams ma,,
1e€all-T be imposed, a rea_crable ccmplia.nce schedule must
Le provided to install equiFrent necessary to ac::ieve
such 1--mitatior_s before thev become effective.
The support for this position is as fellows:
(a) Erflue::t Limitations and/or 11'critoTing Pecuiremerts for uH
in- Internal We.ste Strears L . a, , 001c, 002a or Anv
Other internal Waste Stream Cannot Legal -1-.- be Imposed
tl) The Clear. `Fater Act ?.`-mi.ts t- e authority under Sectio::
402 to cor.tro 11. in g the additior. cf ,pollutants to
na-:lgab1e waters through point source discharges
(Secticr.s 301 and 402 and defir-itions specified in
Secticr. 502, Paragraphs (1) , (7) , (11) , (12) and -(16)).
Based cr. Hnose sections, ef-f i ent 14-Ulitcti cns can
be applied at the point the effluent enters the
receiving weters , except by the cc:r.se::t of the
rPrmittee. Therefore, t, -e point cf discharge into
L

navigable waters fcr Discharges 001 and 002 (ar.d 003)
at the Stati en is at the confluence of the end of the
discharge_ ti. eels and the East River.
(2) EPA's NIPDES (Deconsclidated) Regulaticr-s (40 CFR 1?2)
?ssentially track the authority specified under Section
402 and require effluent limita-tions to be set at the
point of discharge to navigable waters. Section
122.45(a) states that all permit effluent limitaticrs
shall be established for "each outfall or discharge
point of the permitted facil'it;T" Avicept as otherwise
provided it Section 122.45(-). Section 122.45(i)(1)
states that ? _r its on - tergal waste dtrezms may be
imposed in encepticral cases and only if limitations at
the outfall are impractical_ or infeasible. Section.
122.45(1) (2) states that 14r -its on internal waste
streams may be unposed only when the Fact Sheet ur.der
CF
Section 46 P. 124.56 sets `ortb the e,:cepticr_al.
circumstances which make such limititions necessar,?,
such as when the final discharge -point is inaccessible,
the wastes are so diluted as to make monitori..g
impracticable or the interference of pollutants at the
Point of di-scl�arge `would make detection or analysis
impracticable. Both Sections 122.45•,and 124.56 are
applicable to State programs.
Based on these regulations, there car, be no exceptional
circumstance justification for imposition of pH limits
andlor monitoring regu1irements on internal waste
streams unless the final. discharge point is
inaccessible for samplir_g. Yor:itorin` (detection ar.d
analysis) for pF (unlike poi=utants measured in te=ms
of mass or concer:tration, such as heavy metals) is v.ct
impractical at the point of (Hscl-erge d-oe to di'uticr
or interference. Based cn the distincticr. betT.7een the
nature and monitoring of pF and other pollutants, Ccn
Edison has accepted irternal limits on other pollutants
it some cases ( even thcugh we bP1_eve that suci: limits
carnot ? e«.l'-~ be inpesed based cr. the Clean Water Act
and Sate Erti iror_mer.tel Conser• at=or.. Law) since in
these cases we recognize the impracticali_-T oT
dete=nr. ng compliance with effluent 1--mitatioTs for
such pcilutants at the final discharge (see Section 2.
of these comer --t=) . :such _rpractica'_ity, , h.ewe--Pr, does
not app'_- tc pF.
_th reL-ard to Lr.he ques}*_cn 7 of/� samp? _.. points, pFsamples For I iscl e.rges 01 and 00' are T T
r e ct�r_ ly
e .t�.taker.
ir_ the discharge plume off the deck rather that_
directly ir. the discharge tunnels, since p-hysica1
c_ccess to the tu.r.rels is currently unavailable i.e. the
dI scharge tt:T'.nels ter-.' irate unOer the FDR Drive, about
60 feet '=rem the end of the dock. Fov:ever, Cor, Edison_
willl create samviing access points in the Discherge 001

and 002 -discharge tunnels b;7 ?ur_e 1, 1985, or by the
beginnirrg of the 1.985 chlorination seaser, at Waterside,
whichever iG later, as part of our chlorine compliance
program (see ccu;ments ccr..cerr..ing pro -posed chicrir.e
reauirem.ents, Section_ 4(c)). There -ore, there is no
'.usti ficaticr_ Tor Lnternal waste street pH limits based
or. Secticr 122.45. —
(3) Title 8, Art?.cle 17 of the New York State Ervirormental
Corservaticr_ Law (ECL) requires permits for the
discharge of pollutsr.ts from. any outlet or paint source
to the waters of the stare (Section 17-0803). The ECL
clearly limits DEC's authorit-7. to controlling
pollutants at the point such e-ffluents enter the
receiving weters (Sections 17-0803, 17-0609 and the
definitions specified it 17-0105, Paragraphs
(2) , (11) , (15) and (16)) . This limitation is reir_forced
by the SPDES regulations implementing the ECL (6 i?YCkR
Parts 750-757) . Although we bei ieVe that the ECi.
limits DEC's authority to impose effluent limits at the
final discharge, Ccn Edison has accepted anal will
ccr_tir..ue to accept internal waste stream limits for
pollutants other than pH where we be!ie%-e cerarl -Lance
monitoring at the final discharge point is impractical,
the limitations are reasonable and not more stringent
than required by appropriate regulations. This is
cl.earl; not the case nor pH .
(4) EPA Best Practicable Technology (BPT) regulationslimit
the pF of all discharges frori steam electric power
plants, except once through cooling water, to a range
of 6.0-9.0 (40 CFR 423,12(b)(1); emphasis r,dced).
EPA.' u current E fluent Limitati or ruidelir_es fcr pH (4 7
FR 52303, INTovemher 1.9, 1982) are identical to those
ccr.tained it the init_pll-7 promulzateO Guieel ir_e3
publ4 shed it the Federal F ei is ter cn'- October S, 1974
(3° :F. 36186) . lr,. both the origir_ai and re -,7 spa?
Guidelines, r o PF limitations are eYpiicitl_T placed cr
any internal wv.si_e streams. Eased on the eefinitiens
specified in the Clear. Water r_r_t, the F'A'A iisitar_ion eT
6.0-9.0 would apply or."I-_- at the outlets of the
discharge t;~rnels to the East Di,TPr and not to an
.rterral waste stream.
E•v le tpr dated vi a,7 3, 1x'44 ( ar_r_2cr'.ipenit to nhi.112r 1)
Ccr. Edison Lormall t7 reauested the t the U. S .
"_r_Vironmental. Protection! Aa,-r'c`•7 (ETNA) clari.`v Zts BPS
2r_C .ritetna? waste stream regulations is they apply to
pH. At a meeting held on August 10, 1984 between Ccr
Edson and EPA., the Asenc­ stated that it -rHoulc. take
.bout one month to review the ruler:akir.g record e.r_d
infcrv. Con Edison-: and DEC of its determination.
`" ''-- ~7-- - ^* c7,o�r 'Pt -ad December 13, 1-983, DEC states

that internal waste stream moniterir_g is proposed far
specific low volume wastewaters since compliar_eP with
applicable ''imitations cannot be.. determined at the
final discharge. For the fcllowing reasons, this
explanation rices not satisfy Federal (40 CFR 124.56)
and State (6 NIN'_?Q 753.3) regulations, which require
that Fact Sheets set forth the -_legal and technical
basis of proposed limitations:
(a) The Fact Sheet does not specifically address the
rationale for the proposed pH limits. Tr. fact, it
cannot be detersir.ed from the Fact Sheer_ to which
waste streams and pollutant_ the e?p_ar_ation
pro-,74_ded in the Fact Sheet apFlies;
(b) The Fact Sheet does not specify ;� whether the
proposed pH limits are based on. EPA's Guidelines
for Steam Electric Power Plants or DEC's pest
Professional Judgement (BPJ) determination of Best
Practicable Technolog,! (EPT) or Best ConverntLonal
Technology (BCT), or any other basis;
1. if the proposed limit is based on EPA's
Guidelines, it does not specif;? whether DFC
interprets the 6.0-9.0 BPT pH Iimit to appiy to
internal waste streams (are- if so, the rQaser_s
for that intepretation) or to final discharges;
2. If the proposed limit is based or. BPJ, it does
not address the factors specified in Section 304
oL the Clear. Water Act or 40 CFR 125.3 (See
Paragraph 3 . (d) of these comments) ;
(c) The Fact Sheet does not specify which sections cf
the Clear_ Water Act a�r_d State Ertl=irenmental
Conser-%'ation Law. provide DEC; with the authority to
impose ir.terr_al waste strepm limits ::or pF. Fc -r
does it specify the sections of EPA and ^,EC
regulations which authrri_ze such limits ; and
(d) The Fact Gneet does not specif;7 LYhich of the
e-.ceptienzl circumstarces specified in 40 CFR
122.45(1) , if an-, it relied cr. tc reach the st,.ted
ccrclusior_ that comp' nrce with the 6.0-9.0 pH
7.--nitaticn cannot be Bete-+:inec by monitoring at
the final discharge.
(b) There is Yo for PF 1 iudts on
Internal t-'ater Streams
The current pH limitatior_ of 6.0-9.0 at :>ischarges 001 and
002 affords ae-equate nrctection of public receivirg water
eua?itJA pH 1iLit f 6.0-90 at the int scharge
.vpc' deemed acceptable by El'A_ Region: 11 (and DEC b-%- its

Section 401 Certification) in the initial discharge permit
issued by flgion II on November 30, 1974, as well as by DEC
(and Region II in its overview capacity) in the renewal
permit issued by DEC on July 1, 1980. Bcth the initial and
renewal permits were based on EPA's Effluent Guidelines
promulgated cn October 8, 1974 and were to have included any
more stringent water duality-based—requirements. Since
applicable Effluent Guidelines fqr pH have not charged since
initial permit issuance and DEC has nct shown_ that a final
discharge Q within the range of 6.0-9.0 has caused or will
cause any adverse environmental impacts, there is no basis
Or imposition of more stringent pf! limitations in the
renewal permit. in addition, b7 proposing to maintain the
current 6.0-9.0 p?: limitation for Discharge 002, DEC hss
deemed that range acceptable at the point of discharge.
Furthermore, installation of a Waste r_eutral in stion system,
which would be required to meet the proposed limits, would
result in the addition of significant amounts of
neutralizing chemicals (acid/caustic), thereby, increasing
the amount of pollutants discharged.
(c) The Cost To Achieve Interval Haste Stream pR Limits Zs
Rally Disproportionate To The Miluert ReAction Benefits
To Be Derive
The Waterside Station has two demineralization systems,
which are housed in separate buildings. In order to achieve
the proposed pH limits for demineralizer regeneration waste
streams (001b and 002a), installation_ of two waste
neutralization systems would be required due to the physical
layout of the facili y and the relatively large number of
regenerations performed (See SPDES Application Update for
more detailed information concerning regeneration_ waste
streams). Each system would consist of 1-2 large
neutralization tanks, pumps, acid and caustic in'jectior.
s7steus, instrumentation and controls and an elaborate
piping system. Con Edison. ccnservati�7ely 'estimates the
total capital cost of these systems to be $3-5 million, a
reasonable estimate taking into account the nature of the
facility (primarily; steam se::dout) , age of the facility, its
ph7sical layout and space limitations, and she relatively
large number of regenerations (due to steam ser6out) . These
ccs _s would increase substantially if a pF limit of 6.0-9.0
is imposed fcr boiler blcwdcwn (001a; and 002a ir_ current
permit), which typically has a pH of 10-10.5. In additicr,
substantial operating costs (labor azd chemicals) would be
incurred. Tbe_se capital and eperatir.g costs" would
ultimate? v be borne by Con Edison's steam and electric
ratepayers. r
As stated above, Con Edson believes that there is no
environmental justification for a pN limit of 6.0-9.0 or.
internal waste streams. Such limits wculd result in little,
if any, envirormer_tal benefits, which are wholly

disproportionate -to the costs that would be borne by Con
Edison and` its ratepayers. As specified abos.=e, such
recuirenents TRould, in fact, result in the discharge of
increased atrour_t of pollutants.
(d) if It V --ere Eventually To Be Deternined That p'R 7--inits Ma-�T
Le g ally Be irrmosed For Internal -Waste Streams Such
L4m4 tations riust. be Less Stringent t ar. -
The existing pH limit: of 6.0-9.0 for Discharges 001 and 002
reflect Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
AATailable (BPT) as defined by EPA (40 CFR 423.12(b) (1)) . By
limiting the pH of internal waste streams to that same
range, DEC is, it effect, proposing a limit more str_nger..t
than BPT. Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Clean. Fater Act
provides for rrore stringent limits than BPT =or pH and other
conventional pollutants b;= application_ of the Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technolog.* (LCT). EPA has
deferred promulgation of LCT limitations for power plants
pending promulgation of a revised BCT methodology,
Therefore, any BCT limits imposed. in a pcG?er plant permit
must be developed on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to
Sector. 402(a) (1) of the Clean Water Act and Article 17,
Title S of the State Environmental Conserv2tior_ 7—avT.
The proposed internal waste stream limitatior of 6.0-9.0
trust accordingly be based on a case-by-case determination o
BCT by DEC. EPA regulations (40 CFR 125.3(c)) allow the
iMpositior. of techr_ologr based limitations to the e:,:tent
FPA -promulgated effluent guidelines are inapplicable. Ir.
these cases, the permit i ssuir_g authority (DEC) is required
to apply the appropriate factors spec!.iPd in. Sectio: 304(b)
of the Clear_ water Act. Fcr de•. -e1 cpme:.t of BCT
limitations, the tactors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(R)
must be applied. These factors include "the reasonableness
o.a the relationship between the c_csts of attaining a
reduction in effluent and the e-ffluent reeluctier. benefits
derived, ar.c the comparison of the cost and let*el or
reduction of such pollutant =rom publicly ownec treatment
works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants
frcm a class of categor47, of indust=_al source" are "the age
o= equipment and facility es involved, the process employed,
the engineering aspects of the application of various tapes
of control techniques, process charges, non -water quality
em•iror-menta.1 imvacts (including energ,- re-quirements) ."
Case-by-case limits frust also cor_si,dei the anr;rcpriate
technology fcr theapplicar_t's industrial categorr4 and tory
ur_ioue factors relating to the faci.lit-: (40 CFR
125.3(c)(2)). These factors trust be considered regardless
or the permit issuing authorit.r (40 CFR_ 125.3 (c)).
On Y,.ovember 13, 1982, EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 124.56
ertC 40 C-R 125.3 to e :plici tly specify' the statutezy and
f- rnr; nrs that rrust be considered in setting

case-by-case, Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) 14 -mi is and
the information that must be included in the Fact Sheet (47
xa 52072).- The preamble to the proposed regulaticns state•s'
that "Section 1245.31(c)(2) already requires permit vrr.iters t�
consider -"statutory factors" in issuing EPJ permits, s -o
these changes simply clarify an existing requirement." (47
FR 52080). The propcEed regulaticnsT therefore, would make
explicit what is already required, namely the application of
I[ --he statutory `actors and any ,other factors considered ir_
the determination of BPJ limits and. the inclusion. in • the
Fact Sheet of any analysis of the application of these
factors and identification of any guidar_ce or other
documents relied upon in setting the iimits.
DEC has net provided Cor. Edison with any documentation of
its ccr_sideration of the factors specified in Secticr_
304(b)(4)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) in its development of
the proposed LCT limits for pH. Therefore, DEC car -not at
this time impose BCT limitatiors more stringent than EPT.
Even if it should ultimatel-be ee.termined that DEC may
impCse pH limits on internal waste streams, which for the
reasons set forth herein_ we submit it car -not lawfull-t., do,
then such limitatiors must be less stringent than 6.0-1�.0 sc
as not to be ir+ conflict with a 6.0-9.0 limitation at the
point of discharge. Otherwise, the internal limitations
wculd be more stringent thet FPT and must be ;ustified
taking into account the factors specified above.
(e) Ever If it Were Eventually To Be •Determ.irPd That pH Limits
Liar Lena 17, Be imposed For 'r.ternG?^ :Waste Streams - P_
Reasora le Com-oliance Schedule dust be Provided
If it were to eventua'_?y be deterc:ired that pig limits may
legally be im-posed or. internal waste streams and such
limitatiors wereinvosed, a reasonable s hu
eccle of
ccmpli-ance zrould reed tc be provided ir_ order to permit
procurement ar.d installatier_ of r_ecessar_- ecuipment before
such limits become effecti,7e.
DEC's proposed ccrrpLiance deadl=ine (effective date of the
renewal Dermit) is both arbitrary ar_d impossible to achieve.
Although D_C has Tct provided its rationale for the proposed
compliance deadline, we presume that it was based cr_ the BCT
deadiir_e cf Jule 1, 1 :'a4 sp_ ecifiec' in Secricr. 301(b) (.2) (F)
r_r the Clear_ ir'ater Act. ucT•.es:er, sir.ce DEC's proposed
limits carr_ct leCall- be imposed under pCT as discussed
previous? y, the Ju11J 1, 1-084 deadline c.ces r_ct appy.
if the proposed urreascr_zble and impracticable compliance
deadline were to be eventually imposed, Con Edison. would
v.rfairlVbe put in the untenable position or i=ediately
uiclatir_g the per -mit. For purposes of framing the issues
for ccnsi deruti or: in a hearing, zry
pp -=.-;t. issued blT DEC

ccntainirg pH limits on internal waste streams should
contain a realistic compliance schedule, to be subsequently
agreed upon-, which would encompass time periods necessar�T
for the procurement and installation of necessary eduipuent.
(f) Monitoring Reauirements
Monitoring requirements for pH cannot legally be imposed fcr
internal waste steams for the reasons stated herein. If it
were eventual -1-:7 to be determined that pH monitoring
recuirements ma-; legally be imposed on internal wastes
streams, monitoring reauirements for these waste streams
should not be required price to a realistic cotrp]_iar.ce
deadline eventual"agreed uper. (see paragraph (e) abo-%?e) ,
since the 14-vitatiers would not be effective until that
time. We cannot currently cotrpl)= with the proposed
requirement of taking gra.b samples before each batch
discharge of deminera.li.zer regeneration wastes (001b and
002a) , since there* is no prczTision for holding up these
wastes prior to discharge. Even if neutralization s;Tstems
are installed, this proposed requirement may be
impracticable, iy the systeus are designed for
semi --continuous operation_ in +which, when_ the e'f'fluent is
within the set pH range, discharge may occur rcan7 times over
a regeneratier cycle.
In su=ary, effluent limitaticr_s and monitoring requiretr_er.ts
nor pH should -not be imposed for internal waste streams for the
reasons specified above. The only pH limits that mat7 be imposed
are the current BPT pertr_it limitations of 6.0-9.0 at Discharges
001 and 002 (and 0035). T'nis approach would be cc: sister_t with
that recommended btT DEC in its Division of Water Guiear_ce
nezrorandum Ito . ("BP3 �-.ethodologi es - Guidance for the
P_vplicaticr, of Pest Professional Judgement (BPJ) in DPterinir.ir_g
S'DES Ccneitior_s," dated April 1983) , -=hich states (Section
VIIi.E.) .
"!-,ith rac2_rd to conventional pollutants, the Departrent
will generally cor•.sider BPT ar acceptable leve' of
ccr.trcl, unless effluent guidelines or uatPr quality
r_eceGs_tate more stringent control."
Since effluent gLidel ines Trandate z pP Iimi t 'of 6.0-9.0 at the
p02r:t cF discharge and water C1_0'L t1? has rct been shctar to
T an,:* more stringent limits, the current limits are
a.vnrcpriate and should. be i-airtair,ed. DEC inav not impose a
particular tecl^rclogv ^cr ineetir:g SPrES I imitG. There' Ole, CCrt
Ediscr_ should be free to Teet those limitations by the method c£
our choice.
Ever. y£ DEC could legall,7 i.trpose pH lim,ita.t oris .or internal
waste streams at this Tac 1i ty, e. cctipliance schedule wcul d be
_ecuired to achieve sue: limitations. 1n addition,
nct'W-Lthstarding the legal argu=ents against imposit_cr. of pH

a
0
LEM
a
r
requirements for interral
waste
strepams, DEC gust
provide the
legal and
t4chnical
basis,
including any
supporting
dccumertaticn,
-for any
such
reeuiremer-ts prior
to their
establishr-ent
_r a final peri
t.
1-f such rationale is
e17P*:tuz'_l�*
prcvided, Cor,
Edi son must
be given
a rea-scr.able opportunity for
evaluation and
submission
of cements.
a
0
LEM
a