NC0038377_Comments on the Draft Permit_20161103

DUKE Harry K. Siderls
Senior Vice President
ENERGY® Environmental, Health & Safety
526 S. Church Streel
Mail Code: EC3XP
Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone]
October 31, 2016
Sergei Chernikov, PhD.
P, -
m Uii.�i '. . �� . u; �
Division of Water Resources
NOV ® 3 20 15
1617 Mail Service Center
VV@ter Quality
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Permitting Section
Subject: Comments on the DRAFT NPDES Permit for Mayo Steam Electric Plant
Permit No.: NCO038377
Person County
Dear Dr. Chernikov:
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy) submits the following comments on the draft National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Mayo 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 allow for
continued operations while complying with various Federal and State mandates. Finalizing this
wastewater permit is a critical step to advance that process by authorizing decanting and dewatering of
the ash basin and permitting replacement treatment options. 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 1 of 36, Duke Energy requests the addition of Crutchfield Branch and Mayo Creek to
the designated receiving waters.
2. On Page 2 of 36, Duke Energy requests that the description of the toe drains reflect that they
discharge to a designated effluent channel which flows to Crutchfield Branch.
3. On page 2 of 36, Duke Energy requests that the description of flows tributary to outfall 002
include "occasional piping leakage from limestone slurry and FGD system."
4. On page 3 of 36, Duke Energy requests that the description of the seep outfalls be modified to
indicate they discharge to a designated effluent channel to Crutchfield branch.
5. On page 3 of 36, Duke Energy requests that outfalls 006a and 006b be removed from the NPDES
wastewater coverage. These two outfalls were further evaluated on September 8, 2016 with

Page 12
staff from the NCDEQ Division of Energy Mineral and Land Resources. Outfall 006a will remain
in the stormwater NPDES permit and outfall 006b should be removed as it does not constitute a
point source discharge or receive any cooling tower drift flows.
6. On page 5 of 36, Duke Energy requests removal of the pH limit from internal outfall 008.
Internal outfalls do not constitute a "point source" discharges as described in 40 CFR
423.12(b)(1). Additional reference information related to pH on internal outfalls is provided in
Attachment 1.
7. On page 6 of 36, Section A.(3), Duke Energy requests the following clarifications and
modifications:
a. Duke Energy requests that the limits for Thallium be removed from the permit as
there is no numeric water quality criterion for Thallium in North Carolina. With no
adopted criteria, the State has not provided any opportunity for public involvement or
comment on recommended constituent levels used in determining permit
requirements. Unlike the defined opportunity to comment on proposed criteria during
the triennial review, the only means for public involvement in this case is through
commenting on specific permitting actions. The Division's management has previously
indicated no limits for metals would be included in permits for constituents without
numeric criteria and the Division recently acknowledged this in issuance of the
company's Sutton permit in which NC DWR proposed to include an effluent limit for
Aluminum but withdrew that limit in the final permit "because ...North Carolina does
not have [an] Al standard...". North Carolina just completed an update to its standards
through the triennial review process but did not propose any standards for Thallium.
Additionally, there is no record of a determination that any limit on Thallium is
necessary to protect narrative criteria. To the contrary, the record indicates that the
receiving water currently meets narrative criteria, despite a long history of similar
discharges, indicating that effluent limits are not necessary to protect narrative criteria
or designated uses. During the last permit cycle, Duke Energy has completely eliminated
inputs of Fly ash, Bottom ash and FGD wastewater to outfall 002. The Division has not
provided any documentation that the factors required for consideration in developing a
BPJ limit for Thallium have been considered.
b. For the Nitrate/Nitrite as N limit, the footnote currently refers to footnote "9" which
does not exist. Duke requests this be changed to a footnote "W'.
c. The footnote related to Mercury indicates the station is required to analyze mercury via
method 1631. Compliance with the permit limit imposed can be easily demonstrated
using method 245.1. Duke requests that method 245.1 be allowed in this situation.
d. Duke requests that the sampling for Chlorides associated with the mixing zone be
removed. The high chloride wastestream that led to the inclusion of this requirement in
the previous permit (FGD wastewater) has been eliminated through construction of the
vapor Compression Evaporator.

Page 13
e. Duke request that during normal operations and decanting that the Acute Toxicity
testing frequency remain at Quarterly as in the current permit. Duke Energy has never
failed a toxicity tests at the Mayo plant and monthly testing during normal operations is
not supported.
8. On page 7 of 36, Duke Energy requests parameters with footnote #8 be removed from the limits
page. The footnote currently states that the limits are not enforced when there is no overflow
from the FGD basin. As discussed in our August 2016 NPDES permit application update, Duke
was still evaluating the location of the FGD settling basin. Since that time the location has been
finalized and any overflow from the basin would not be directed to outfall 002. Location "C'
depicted in our August 2016 application update was chosen for the construction of a new FGD
basin. In the August 2016 submittal, Duke requested an overflow discharge point to Mayo Creek
be permitted for location "C. Duke requests that this location be permitted as previously
requested.
9. On page 7 of 36, a prohibition on the release of chemical metal cleaning waste to the ash pond
exists. Duke Energy requests that this item be clarified to allow for discharge of chemical
metal cleaning waste to the new lined retention basin (outfall 002a). A segregated cell for this
wastestream is being built in the new retention basin to allow for treatment of these
wastewaters.
10. On page 8 of 36, Duke Energy requests clarification that the flow limit associated with
dewatering applies only to the water removed from interstitial pore space and not the entire
flow through outfall 002. The station will be operating during the time of ash basin closure and
operational flows will be discharged through outfall 002 at the same time dewatering is
underway.
11. On page 10 of 36, Duke Energy requests that the limits for BOD and fecal coliform be removed.
These constituents are proposed to be monitored at outfall 002 further down in the treatment
process. BOD and Fecal should only be monitored at one point and Duke requests that it be at
the final compliance point outfall 002.
12. On pages 13 through 19 of 36, Duke Energy request that the channels between the dam and the
point represented at AOW S-3 be identified as effluent channel as referenced in the DEQ field
office staff report. On page 19 of the permit, DEQ requires Duke Energy to install a fish
migration barrier at the point identified as "S-3" "to minimize fish migration into the effluent
channels that are combining at S-3." Because of this and the designation of all of these flows as
effluent channels, the points flowing to S-3 consisting of releases from points identified in the
permit as outfall 101, 102, 101A, 102A, 102B, 108 and 110 should be removed and listed as
contributing flows to the final compliance sampling point at S-3 (which could be identified as
outfall 103. The requirement for a fish barrier at point "S-3" supports the contention that all
flows to that point are via a designated effluent channel.

Page 14
13. On page 22 of 36, Duke Energy requests removal of outfall 006a from the permit. Upon further
evaluation and site visit with NC DEMLR staff, this outfall is correctly included in the NPDES
stormwater permit being issued to the facility. There is no wastewater component to this
particular outfall.
14. On page 23 of 36, Duke Energy requests removal of outfall 006b. This point consists of a
stormwater drain that is approximately 750 feet from Mayo reservoir with no defined channel
leading to the Reservoir. Upon further evaluation and site visit with NC DEQ DEMLR staff, Duke
Energy has determined that this point does not constitute a point source discharge. There is no
wastewater component to this particular point.
15. On page 24, 25 and 26 of 36, Duke request that sampling for Mercury, Arsenic and Selenium be
eliminated from outfall 006c, 006d and 006e. The potential flow from this area consists of drift
from the cooling tower and stormwater from an area with no CCR's present. There is no source
of potential for these three parameters to be present in any form other than in the intake water
for the cooling tower.
16. On page 27 of 36, Duke Energy requests that Toxicity testing remain a quarterly requirement
until dewatering commences. Duke Energy has never failed a toxicity tests at the Mayo plant
and monthly testing during normal operations is not supported.
17. On page 28 of 36, Duke Energy request the removal of the weekly testing for chlorides found
in Condition A. (24). There has been no discharge from the FGD wastewater system in over two
years and while Duke wants to maintain the flexibility to treat and discharge this flow in the
future, there is no current plan to discharge FGD wastewater. Weekly testing for chlorides is not
necessary. Duke Energy requests that, at a minimum, this sampling change to quarterly or be
eliminated for as long as there remains no discharge from FGD wastewater.
18. On page 31 of 36, Duke Energy request modification of condition A. (32) to align the wording
with the request found in comment # 12 above.
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 K. Sideris
Senior Vice President - Environment, Health & Safety
Duke Energy

Page IS
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Hennessey—Mayo Public Hearing officer
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617

Page 17
Attachment 1
Reference document on internal pH limits
related to ELG's
October 2016 comment letter on Mayo DRAFT
NPDES permit

SENT BY:ENV AFFAIRS F ; 2-22-9= 7:36PM 5347-9 917888218;4 2
UNITED STATES; ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20400
Mr. Louis Canziani
New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
Two World Trade Center
New York, NY 10047
Dear Mr. Canzi ani :
This is to confirm our recent tonversation regarding
effluent limitations guidelines for the steals electric power
industry (40 GFR 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 tow 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 applicabie.t.o low volume waste streams be applied
to the low-volume waste component of such a -combined discharge
Prior to t0mmir2ting 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 [phone].
Sincerely,
Dennis Ruddy'
Project Officer
Industrial Technology Division

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL "'ROTECTION AGENCY
's
.NN 2 2 1.99.1
Ms. Ursula Basch
New York State
Departrient of Environmental
Conservation
Room 6126
2 World Trade Center
New York, New York 10047
Dear Ms. Basch;
This is in response to- your giiestlons during our
discussion on June 21 regarding the effluent limitations
guidelines for the stearn electric industry (40 CFR Part 423).
T e pH limitation to low volume waste streams
is int ded to re.qui-r-e "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.
(202-382-7165)
101
Sincerely,
�S/
Dennis Ruddy
Project Officer.
Effluent Guidelines Division

IINN
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 111
6Tm AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
In reply ref or to -
3FN21` J. H. LONG,
March 10, 1976 ! •,E;,�; {
L 7
Mr. James Long
Power Plant Services Section q4•,•�,,
Philadelphia Electric Company'9
2301 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101
Dear Mr. bong:
This is in response to your second progress report submitted February 10,
1976 for the Chester Generating Station (PA 0011614), in which you propose to d:
charge boiler blowdown, zeolite softener regenerates, and evaporator blovdovn ti
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. Econauies
were considered prior to the development of the final guideline limitations,
therefore the expense you have cited as being associated with neutralizing Chest
effluent streams is not a valid argument 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 -streams could be combined with cooling water
for the sole purpose of Dki aeu a as ong as_he anal dischar>:a was ii
th� a �H ram a of 6 - 9. This2o _cy not inconsistent with�uideline reauire-
meats. I.tsKc�u Fe -noted however, that pollutant parameters other. than pH wil:
Be Timited and moait`ore r or to 7e ccm3f-nat3ori -off partcu ar waste source
category with cooling nater.
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
rrelp yours r
Bruce P.Smith
Delmarva -D.C. Section

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irvin.9 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
treetS.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- Cpn•, Edison 1-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
1

l
J
7
3. pF Requirevents (Seerf 1.ue*t �ili_tatxoT?S and I-critcrir_g
Requirements , P. 2) .
DEC prcvoses to maintain the current zF.. 1_t _te.tim (range of
6.0-9.05 for Discharge 002) and de'_Pte the current 6,0-9.0 v
limitation For Discharge 001. DEC also proposes tc add ;H
limiYLtions (6.0-9.0) for :nt_er<al waste streams 001'a
(boiler blow6mm) , COlb (i-'atersilde 'N�o. 1 deminexa' iter
regeneratior_ wastes) , OL`lc (door and equipment drainage)
ar_d 002a (Z,aters_de ''o.2 demireralizer recerel-atior. wastes) .
Iv. addition, DEC has nropcsed to delete pH monitcrirg
requirements at Discharge 001, revise the pu r.cnitor_r_g
:�~nauencv for Discharge 602 frcm. twice weekly to weekly and
add pN monitor'_ng remuirements trr waste streams 00la
(Y=eek) y grab) , 00lb ane. 002a (Qra- before each batch
discharge) and OOlc (t,7iee mon.thly). DEC pr -poses 'that all
new/revised effluent litnitat;crJs andmcr_rtoring recuirements
take effect i=ed.iatelJ upcn the effective date of the
renewal permit..
3

Cor. Edison's position with regard to DEC's proposed pH
requirements is susr�e.rized below:
o Effluent limitations and/or L:onitorirg reauiremePlts for P~
in ir_ternal waste streams 001a, 001b, OClc, 002a or any
other internal waste stream carrot legally be i --posed in
the final permit. --
o There 4-S no er_vi rcra:ental justification for a pN livi t on
internal waste streams. Effluent limits on internal waste
streams are redundant and unnecessary since the current pF?
4 -r -tet of 6.0-9.0 at the point cf discharge tc the public
receiving water provides acequate protection_ of water
reality. Furthermore, a PH limit of 6.0-9.0 has been
deemed acceptable b17 DEC at the point of discharge.
o The costs to achieve a pig 14 --mit of 6.0-9.0 or, internal
waste streams would be wholly dispro-pertionate to anv
limited effluent reduction_ and environmental ber_Pfits to
be derived.
o Even if it were eventually determined that pN limits ma,7
legall-7 be imposed -for waste streams. -001a, 001b, 001c and
002a (whichfor the reasons set' forth it thes-P• cc—aments
carmot lewfull7 be the case) , in order to achie-re
corsister_c— with the limit of 6.0-9.0 at Discharge 001,
such limitations must be less strirrent than a rarge of
6.0-9.0 (applied at the point of d-ischarge), in order to
take full;? into account pR. adjustment w4 -thin_ the
discharge tur.nels ; and
c A com-DIiance schedule to meet pF limits or. interral waste
streans r_e.e_d net be provided if --v-ch i imi is are riot
ultiaateir imposed. Even if it were e,.ertual Z.,
determir_eC that pH. limits cr. irterr_al waste r�t_reams may
legally be imposed, a reascrable ccmpliaance schedule must
be prcviced to install equipment r ecessar;T to ac .leve
such lir- tatLor_s before then become effective.
The support for this position is as fellows:
(a) E�f'uert 1,imitaticr.s and/or Ifer.itorir ?ecuirements for nl?
T `rste Streams � a, c, 2a o_ Any
in ..: tP_rn'tc �z. c r
Other internal Waste Stream Canr_ct Legal'.-- be Imposed
(1) The Clear. rater Act ?.imus the authority under Sectio::
402 to cor.trc=ling the adcitior. cf pollutants 1-
n a-%74-
najTi ga b 1 e waters through. point source discharges
(Sections 301 and 402 a.rd defiritiors specified in
Secticr. 502, Paragraphs (1),(?),(l1),(12) and "(16)).
Based ch., '_-hose sections, eT_ luent 1i u1..tCti ors can
be applieC at the poirt the effluent enters the
receiving waters, except by the consent of the
ntr=ittee. Tlerefore, tre Point c= discharge irtc

navigable waters fcr Discharges 001 and 002 (ar.Z 003)
at the Station is at the confluence of the end of the
discharge_ tur_neis and the East River.
3
(2) EPA's TUDES (Deconsolidated) F?egulatior_s (40 CER 3.22)
essentially track the a.L.thority specified under Section
402 ar_d require effluent 3 imita-tions to be set at the
paint of discharge to navigable waters. Section
122.45(a) states that all permit efLluent limitations
shall be established for "each outfall cr discharge
point of the permitted facilit-y" except as otherwise
provided in Section_ 122.45(i) Section 122.45(i)(1)
states that 1_m_ts on internal waste streams ma', be
imposed in e:_cepticr.al cases ar_d oral if limitations at
the outfall are impractical, or :nfea.sible. Sectior.
122.45(1)(2) states that limits on internal waste
streays may be imposed crIv when the Fact Sheet under
Section 40 CFP. 124.56 sets forth the e_.cepticr.al
circumstar_ces which make such li_mitetions necessary,
such as -when the final discharge -point is inaccessible,
the wastes are so diluted as to take monitoring
impracticable or the interference of pollutants at the
point of dischzrge `wcul-d make detection or arae -Tris
impracticable. Both Sections 122.45-, and 12L.56 are
applicable to State programs.
Based on these regulations, there car, be no exceptionai
circumstance justification for imposition of pH limits
and/ or monitoring requirements cn internal waste
streams unless the rina1. discharge point is
inaccessible for sampling. Yoritoring (detection ar.d
analysis) for pF (unlike pol-lutants measured in terms
of sass or concer.tratio-n , such as heavy TFtals) is -not
impractical at the point o_`_ dis^_haree due to diluti-er_
or interference. Based cn the disti�cticr. Let­,een the
nature _and monitoring or pE and other pollutants, Con
Edison has accepted irterral limits on other pollutants
in some cases (even thcuch we bp that suci; l_iv-i is
car -.lot be imposed based cr. the Clean Water Act
ar_d State Erti iror_mentel Cons er'xat'_cn. Law) since in
those cases we recognize the ir-pract: c-..1 c
dete=ir.ing compliance with effluent 1:.mitations for
such pcilutants at the z�i:^•al disct;zrge (see Section 2.
of these cor.,z.er.ts) . Such =rpracti ca'_ity , howe-:Fr, does
r.ot appl - tc VF.
_tr reaard to the ques*_=or of sampl irg points, pH
samples for Discl-urges 001 ar_ 002 ,re currently taker.
it the discb;arge plume off the dock rather than
directly in the discharge tunnels, since p"t>_- ical
access to the tur-rels is currently unavailable i.e. the
discharge tur-eels termirate under the IMR Drive, about
60 feet from the end of the dock. Fcwever, Cor. Edison_
will create sampling access points in the Discharge 001

and 002 -discharge tunnels by Jure 1, 1985, or by the
beginnirrg of the 1985 chlorination seascr, at Waterside,
whichever is later, a.s part of our chlorine compliance
program ( see cc=, .ents cer..cerring proposed chlcri ne
requirevent s, Sectior_ 4(c)). There -'ore, there is no
'.uEti_i catirr_ For internal waste strew r. pF lim4 is based
or. Section_ 122.45.
(3) Title 8, Article 17 of the Nev, York State Environmental
Conservat4 c Law (ECT ) requires permits for the
discharge of pollutsr.ts Trcm any outlet or point source
to the waters of the stare (Section 17-0803). The ECL
clear!;' limits DEC's author -it- to controlling
pollutants at the point such effluents enter the
receiving waters (Sections 17-0803, 17-0809 and the
definitions specified it 17-0105, Paragraphs
(2),(11),(15) and (16)). This limitation is reirrorced
by the SPDES regulations implementing the ECL (6 FYYCRR
Parts 750-757). Although we believe that the ECL
limits DEC's authority to impose effluent limits at the
final discharge, Con Edison has accepted and will
continue to accept internal waste stream limits for
pollutants other than pH where we believe con-,1_ar.ce
mer_itcring at the final discharge point is impractical,
the limitaticns are reasonable and not more strip-,
than required b appropriate regulations. This is
clearly not the case nor off.
(4) EPA Best Practicable Technology (EPT) regulations limit
the pH of all discharges frot. steam electric power
plants, except or_ce through cooling outer, to a range
of 6.0-9.0 (40 CHR 423.12(b)(1); emphasis r.dcec').
EPA's currert Effluent Limitation Cuidelir_es fcr pE (4 7
FR 52303, :November 19, 1982) are identical to those
ccr.tained it-. the init_zll•r promulgated Guidelines
publishQd ir. the Federal P egis ier cn - October 8 , 1974
(39 _E 36186). In beth the or-iginal and regisec?
Guide lir. es, no PF limitaticns are evplicitl7_T placed. cr
an -1 inter-:+a.l wp.ste streams. Based on the CF:r1T'.iticr�s
specified it-_ the Clear. Water Act, t e ESP_ limitation of
6.0-9.0 would apply or. 1-- at the cutlets o-` the
discharge turnels to the East D4 -Ver and not to aria
internal waste stream.
By 1PttPr dated day 3, 1c84 (at_t`c'rment to Exhibit- 1),
Cor, Edison icrc;allt* reauested that tine U. S.
Er_vi,_c•rrrental Protection_ Agerc�7 (EPA) ciarifv its BF'T
ar'd internal waste stream regulations as they apply to
phi. At a meeting held cr, August 10, 1984 between Cor.
Ed�sor and EPA., the Agenc-• stated that it would t2ve
.bout or_e month to re -view the ruler:aking record arid
inform Con Edison and DEC of its determination.
- t
7--j- Cl.ont r �i PC3 I:e_cEL aer. 13, 1983, DEC St2.tQS

that internal waste stream monitoring is proposed for
specific low volume wastewaters since corepliar_cP with
appl icahle ?-imitations cannot be. determined at the
final discharge. For the following reasons, this
explanation_ does not satisfy Federal (40 CFR 124.56)
and State (6 NYCR1? 753.3) regulations, which require
that Fact Sheets set forth the. _legal ar_d technical
bads of proposed limitations:
(a) The Fact Sheet does not specificallv address the
rationale for the proposed pH limits. Tr fact, it
cannot be determir.ed from the Fact Sheer_ to which
waste streams v.rd pollutants the e:;plar.ati.on
prov4ded in the Fact Sheet applies;
(b) 1-'1-e Fact Sheet does not specif;� whether the
proposed pH limits are based cn EPA's Guidelines
for Steam Electric Power Plants or DEC's Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ) determination of Best
Practicable Technolog,7 (EPT) or Best Conve"ti.onal
Technology (BCT), or any other basis;
1. z; the proposed limit is besed on EPA's
Guidelines, it does rot specify whether DFC
interprets the 6.0-9.0 BPT pH -Limit to apply to
internal waste streams (ar.d if so, the rPascr_s
for that intepretation) or to final discharges;
2. If the proposed limit is based or. BPJ, it roes
not address the factors specified in Section 304
of the Clean Water Act or 40 CF?_ 125.3 (See
Paragraph 3.(d) of these comments);
(c) The Fact Sheet does not specif, which sections of
the Clear_ Water Act 5r_d State Environmental
Cor.servation Law. provide DEC with the authorit f to
impose ir.terra]- waste strepm limits for pF. Ncr
does it spec:f7 the sections of EPA ar.d ^EC
regulatior_s which authcri_ze such —units ; ard.
(d) The 'Fact Sbeet does not specif-1 which of the
e:.-ceptional circumstances speci_`_ed in 40 CFR
? 22.45 (i) , it an-%, it relied or. tc reach the st,.ted
ccrclusion that compliarce with the 6.0-9.0 pH
7._mitation cannot be c'ere inec by monitoring at
the final discharge.
(b) There is Yo Envircnmer.tal_ ?usti-eication for pH limits c_r_
lrternal Water Streams
The current pH limitation of 6.0-9.0 at Discharges 001 and
002 affords a.dequate protection. of stab, is receivirg. eater
quality. A pN limit of 6.0-9.0 at the point of discharge
VIPs deemed acceptable b•T EPr P.egion -1-1 ( and DEC b -T _ts

Section 401 Certification) in the initial discharge permit
issued by F,egion'II on November 30, 1974, as well as by DEC
(and Re -ion II in its overview capacity) in the renewa
permit issued b,T DEC_' on July 1, 1980. Both the initial and
renewal permits were based on EPA's Effluent Guidelines
promulgated cn October 8, 1974 and were to have included ary
more stringent water cuality-based--requirements. Sir_ce
applicable Effluent Guidelines fqr pH have not charged sir_ce
initial permit issuance and DEC has nct shown that a final
discharge pH within t::e range of 6.0-9.0 has caused or will
cause any adverse environmental impacts, there is no basis
For imposition of afore stringer_t pl! limitations in the
renewal permit. In addition, b-- proposing to maintain the
current 6.0-9.0 pH limitation for Discharge 002, DEC has
deemed that range acceptable at the point of discharge.
Furthermore, installaticv. of a waste neutraii�ation system,
which would be required to meet the proposed limits, would
result i n the a6ditior. of signi ficar. t amounts cf
neutralizing chemicals (acid/caustic), thereby increasing
the amount of pollutants discharged. J
(c) The Cost To Achieve Interna? Waste Stream pN Limits Ts
7_c_ y Dis ro crtiorate To The E__luert Reduction Benefits
To Be Derive
The Waterside Staticr_ has two demineralization systems,
�?hich are housed in separate buildings. In order to achieve
the proposed pH limits fcr demineralizer reger.eratior_ waste
streams (001b and. 002a),. installation_ of two waste
neutralizatiov systems would be required due to the physical
layout of the facility and the relativel3 Large number of
reger_eratior.s performed (See SPDES Applicati-on Update for
more detailed information cer_cervirg regpr_eratior_ waste
stream:s). Each s?=stem would consist of 1-2 large
reutre_14-zation. tanks, Dumps, acid and caustic inieeticr.
s --stems, instruirer_tation ar_d controls and an elaborate
piping system. Con Edison. ccnservat_�jely 'estimates the
total capital cost of these s, -stems to be $3-5 LTillien, a
reasonable estimate taking into acccunt the nature of the
facili ty (prin.-aril- steam sendcut) , age of the facility, its
ph -7S; -cal la;Tout and space 1imitatiens, and she relatively
large number of reger_erafiior.s (due to steam sencout) . These
ccsts would increase substantially if a. Fu limit o 6.0-9.0
is imposed. fcr boiler blewdcT,-n (001a; and 002a in current
permit) , which has a pH cf 10-10.5. In additicr, ,
substantial cperating casts ( labor ar.d chemicals) would be
ir.cLrred. Tbese capital and cperatir.g costs- would
ult Ma -el y be borne btu Cor. Edison' s steam an electric
ratepayers. r
As stated abol;e, Con Eason_ believes that there is r:o
ervironrr_ental justif= cat? on for a pfi limit of 6.0-9 .0 on
interna? waste streams. Such limits wculd result in lithe,
iJ_ ar•,T, envirormer_tal benefits, which are wholly

disproportionate -to the costs that would be borne by Con
Edison and' its ratepayers. As specified above, such
recuirenents Ti,ould, in fact, -result in the discharge of
increased atrour_t or pollutants.
(d)
!f It Were Eventually To Ee Dete-=fined That s a-�r
Le a11t• Be Itnaesedcr Internal -Taste Streams Such
Limitations iIusr. be Less Stringent than6.0-9.0
The existing pH limits of 6.0-9.0 for Discharges 001 and 00
reflect Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Azrailable (BPT) as defined by EPA 1140 CFR 423.12(b)(1)). EV
limiting the pH cf internal waste streams to that same
range, DEC is, in effect, proposing a 14 -Mit more stringent
than BPT. Section 301(b)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act
provides for more stringent limits than PPT for of and other
cor_ Tentional pollutants b;. application_ of the Lest
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology* (BCT). EPA has
deferred promulgation of ECT limitations for power plants
pending promulgation of a revised BCT methodology.
Therefore, any BCT limits imposed. in a pcwer plant permit
must be developed on a case-btT-case basis, pursuant to
Secten 402(a)(1) of the Clean slater Act and Article 17,
Title 8 of the S ta•.te Environmental Conservation l,aw.
The proposed internal waste stream limitatior of 6.0-9.0
must accordingly be based on a case-bv-case determination cf
BCT by DEC. EPA regulations (40 CFR 125.3(c)) allow the
itpositior. of technology based limitations to the entent
FPA -promulgated effluent guidelines are inapplicable. Ire
these cases, the permit iSsuin_g authority (DEC) is required
to apply the appropriate factors speca_fied i.r. Secticr•. 304(b)
of the Clear_ Water Act. Fe r de, e? cpmer,t of ECT
limitatior..s , r.► e -factors specified in. Section 304 (b) (4) (B)
must be applied. These factors include "rhe reasonableness
o� the relationship between the costs of attair_ing a
reduction in effluent and the effluer_t reductior. benefits
derived, ar.c the comparison of the cost and level of
reduction or such pollutant from publicly ow-r:ec treatment
works to the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants
frctz a class of categor4T of indust -_4_,,:)_I scurce" are "the age
O. equipment and facilities involved, the process emplcyed,
the engineering aspects of the application of i7 rious t-pes
of ccntrel techr_ieues, process changes, non -water quality
envirormer.ta.l iMpacts (including energ? re•cuirements) ."
Case-by-case limits trust also consider the aprrcpriate
techr_clogy fen tl:e applicant's Industria'_ category nd any
ur_iaue ractcrc relating tc the facili t;T (40 CFR
125.3(c)(2)). These factors trust be considered regardless
Of the Permit issuing authorit.> (40 CFP•. 125.3 (c)) .
On Novembe, 18, 1982, EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 124.56
ar-d 40 CFF 125.3 to eVpli c; tly specify the statut07"T and
^+ roT tar-. n r s that rrust - be considered in setting

case-by-case, nest Professional Judgem.ert (BPJ) limits and.
the ir_f'ormati.or: that must be-rcluded in the Fact Sheet (47
x??
5207").- The prearble to the proposed regulations state,s'
that "Section 1245.3(c)(2) alre2d-7 requires permit writers to
consider -'"statutor-y factors" in issuing EPJ permits, s'o
these changes s :.uply clarify zr. e.ristir_g requirement . " (47
FR 52080). The propcsed regulaticnsT therefore, would make
explicit what is already required, namely the application of
the statutory factors and any other factors considered it
the determination of BPJ limits and. the inclusion in the
Fact Sheet of any analysis o` the appl_cation e these
factors and identification of a: T- guidance or other
documents relied upon in setting the limits.
DEC has not provided Con Edison with anv documentation of
its ccr_sideratior. of the factors specified in vection
304(b)(4)(B) and 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) in its development of
the proposed LCT limits for pF. Therefore, DEC cannot at
this time impose BCT limitations more stringent than EPT.
Evers if it should ultimately be determined that DEC may
impose pH limits
on internal waste streams, which for the
reasons set forth herein_ we submit it cannot lawfull-* ft,
then such limitations must be less stringent than 6.0-4.0 so
as not to be in conflict with a 6.0-9.0 1 imitation at the
point of discharge. Otherwise, the internal limitations
would be more stringent that EPT and must be lust ifiec
taking into account the factors specified above. ✓
(e) Ever_ If It Were EZ=entuallr To Be-Determir?d That pH Limits
Mat Lega11'T Be imposed For Interna T"4sto Strea ic, P
Reasonable Compliance -Schedule 'dust be Provided
1L it were to eventua'_?y be deter -.4' ed that pE limits may
legally be imposed on internal waste streams ane such
limitations were inposed, a reasor.able sch.eCu1e of
ccmpliance T,�ould need to be provided in order tc permit-
procurement
ermitprocurement ar.d installation of r._ecess rl- ec_uipment before
such limits become effecti,,7e.
DEC's proposed compliance deadline (effective date of the
rer.ewal permit) is both arbitrary and impossible to achieve.
Althouch DEC has nct provided its rationale fcr the proposed
compliance deEdlir.e, we presume that it was based or- the BCT
dead14ne cf Jule 1, 1084 specifies' in Sect-cr.301(b) (.Z; (r)
C. the Clean Fater Act. ucwe_-:er, since DEC's prcposed
limits canr_ct legall- be imposed under BCT as discussed
pre-viously, t::e July 1 , 1n34 deadline s'ces nct a.ppl.-y.
If theprcposed unrerscr_able and irr:practicable compliance
deadline were to be ever_tuallIr imposed, Cor_ eiscr, would
urfairl- be past in the ur_ter.zble position of immediately
,riclatir_g the pe --::mit. For purposes of framing the issues
=or consideration. in a hearing, ar,v per -mit issued byT DEC

containing pH limits on internal waste streams should
contain a realistic ecmpliance schedule, to be subsequently
agraed uperr, which would er_cou.pass time periods recessar�=
for the procurement and. installation of necessary equipment.
(f) Monitoring P.eauiremer_ts
Monitoring requirements for pH cannot legally be imposed for
ir_terral waste steams for the reasons stated herein. If it
were eventuall-7 to be detert:'_ned that pE monitoring
reauirem.ents ma -y' legally be imposed on internal wastes
streams, moni tering requirements for t::cse waste streams
should not be required prier to a realsti.c cotrpl. 4 arce
deadline ezentuall-T agreed uper. (see paragraph (e) abo-%-e) ,
since the lira tatier.s would not be effective until that
time. We car -not currently comply with the proposed
requirement of taxing grab sar:ples before each batch
discharge of demir.era.lizer regeneration wastes (001b and
002x), since there' is no pro -%T -Sion for holding up these
wastes prior to discharge. Even if neutral- izztion s;,stems
are installed, this proposed requirement may be
impracticable, i f the systers are designed for
semi -continuous operation_ in +which, when the e'ffluert is
within the set pH range, discharge may occur man;+ times over
a regeneratier cycle.
In summary, effluent limitations and monitoring requirements
nor pH should not be imposed for internal waste streams for the
reasons specified above. The only pH limits that L"atr be imposed
are the current EPT permit limitations of 5.0-9.0 at Discharges
001 and 002 (and 003) . This approach would be co-asister_t with
that recommended b -r DEC in its Division. of Water Guidar_ce
memorandum 'No. g4-7;-33- ("EPJ .-`.ethodolo`i es - Guidar_ce for the
Application of Pest Professional Judgement (BP-) in Determining
S'DES Ccneitions," dated April 1933), which states (Section
VIII.E.) :
"T-,ith regard to corventl oval pc, iultar_ts , the Jepartmert
will generally consider BPT as acceptable level of
cor.trcl, unless effluent guidelines or Eater quality
r_ecess__ate more stringent control."
Since effluent guidelines Trap -date z pH
ii -tit of
F.0 -9.0y at
the
Doi t c-' discharge and. water CLc?ii t-17
has riot
been shown
to
necessitate ar_-- mere stringent limits,
the current limits
are
a.r,prcpriate and should be mair.t`ined.
DEC ma-
net impose a
particular techrclogy fcr meeting SDrES
limits.
Trerefo :e,
Cert
Edison should be free to meet those limitations by the method
of'
our choice.
Ever, if DEC could legally it:pose pH lim,ita.ti ons for internal
waste strea:rs at this fac l4 ty, a ccmpliance schedule Tacul d be
recuired to ech=evesuch limitations. l,j addition,
not'W thstandin g the legal arguments against imposition: of pN

N%
LM
t
requirements for interral
waste
streams, DEC must
provide the
legal and
technical
basis,
including any
supporting
dccumer.tation,
-for am7
such
reeuireuer.-ts prior
to their
estab1.ishr__er,t
in z. f final pe=i
t .
II` such rationale is
e-17e.-ntua� � tT
prcvided, Cor.
Ed; son -ust
be given
a rea.sor.able oppertunity for
evaluaticn and
submission.
of ccmments
.
a ,
N%
LM
t