NC0004979_Comments on Draft Permit_20161208

/9 Dui
ENERGY
6 December 2016
Sergei Chernikov, Ph.D.
NCDEQ Division of Water Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for Allen Steam Station
Permit No.: NC0004979
Gaston County
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
Richard E. Baker, Jr.
Director of Environmental Programs - CCP
Environmental, Health & Safety
526 S. Church Street
Mail Code: EC13K
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]
RECEIVEDikGOTE M/MYR
DEC 0 v 2016
Water Quality
Permitting 'Sec °cn
Duke Energy Carolinas (DEC), LLC submits the following comments on the draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Allen Steam Station (Allen), issued for public comment
by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) on 1 November 2016.
1) Per 15A NCAC 02B.0206(b), in cases where the stream flow is regulated, a minimum daily low flow
may be used as a substitute for the 7Q10flow. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license
for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project No. 2232 issued Nov. 25, 2015 establishes a minimum
average daily release requirement from Wylie Hydro of 411 cfs. Therefore, the reasonable potential
analysis should be conducted at a 7Q10S,of 411 cfs.
2) Regarding the total silver limit in sections A. (2.) and A. (3.), we do not believe this limit is appropriate
due to the history of analytical results and due to the minimum release requirement discussed in #1
above. Based on quarterly monitoring Silver has not been detected above the detection limit in the
previous four years. Duke requests that the limit for total silver be removed and that monitoring and
reporting for total silver be conducted for a year, and if silver is not detected, Duke requests that the
monitoring and reporting requirement be removed. If after one year of monitoring silver is detected, a
new RPA should be conducted to establish an appropriate limit. Silver has a minimum detection limit
(MDL) of 2.0 ug/L by EPA 200.7 and 0.1 ug/L by EPA 200.8. The relationship between MDL and practical
quantitation limits (PQL) is usually 2 to 5 X MDL = PQL. The PQL can be defined as "the concentration at
which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable signal and acceptable calibration point. It is
the concentration in a sample that is equivalent to concentration of the lowest calibration standard
analyzed by a specific analytical procedure, assuming that all the method -specific sample weights,
volumes, and processing steps have been followed." In other words, the PQL is equal to the lowest non-
zero standard on your calibration curve. South Carolina certification for laboratories requires that labs

meet a certain PQL for NPDES reporting. North Carolina does not have a similar requirement. The
lowest possible PQL for Ag would be about 0.3 ug/L (which is our current PQL).
3) In section A. (2.), the monitoring frequency for selenium, arsenic, silver, and mercury is "weekly," in
contrast to the "monthly" or "quarterly" monitoring frequency in the current permit. Historical
monitoring data do not indicate any issues concerning the discharge from outfall 002, especially the
aforementioned parameters. The RPA demonstrates the discharge will not cause contravention of the
water quality criteria for any of these parameters. Given that more frequent monitoring is not necessary
to address an immediate concern and considering comments #1 and #2 above, Duke requests the
sampling frequency be changed to "quarterly". If more frequent monitoring is required, Duke would not
object to "monthly" sampling.
4) For outfall 006, the chronic toxicity is to be tested at an instream waste concentration (IWC) of 23.6%:
the same as the current ash basin. The 23.6% is reputedly based on the effluent flow and 7Q10S of the
receiving water. The effluent flow from the retention basin has a maximum design of 3.3 MGD which is
significantly less than the effluent flow (18.9 MGD) from the current ash basin and should reduce the
concentration at which Duke should be required to conduct the chronic toxicity testing. Additionally, as
mentioned in comment #1, the FERC license establishes a minimum average daily release requirement
from Wylie Hydro of 411 cfs. Duke requests that the IWC be reviewed and adjusted based on the
expected outfall 006 discharge flow and FERC minimum release.
5) Concerning sections A. (2.) and A. (3.), Duke requests that BOD and fecal coliform limits be removed
from the permit. The limitation of fecal coliforms in an open pond impoundment is of questionable
merit, when such impoundment is an attractive and active habitat area for wildlife and more specifically
a nesting area for a variety of species of water fowl". The presence of fecal coliforms in such an
impoundment at concentrations of concern are more likely the result of wildlife influences than that of a
domestic sewer system upset, when supported by the historical data. The use of BOD in waters
downstream of industrial biological treatment is of questionable accuracy due to potential interferences
in the growth rate of standard inoculum cultures2. If the limits and monitoring for BOD and fecal
coliform are not removed, due to the small average flow of domestic wastewater, Duke requests that
the measurement frequency be changed to monthly. Also, Duke also requests that the monitoring
requirement be specified as "Monitoring of BOD and fecal coliform is to be conducted during the
calendar month that domestic wastewater is discharged".
6) Duke requests the removal of internal outfall 009. The holding basin was designed as a "pre-
treatment" step, which allows some initial solids removal and pH adjustment treatment in the retention
basin. This design allows an effective retention basin that has been constrained in its size by the
available space on the property. The rationale in creating this internal outfall is unclear. Nevertheless,
the internal outfall is not necessary, and Duke requests that it be removed. Should NCDEQ choose to
keep internal outfall 009 in the final permit, Duke, in interpreting section A. (12.), understands that no
monitoring or reporting is required for this outfall. Duke requests NCDEQ's concurrence on this position.
1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC91772/
2 Hammer, Mark J. (1975). Water and Waste -Water Technology. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-34726-4.

Page 13
Duke also would request that the daily maximum discharge limitation for TSS be changed to 100.0 mg/L,
which is the limit imposed on outfall 006 (retention basin).
7) Duke requests the removal of internal outfall 007. At one point in the development of the new
retention basin project, it was believed there was a need to have two functional internal outfalls at the
same time. The design has progressed to the point where only one internal outfall will be necessary.
Duke would like to keep internal outfall 005 as the only internal outfall.
8) In sections A. (8) Duke requests the removal of the TSS, oil and grease, and pH limits for the FGD
internal outfall. The limits for TSS, oil and grease, and pH are based on the best practicable control
technology currently available for FGD wastewater. Since the pH limits apply to all waste streams and
the TSS and O&G limits are the same as low volume waste streams, these limits should not apply to the
internal outfall but rather to the final outfall to allow for co -treatment. Also, installing systems to adjust
pH at locations besides final outfalls provide unnecessary costs and efforts, especially since EPA has
allowed for dilution and comingling as a treatment for pH of internal wastestreams prior to final
discharge points. A reference document supporting this position is attached. (Attachment # 1)
9) As stated in the Fact Sheet, the facility has passed all toxicity testing during the previous permit cycle
(20 out of 20). In section A. (2.), A. (3.), and A. (10.), the measurement frequency for chronic toxicity is
monthly; however, section A. (20.) explicitly states that the samples are to be taken in January, April,
July, and October, which is the current requirement. Duke requests that the measurement frequency
for chronic toxicity be changed to "Quarterly" throughout the text of the permit.
10) The car wash that contributed vehicle washwater to outfall 004 has been removed. Duke requests
that the oil and grease limits in section A. (7.) be removed.
11) In section A. (4.) please amend the text to read that Duke should notify the DWR Mooresville
regional office instead of "DWR Winston-Salem Regional".
12) In sections A. (4.) and A. (5.), please reinsert the following language that is in the facility's current
permit:
"Sampling is required per occurrence when sump overflows occur for longer than one hour. Monthly
average limits only apply if the overflow occurs for more than 24 hours".
13) In footnote 4 of sections A. (8.), please specify that only monitoring and reporting is required until
the applicable date that depends on the retirement decision.
14) In section A. (2.), Duke requests that the language in footnotes 7 and 8 be clarified to state that
continuous monitoring of total suspended solids and pH is only required when decanting via pumps and
that the continuous monitoring requirements and limitations be restricted to in -process samples. This
language should likewise be reflected in footnotes 6 and 8 of section A. (3.). As this language was
developed prior to additional requirements to provide physical/chemical treatment, this requirement is
unnecessary because any water removed via pump will be treated prior to release.

15) In section A. (2.), instead of "The limits and conditions ... below the three feet trigger mark", Duke
Energy requests that the following language be substituted: "During decanting the facility is allowed to
drawdown the wastewater in the ash basin to no less than three feet above the ash at the pump intake
location. Lowering the level below the three feet mark triggers the limits and conditions in section A. (3.)
of this permit." This provides clarity regarding what the "three feet trigger" is and what limits apply.
16) In sections A. (2.) and A. (3.) the "ash pond / ponds decommissioning process" is not well defined.
Duke understands that it will be allowed to determine when its decommissioning process has started
and subsequently when it is necessary to deploy physical -chemical treatment facilities.
17) Wastewater from chemical metal cleaning is no longer discharged. Duke requests that limitations
associated with chemical metal cleaning be removed from the permit.
18) In section A. (28.) it is unclear why bromide, hardness, and turbidity were added as parameters for
instream monitoring. Please remove these parameters from the instream monitoring until the
justification can be evaluated and commented on.
19) In section A. (28.) it is unclear whether the instream monitoring and analysis for metals is total or
dissolved. Duke understands that dissolved metals are what were likely intended. Please clarify if
dissolved metals monitoring and analysis is the requirement for instream monitoring.
20) Section A. (28.) states "In -stream monitoring should be conducted at the stations that have already
been established through the BIP monitoring program". The same section also mentions Station 250 and
Station 235. Please clarify if the intent is to monitor at Station 250 and Station 235 or if Duke will have
the flexibility to choose locations within its BIP monitoring program. The BIP stations were established
to monitor thermal impacts. Station 235 is downstream of the confluence of the South Fork Catawba
River, and readings at that point may be influenced by that water body. A location closer to the ash
basin discharge on the Catawba River main stem may be more appropriate to characterize any potential
trace metal influences from the ash basin discharge.
21) In section A. (2.), the permit imposes a daily maximum limit of 50 mg/L for total suspended solids
based on 40 C.F.R. 123. The ash basin is designed, constructed, and operated to treat the volume of coal
pile runoff associated with at least a 10 year, 24 hour rainfall event; therefore, the 50 mg/L maximum
does not apply per 40 C.F.R. §423.12(b)(10). The daily maximum TSS limit should be revised to 100
mg/L.
22) Limits for turbidity are proposed for outfall 002, which also has proposed limits for total suspended
solids (TSS). TSS is a parameter that is sufficient to show that the wastewater treatment system is
properly operating. The potential exists for significant interferences in the analysis for turbidity. For
example, air bubbles and/or light absorbing materials can significantly interfere with the readings.
Turbidity is also not a direct measurement of the total suspended materials in water. Turbidity is
instead a measure of relative clarity, and is often used to indicate changes in the total suspended solids
concentration in water without providing an exact measurement of solids. Duke requests that since
these outfalls are limited by TSS that the limitations and monitoring of turbidity be removed.

Page I5
23) For those parameters without explicit limitations, Duke understands that the requirement is to
"monitor and report" unless the measurement frequency is given as "waived". For those parameters
where the measurement frequency is "waived", no monitoring or reporting is necessary.
24) Section A. (27.) says that fish tissue monitoring will be in accordance with a "sampling plan approved
by the Division", however, the permit does not give specific provisions for how the plan is submitted or
approved. Duke will submit requests for plan approval to the Division's environmental sciences group
within 180 days of permit approval.
25) In section A. (30.) the text should reflect that there are 11 seeps; five of which do not need coverage
under the permit. The text should also be corrected to read as "Each outfall discharges through its own
effluent channel meeting the requirements in 15A NCAC 2B .0228".
26) Table 1 in section A. (30.) should be corrected as follows:
Discharge ID
Latitude
Longitude
Outfall Number
S-2
35°10.426'N
8100.347'W
102
S-3 (toe drain)
35010.512'N
8100.360'W
103
S-4 (toe drain)
35°10.541'N
8100.364'W
104
S-8
35010.710'N
8100.384'W
108
S-813
35010.689'N
8100.391'W
108B
5-10
35010.884'N
8100.367'W
110
27) In section A. (30.) under "Discharges from Seepage Identified After Permit Issuance", Duke requests
that it be given 180 days after discovery of a new seep to determine if the discharge meets state water
quality standards and submit the results to DWR. Duke also understands that the determination as to
whether water quality standards have been met is outlined in condition A. (28.) of the permit.
28) In section A. (30.) Duke requests the removal of "The 'Effluent Channel' designation should be
established by the DEQ Regional Office personnel prior to the issuance of the permit".
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ross Hartfield at 980-373-6583
or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
6/ --�q A�.
Richard E. Baker, Jr.
Director of Environment Programs
EHS CCP
cc: Shannon Langley, Ross Hartfield

Attachment 1

SENT 8Y=ENV RFFPIRS P a 2-22-98 7s36PM ; 53474 917888218;## 2
Q,
i
Deer Mr. Canxialiia
This is to confirm our recent conversation regarding
effluent limitations guidelines for the steam electric power
industry (4D CFR Part 423).
In my letter of June 229 1984 to Ms. Ursula Basch of
your officev Y summarized the applicability of the steam
electric regulation pR limitat-ion as applicable to low volume
waste streams when such wastewaters are commingled with
(once -through) cooling waters. The interpretation that l
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 need -
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
limitatioos applicable -t-0 low volume waste strews be applied
to the `how'-Yolvme Waste component of such a combined discharge
priop to COMIM Sl#gag of the individual waste streams.
I apulogixe for any confUslon In ptrmit development or
deiayt In permit issuance that may have occurred in this
matter. If you have any further questions, please contact me
at (002) d82m7131.

UNITED STATES ENV1RONME-NTAL i:IZOTECTION AGENCY .
2 2 ':)qA
Ms. Ursula Basch
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Poom 6125
2 Wor3d Trad- Canter .
New York, Nnw York 10047
Dear Viso Bascho
This is in response to- your gizestions during our
discussion on June 21 regarding the effluent limitations
guidelines for the steam electric industry (40 CPR Part 423).
T e'ptt"limitatio plicable to low volume waste streams
is int ded _to re.gui-r-e "ihat low volume waste streams be
treated, as necessary, to comply with the FE limitation prior
to discharge. Furthermore, the basis for compliance with the
pit 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.
(202-382-7165)
Sincerely,
Dennis Ruddy
Project officer.
Effluent Guidelines DibA^ion

I
P,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
REGION III
GTm AND WALINUT STREETS
PHiLAD'ELPHIA. PENUSYLVANIA 19106
In reply refer to
3EN21a LONG
March 10, 1976
Ga
C � f9 7
`.
. James Long ¢ :b': o
Paver Plant Plant Services Section
Philadelphia Electric Company
2301 Market Street
Philadal.phia, Pennsylvania 19101
Dear Mr. Lon:
This is in response to your s@coed progress report subaitted February 10,
1976 for tbA C'hestdr Generating Station (PA 0011614), in which you propose t® d:
charge boiler blowdown, zeolite softener regenerates, and evaporator blMdWwu U
the receiving street without pH neutralization. please be advised that
4OC R 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 v 9. Econcales
were considered prior to the development of the final guideline limitations,
therefore the expense you have ci,tsad as being asaociated with neutralizing these
effluent stre 8 is not a valiA argugient against. treatment.
A policy decision was 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- streanis could be combined with cooling rates
for the soleas o meat a as ®ng as e a e rraa
ments.
e of b 9. Th slnot inconsi� est with �ui.deline rem
ou aag�ed h emmer, tkaat poIlatt shag' than P
ant parameters o
B -ate parte
cate�orY r7rith cob�,ra� �ta��er®
I trust this will enable you to complete your treatment playas. If there
are any questicma, please danOt hesitate to contact me at 213 597-3689.
Si!eerely yours r
Bruce P .Smith
Delmarva -D.C. Section

Consolidated Edison vornpany of New York, Inc,
4
Irving
Place, New York, N.Y. 10003
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 you is -a -.'ropy of. Con.. Edi -son'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 an 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.
Yery.truly. your,
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
0

J
•rte
0r.
'L
?. pF Eecui.rements (See r i-M-tatior,s and ?-c:-_itcrir_g
1, 0eauirer-ent's, p.G} .
DEC proposes tct ma.intair. the current r_.N_ 1 _m _tati.cr. (range of
6.0-9.0) for uischarge 002 ane cue,ete the current 6.0-9,0 off'
J.ir-i.tati on fc:r Discharge 001. DEC a! ---o proposes to add ull
liruitaticns (6.0-9.0) fcr =ntL•rx:a1 waste streams 001a
(boiler blowdo..n) , C01b (;.'aterside i;o. 1 demine�:a' iter
rece_ne' atior- wastes) , 001c. (f1.00r and ecuipmert drainav-e)
and 009a. 'Vaters_de Fo, 2 demi.reralizer reger•e9-ation wastes) .
Zr. add --;tion, DEC has Proposed to delete pE rroniterirg
requi.reL eras at Di sche-r --e 001, revise the pu. r�cny tor_rg
rreouencv or Disnerge G0'? frcm twice tr,eekl.? to FNeekler and
add pF mcnitoring recuirem.erts fcr waste streaTs 0012
(week) v grab) , 001b and. 002a (grab before each batch
eischarge) and 001c ( twice month? z7) . DEC pr -poses 'that all
nevjnevi sed effluent li_mi.taticns and moritoring requirenev!ts
take erfect i=:ed.iatell uper, the efAectize date of the
renewal permit.
3

Cor Edison's pcsition with regard to DEC's proposed pH
requirements is surrniarized below:
o Effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirer_�ents for PR
in internal waste streams 001a, OOIb, 0C? c, 002a or any
other interral waste vtream cannot legally be imposed in
the final permit. -
o There is no environmental justificatron for a PH limit on
internal waste streams. Effluent limit's on internal, waste
streams are redundant and unnecessary since the current pF
1.4 -mit of 6.0-9.0 at the point cf discharge to the public
receiving water provides adequate protection of water
cual.ity. Furthermore, a pH limit of 6.0-9.0 has beer.
deemed acceptable bin DEC at the point cf discharge.
o The costs to achieve a pHA 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 ever°tually determined that FH limits r=ay
?egally be imposed --for wasr-e strearts.-001a, 0O1b, 001c and
002a Oghich for the reasons set forth i -n thes-A• ~cc-auents
cannot lr,�,full.tr be the case) , in order to ach .e -t e
cor-sisterc- with the limit of 6.0-9.0 at Discharge 001,
such limitations must be less stringent than a range of
6.0-9.0 (applied at the point of discharge), in order to
take fu11v into account pu adjustmer_t within the
discharge runnels; and
c A con-oliance schedule to meet pH. limits on internal waste
streams need net be prow--eed if Such i imi is are not
ultimatelr irrposed. Ev.en if it were eventually
G+etermized that pF .i__IImits or. irrer-t al vasste rtrea-mS meal
legal!, be ir.pesed, a reascrable ccmpliance schedule must
4e prcv�cec to Install equipr:ent . ecessar;r to achieve
such liM tatior_s before then beceme effective.
The support for this position is as fellows
(a}
Effluent Limitations and/or 'Icritoring Recuirements for ai?
in internal Wz.ste Streams U . a , . !c 002a or Any
Other interr_al Waste Stream C;anr_ct Legall-,- be Impose
(I) The Clear. tater Act t -he authority vnd-er Section
402 to controlling the additR ori cf pollutants to
navigable waters through pc,-nt source discharges.
(Sections 301. and 402 and defiritions specified in
Section. 302, ]Paragraphs (l) , (7) , (11} , (12) and - (16)) .
used or. '-hose sectier:s , effluent 14.44 aticr:s can only
be applied at the point the effluent enters the
receiving waters, ex-c°ept by the con -seat of the
Permittee. Therefore, the point of discharge irto

navigable waters fcr Discharges 001 and 002 (anal 003)
at the Stati cry is at the confluence of the ez:d of the
discharge_ tunnels and the East River.
(2) E?A's D,PDES (Decorsclidatec�) Regulatior_s (40 CFR 12 42)
essentiall;T track the authority speciried under Section.
402 and regzire effluent I imit2-ticns to be set at the
point of discharge to navigable waters. Section
122.45(a) states that all permit ee fiuent limitaticr:s
shall be established for "each outfall or discharge
point of the permitted facwl'ity" avicept as otherwise
provided. in Section 122.45 ( i) . Section. 122.45 ( 7.) ( l.)
states that l'_mits on internal waste streams may be
imposed in e:.cepticral cases grid crly if ?imitations at
the outfall are UUP-Caet :c, -I or Secticr.
122.45(1) (2) stated that limits on intern -al waste
streams rrav be irpesed er_1y when the Fact Sheet sander
Section 46 CFP. 124.56 sets forth the e::cepticr_al
circumstar_ces which make such limita.tior_s necessary,
such as when the final discharge -point is inaccessible,
the wastes are so diluted as to make monitorir"g:
impracticable or the interference of pollutants at the
point of discharge "would make detection or analysis
impracticable. Both Sections 122.45 --and 12`.56 + are
applicable to State programs.
Based on these regulations, there car, be no exceptional
circumstance Justification for imposition cf pH limits
and/or monitoring requirements or, internal waste
str6arss unless the ri"nal. discharge point is
inaccessible for sampling. Monitoring (det Action ar_�d
analysis) for DF (unlike pollutants measured in terms
of mass or concentration, such as heavy metals) is d.ct
impractical at the point o` discharge due to dilution
or interference. Based en the distinction. Let-ueenn the
;-:attire -and rnonitorir:g of pF and ether pc? lutarts, Cen
Edison has accepted =irterral limits cu other pcllutants
in some cases (even thcugh we bplfeve that elle:: limits
car -not be imposed based cr. the Cleary Water Fact
and State Ervi.ror_mer.tel Conser-rat_o-n. Law) since in
*hese cases we recognize the impractie2l `•r cf
dete=iring compliance with effluent '_im_tations for
such pc:.l.utant_s at the final discharge (sea Section 2.
of these com.;r_ents) . Such itcpractica'_i_t, , howe-:er, does
not app 7 - rc PF. .
t nth regard to the questior" of sampl i:^g points, pH
samples for nisclr..a,rges 001 and 00' are currently taker_
ir_ the discharge plume off the deck rather tha.r,
directly in the discharge tunnels, s:.r.ce p-hys ical
access to the t:urrels is currently -unavailable i.e. the
discharge r_u,r-ne s terminate under the FDP Drive, about:
60 feet frcr' the end of the dock. Pc -,,c -ever, Ccr. Edison_
will create samul ing access points in the Discherge 001
c)

and 002 -discharge tunnels by jun_e 1, 1985, or by the
beginrlirrg of the 1985 chlorination sensor; at Waterside,
whichever is later, as part of our chlorine compliance
prrgrav (see cc=.ents ccr..cerring proposed chlorir.e
requirements, Section: 4(c)). Therefore, there is no
'.uitificaticr_ for internal waste stream pF. limits based
or, Section'. 122.45.
(3) Title 8, Article 1.7 of the New 'fork State Environmental
Conservaticr Law (FCL) reaui.res permits for the
discharge of polls:tents from arty outlet or point source
to t'he waters of the stare (Section 17,0803) . The ECL
clew-! limits DEC's author -it- to controlling
pollutants at the point such effluents enter the
receiving waters {Sections 17-0803, 17-0809 and the
definit=ions specified Irl 17-0105, Paragraphs
(2) , (11) , (15) and (16)) . This limitation is reinforced
by the I -MES regulations implementing the ECL (6 FYCRR
Parts 750-757) , Although we belieVe. that the ECIL
limits DEC's authority to impose effluent limits at the
final. discharge, Ccn Edison has accepted anal will
continue to accept internal waste stream limits for
pollutants other than pit where we belie -,-e ccrari-Lance
mcni.taring at the final discharge point is impractical,
the limitaticns are. reasonable and not more stringent
than required by appropriate regulations. This is
clearl; not the case for pH.
(4) EPA Pest Practicable Techrology (BPT) regulations limit
the pH of all discharges froti. steam electric power
plants, e::cept once through cooling v.ater, to a ra.rge
of 6.0-9.0 (40 CFR 423.12(b)(1); emphasis ad4ed).
EPS.'-- currer•t Ef -luent Limitation Guidelines for PE (47
FR 52303, November 19, 1982) are identical to those
ccr.tained in the in.it_aily promulgated Gu-d.e1ines
published ir: the ; ederal peg; seer on -October S, 1974
f3° Fr. 36186) . vr, both the trig-1—nal and revised
GuideI r-zs, no pF limitations are evplici.tllT placed cn
any internal wr.st_e streams. Based on the er—f-Iri.ti.cns
specified in the Gear. Water Act, the El's: limitation cf
6.0-9.0 would apply or, 1-- at the cutlets of the
discharge turnel.s to the yEa_st Bigger and not to an;
r.terral waste stream.
By letter dated l:a'y 3, ! e'v l; (att:achrent to—xhi'�-it 1) ,
Cor. Edison fcrmalI;7 reatested that the U.. S.
Environmental Frotecticn F `?rc,, (EPA) clarify i.ts BrT
ant. internal Waste Stream regulations as they apply to
pH. At a meeting held on August 10, 1984 between Con
Edson and EPA., the A'ae:-:c- stated that it would. take
about erne t^,or,Lh to reY� mew the ruled G[cing record ar_d
irfcrr Con Edison and DEC of its determir_ation.
' -L, -..ar r?at-ed December 13, 1963, DEC states

that internal waste stream monitoring is proposed for
specific low volume wastewaters since compiiar_cQ with
applicahie limitations cannot be determinee. at the
final aischarge . For the fcllowing reasons, this
explanation rices not satisfy Federal (40 CTR 19-4.56)
and State (6 M!CRR 753.3) regulations, which require
that Pact Sheets set forth the - _legal and technical
basis of proposed ' irriitations
(a.) The Fact Sheet does not specifically address the
rationale for the proposed pH limits. T -r. fact, it
cannot be deteru:ined `Tom the Fact Sheer_ to which
waste strearr:s mrd pollutants the e:;PI, a: at ion
pro --tided in the Fact Sheet applies;
(b) The Fact Sheet Coes not specify whet -her the
proposed pH limits are based on EPA's Guidelines
for Steam Electric Power Punts or DEC's pest
Professional Judgement (BPJ) determination! of Pest
Practicable Technology (EPT) or Best Converntional
Technology (BCT), or anv other basis;
I. =1 the proposed limit is based on EPA's
Guidelines, it does not specify whether DEC
interprets the 6.0-9.0 RPT PP. .:.mit to apply, to
internal waste Streams (ar.d 1F so, the reasons
for that i tepretatior) or to final discharges;
2. if the proposed 11.mit is based on BPJ, it does
not address the factors specified in Section 304
of the Clear. Water Act or 40 CF`F 125.3 (See
Paragraph 3.(d) of these co=en.ts) t
(c) The Fact Sheet does not speci`, which sections of
the Clear_ Water Act and State Environmental
Conservation Law provide DEC with the authoritl to
?mrosa irterncai. Waste street- limits for PF . Ncr
does it sp_ ecif-? the sections of EPA and DEC
regulations Vnich authcrize such ydre=ts ; and
(d) The Fact Sheet dces not specyf;T ztihich of the
e:-ceptional circumstances specified in 40 CFI
i 22.45 (i) , if any, it relied cr. tc reach the stated
ccrc?usior that comp"erce with the 6.0-9.0 pH
lirnitation cannot be determined by iron it-orin.g at
the final discharge.
(b) There is Vo Environmental ?ustiticatien for PH l;M,ts crr
�rterna�' Weter Streams
The current pH limitation_ o:f 6.0-9.0 at Discharges 001 and
0011). afford.✓ adequate protection of public receivirg' water
quality. A rH ? irit of 6.0-9.0 at the point of discharge
wps deemed acceptab' e b� EPA Region 11 (and DEC by 4 -is

Section 401 Certification) in the initial discharge permit
issued by F,egion'll on November 30, 1974, as well as by DEC
(and Region II it its o-,erview cepaci.ty) in the renewal
pe:. -mit issued b- DEC on Tu?,9' 1, 1980. Beth the initial and
renewal permits were based on EPA's E fluent Guidelines
promulgated cn October 8, 1974 and were to have included any
more stringent water cua? ity-based--requ:.rer:e�r.ts . Since
applicable Effluent Guidelines fqr pH have not changed since
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 pl? limitations in the
renewal permit. In addition, b, proposing to Ima,ntain the
current 6.0-9.0 pH limitation for Discharge 002, DEC has
deemed that range acceptable at the point of discharge.
Furthermore, irstallaticr of a waste neutral 4r.ation system,
which would be required to meet the proposed liwits, would
result in the addition of significant amounts cf
neutralizing chemicals (acid/caustic), thereby increasing
the amount o; pollutants discharged. r:
(c) The Cost To Achieve Interna'_ Waste Stream pH .Limits Is
y Dis ro crtiorate To The Ef luent Re action Benefits
To Be Derive
The Waterside Station has two demineralization. systems,
-u7hi.ch are housed in separate buildings. In order to achieve
the proposed pH limits fcr deminera? iter regeneration waste
streams (001b and 002a) ,, installation of twc waste
neutralization systems would be required due to the physical
layout of the faci.11t-' and the relatively large number of
regenerations performed (See SPDE'S Application Update for
more detailed information ccr_cerning reger_erati.or_ waste
streams) . Each ss,stem would consist of 1-2 large
r_eutr�Fl_za tion: tanks, pumps y acid and caustic i.nrecticn
s.astems, i.tnst-=umentation and controls and an elaborate
piping system. Con Edisor, ccnservati,lelw estimates the
total capital cost of these s --,toms to be$3 million, a
reasonable estimate taking, into acccunt the r_ature of the
facility (primaril.,; steat: sendout) , age of the facility, its
ph,7sical la out and space limitations, and she relativel,r
Large r_umber of regenerations (due to steam sen6o1Jt) . These
ccs::s would increase substantially if a pF. limit o:f 6.0-9.0
is inrosed fcr boiler blcwdo*hTr. (001a; and 002a in current
permit) , which t vi cal , y has a pH- cf 10-10.5. Ir. additicr, ,
substar..t a? operating costs (Labor and cHemicals) w?culd be
incurred. These capital and cperati.r.g costs- would
ult:.rr_a _e? v be borne bqF Con Edison' s steam and electric
ratepayers. r
As stated above, Con Eason_ believes that there is no
en-4ironmental justification for a pF limit of 6.0-9.0 on
internal waste streams. Such limo is would result in li_tt'e,
i f a.r•v, environmental beretits , which are wholly

disproportionate to the costs that would be borne by Con
Edison and` its ratepayers. As specified abo47e, such
reeuirements could, in fact, result in the discharge of
increase6 a rour_t of pollutants.
(�?) if It TTere Eventually To Be Deteryine.d That if" L-inits may
l.e ally Be lr.r.vesed For Internal -Waste Streams Such
Limitations Fust be Less Stringent tar.
The existing pH lignite of 6.0-9.0 for ilischsr€es 041 and 002
reflect Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available UPT) as defined b, EPt� (40 UP, 423.1^ (b) (1)) . By
limiting the pH of internal waste streams to that same
range, DEC is, in effect, proncsing a limit more stringentthan, BFT. Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act
provides for rrore stringent limits than BPT =or pH and other
conventional pollutants by application of the Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technolog.T (BCT) . £11P. has
deferred promulgation of PCT limitations for power plants
pending promulgation cf a revised BCT methodology.
Therefore, any BCT 14-mi.ts imposed• in a po-ver plant permit
must be developed on a case -b)? -case basis, pursuant to
Secton 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act and Article 17,
Title 8 of the Cta.te Envirormental Conservation Law.
The propcsed internal waste stream limitatior_ of 6.0-9.0
oust accordingly be based on_ a case-bu-case determination cf
ECT by DEC. LFA regulations (40 CFR 125.3(c)) allow the
;mpositior of technology based limitations to the extent
FPA-promul.ga.ted effluent guidelines are inappx;cable. 11,
these cases, the permit z.csuir_g autbority (DEC) is required
to apply the appropriate factors speci_fi.pd ir. Sectic;: 304(b)
of the . Clean Water Act. Fc r dei: e cpmer.t of BCT
limi tati or..s , the factors specified in Section 304(b)W(P)
must be applied. These factors include "the reasonableness
of the relationship between tY:¢ ccsts of attaining a
reduction in effluent and the effluent reductier. benefits
derived, and the comparison of the cost and level of
reduction of such pcl utar.t from publicly owned treatment
works to the cost and level of reduction of such: pollutants
frcrn a class of categor. of industrial source
01-X
"the age
01- equipment ar_d facilities involved., the process employed,
the engineering aspects of the application of various t7pes
of ccntrol techr_i.ques , prcces s changes, non --water quality
environmental impacts (4rcludirg energy recuirements)
Case-by-case limits must also consider the apprcpri.ate
techr_clog.7 for t -he - applicant's industrial- categor p 2.2'.d any
ur_ioue factors relating to the facili*y (40 CFR
125.3(c)(2)). These factors must be considered regardless
Of the permit issuing authQrit-. (40 CFR 125.3 (c)).
On Yovember a8, 1982, EFA proposed to revi.se 40 Cep 124.56
ere. 44 CFR 125.3 to e::plici tly specify the statvto-y and
. r,or arf nrG that mustbe considered. iii sett4-rg

.r
case-by-case, nest Professional Judgem.ert (BPJ) limits and -
the information that must be 4rcluded in the Fact Sheet (47
520112 .. The preamble to the proposed regulaticns state's",
that "Section 125.3(c) (2) already requires permit vyriters to
consider "statutory `'actors" in issuing EP. permits, E -o
these changes s4mply clarify an eyisting requirement." (47
FR 52080). The propcaed regulations,: therefore, would make
explicit what is already required, namely the application of
the statutory factcrs and any other factors considered it
the determination of BP.'; limits and. the inclusion in. the
Fact Sheet of any analysi-s of the application of these
factors and identification of a. r guidance or other
documents relied upon in set Ling the limits.
DEC has nct provided Con Edison wR th any documentation of
its ccr_sideration of the factcrs specified in Secticr?
304(b)(4)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) it its development of
the proposed BCT limits for pH. Therefore, DEC ca.r•r_ot at
this time impose BCT limitatiors more stringent than EPIC.
Even if it should ultimately be Jetermired that DEC may
impose pH limits on internal waste streams, which For the
reasons set forth herein we submit it carrot lawfully do,
then such limitations must be less stringent than 6.O-6..0 so
as not to be in conflict with a 6.0-9.0 limitation at the
point of discharge. Otherwise, the internal limitations
would be more stringent that EPT and must be lustifi.ed
taking into account the factors specified above.
(e) Even If It Were Eventualll To Be •Determired That pH Limits
t ar Leaal l., Be Im osed For T tern al V,isve Stream A
Reasonable Compliance Schedule VMust e Provided
L it were to eventually be deters: -;'red that pH limits may
legally be i_rrposed or. internal waste streams and such
limaitarions were unposed, a reasor.abl e scheZtile of
ecirpliance -r,,ou; d reed to be provided in order to permit
procurement arid installation of r_ecessar- ecuiprfaent vefcre
such limits become efyecti-Te.
DEC's proposed compliance deadline (effective date of the
rene-wal permit; s moth arbitrary and impossible to achieve.
Although DEC has nct provided its rationale fcr the proposed
compliance desd?ire, we presume that it was based or! the BCT
deadiOne Of Ju1v 1, 1:'084 specified in Secticr. 301(b) (.2) (F)
r'. the Cle<�n Water Act. pore -Parer, sir:ce DEC's proposed,
limits cannot legall, be imposed under BCT as d=scussed
nreliously, t':^e July 1, 1984 deadline eces not appy.
1 f the proposed unreascr_eble and impracticable compliance
deadline werP to be dventual? v imposed, Con. Ediscr, would
urf airly be put in the ur_ter�able position of immiediately
?Tic? ati.r.g the pe --mit. For purposes of framing the issues
foa ccr-sideraticn in a hear er.g, a-,, permit issued by ITEC

centai.nirg pF. limits on internal waste streams should
contain a realistic compliance schedule, to be subsequently
agreed uperr, which would encot:pass time periods necessar�9
for the procurement and installation of necessary equiptr•ent.
{ f) Monit 2ring P.eauirements
Monitoring requirements .for pH cannot legally be imposed fcr
internal Waste steams for the reasons stated herein. If it
were eventuall-T to be determined that pH monitoring
recuirem-ent,s ma;T legally be it-mosed on internal wastes
streams, moni_o-Cri-ng rec7uiremen.ts for th-cse waste streams
should not be required prior to a real stic compliance
e'eadl ire eventu.al.l,; agreed uper+ (see paragraph (e) aboRre) ,
since the 14mitaticrs would not be e-ffective until that
tire. We cannot curzently compl-= with the proposed
requirement of taking grab saMples before each batch
discharge of deminera.li.zer regeneration. wastes (001b and-
002a),
nd002x), since there is no provision for holding up these
wastes prior to discharge. Ever► if neutralization i nation s;9stems
are installed, this proposed requirement may be
impracticable, iy the st7stems are designed for
semi -continuous operation in which, when the effluent is
within the set pH range, discharge may occur ma'n;T times over
a regeneratior cycle.
In summary, effluent limitations and monitoring requirements
.;,.or pH should rnot be unposed for internal waste streams for the
reasons specified abolre. The only pH limits that ma-,, be imposed
are the current BPT permit limitations of 6.0-9.0 at Discharges
001. and 002 ( and 003) . This approach woule. be cors ister_t with
that recommended b4- DEC in its Division: of Cuter Guicar_ce
memorandum 'No. 84-W' 33- ("BP.; .et:hodologi_es - Guidance for the,
A<op' ication cf Best Professional Judgement (BP.$) is Ntermir.ir_g
JitES Cc eiti.or_s," crated April 1983) , whi_ch states (Section
iTITi i . E . I
"Tt:ith regard to conventional �'C' l lut.3ints , the Department
will generally consider BPT a.r acceptable level of
contbcl, unless effluent guidelines or water quality
r-'ecess tate more stringent control."
Since effluent guidel ir.ed Trap -date a pF
limit cf
6.0-9.0 at
the
point cf discharge and water cuali ty
has not
been shovan
Lo
necessitate an-- r.-tcre stringent limits,
'=he current 1i.mits
are
a-pprcpriate arc' shculd be r aar:tained.
DEC ma."k°
not impose a
particular techrology Por meeting SLIDES
limens.
Therefe�e,
Cor
Ediscr_ should be free to meet: those limitations by the method
r
of
oua choice.
Ever. 44.f DEC could +.egall'r impose pH limsita.t ons for =nternal
waste streams at this fa.ci i i t-yT, a compliance schedule -wcul d be
reGuired to achieve Such liTIlitations. 1n addition,
not- ithstardir.g the legal argum.erts against impositicr. of pH

v
requirements for lnterr.a.l
waste
streams, DEC T.L'st
provide the
legal and
technical
basis,
including anY
supporting
documentation,
-for any
such
recuiren:er._¢v prior
to the 4-r
est.ab1ishme:°,
it a final perr--lt
e
Tf such rationale is
eventual l -v
prc%rided, Cor.
Hd; son i-ust
be given a rea•sor*ab? e oprertuni.ty for
evaluat, cn and
submission
of cc=.ents .
o
9