Environmental Science & Technology, 49(22), 13094-13102. doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03547.
    \139\ Weisman, R., Heinrich, A., Letkiewicz, F., Messner, M.,
Studer, K., Wang, L., . . . Regli, S. (2022). Estimating National
Exposures and Potential Bladder Cancer Cases Associated with
Chlorination DBPs in U.S. Drinking Water. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 130:8, 087002-1-087002-10. ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP9985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Ecological Condition and Recreational Use Effects From Changes in
Surface Water Quality Improvements
    EPA evaluated whether the regulatory options in this proposal would
alter aquatic habitats and human welfare by changing concentrations of
harmful pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, zinc, nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended
sediment relative to baseline. As a result, the usability of some
recreational waters relative to baseline discharge conditions could
change under each option, thereby affecting recreational users. Changes
in pollutant loadings can also change the attractiveness of
recreational waters by making recreational trips more or less
enjoyable. The regulatory options may also change nonuse values
stemming from bequest, altruism, and

existence motivations. Individuals may value water quality maintenance,
ecosystem protection, and healthy species populations independent of
any use of those attributes.
    EPA uses a water quality index (WQI) to translate water quality
measurements, gathered for multiple parameters that are indicative of
various aspects of water quality, into a single numerical indicator
that reflects achievement of quality consistent with the suitability
for certain uses. The WQI includes seven parameters: dissolved oxygen,
biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, TSS, and one aggregate subindex for toxics. EPA modeled
changes in four of these parameters and held the remaining parameters
(dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and fecal coliform)
constant for the purposes of this analysis.
    EPA estimated the change in monetized benefit values using an
updated version of the meta-regressions of surface water valuation
studies used in the benefit analyses of the 2015 and 2020 rules. The
meta-regressions quantify average household willingness to pay (WTP)
for incremental improvements in surface water quality. Chapter 6 of the
BCA provides additional detail on the valuation methodology.
    Table XII-4 of this preamble presents annualized total WTP values
for water quality changes associated with reductions in metal (arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, and nickel), nonmetal
(selenium), nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen), and sediment pollutant
discharges to the reach miles affected by the proposed regulatory
options. An estimated 82 million households reside in Census block
groups within 100 miles of reaches with steam electric plants affected
under the proposed rule.\140\ The central tendency estimate of the
total annualized benefits of water quality changes for the proposed
rule are $4.1 million using a three percent discount rate ($3.6 million
using a seven percent discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ A reach is a section of a stream or river along which
similar hydrologic conditions exist, such as discharge, depth, area,
and slope.

   Table XII-4--Estimated Total WTP for Water Quality Improvements Under the Proposed ELG Options Compared to
                                                    Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total annualized WTP (million
                                                     Number of    Average annual              2021$)
                Regulatory option                    affected         WTP per    -------------------------------
                                                    households       household      3% Discount     7% Discount
                                                     (million)        (2021$)          rate            rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1........................................            76.2           $0.05           $3.02           $2.64
Option 2........................................            80.6            0.05            3.82            3.32
Option 3........................................            82.1            0.06            4.09            3.56
Option 4........................................            82.1            0.06            4.27            3.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Changes in Air-Quality-Related Effects
    EPA expects the proposed options to affect air pollution through
three main mechanisms: (1) changes in auxiliary electricity use by
steam electric facilities to operate wastewater treatment, ash
handling, and other systems that facilities may use under each proposed
option; (2) changes in transportation-related air emissions due to
changes in trucking of CCR waste to landfills; and (3) changes in the
electricity generation profile from increases in wastewater treatment
costs compared to baseline and the resulting changes in EGU relative
operating costs.
    Changes in the electricity generation profile can increase or
decrease air pollutant emissions because emission factors vary for
different types of EGUs. For this analysis, the changes in air
emissions are based on the change in dispatch of EGUs as projected by
IPM after overlaying the costs of complying with the proposed rule onto
EGUs' production costs. As discussed in Section VIII of this preamble,
the IPM analysis accounts for the effects of other regulations on the
electric power sector.
    EPA evaluated potential effects resulting from net changes in air
emissions of four pollutants: CO2, NOX,
SO2, and primary PM2.5. CO2 is a key
GHG linked to a wide range of climate-related effects, and also the
main GHG emitted from coal power plants. NOX and
SOX are precursors to fine particles sized 2.5 microns and
smaller (PM2.5), which are also emitted directly, and
NOX is an ozone precursor. These air pollutants cause a
variety of adverse health effects including premature death, nonfatal
heart attacks, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, upper
and lower respiratory symptoms, acute bronchitis, aggravated asthma,
lost work and school days, and acute respiratory symptoms.
    Table XII-5 of this preamble shows the changes in emissions of
CO2, NOX, SO2, and primary
PM2.5 under the proposed rule (Option 3) relative to
baseline for selected IPM run years. The proposed rule would result in
a net reduction in air emissions of all four pollutants. This effect is
driven mostly by the estimated changes in the profile of electricity
generation, as emission reductions due to shifts in modeled EGU
dispatch and energy sources offsets relatively small increases in air
emissions from increased electricity use and trucking by steam electric
plants.

     Table XII-5--Estimated Changes In Air Pollutant Emissions Under the Proposed Rule Compared to Baseline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Primary PM2.5
                                                   CO2 (million    NOX (thousand   SO2 (thousand     (thousand
                      Year                        metric tonnes/    short tons/     short tons/     short tons/
                                                       year)           year)           year)           year)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2028............................................            -0.7            -1.9            -1.0           -0.12
2030............................................            -4.7            -3.3            -2.0           -0.20
2035............................................           -10.5            -5.1            -5.8           -0.32
2040............................................            -7.2            -3.7            -4.4           -0.19
2045............................................           -11.9            -7.5            -9.3           -0.75
2050............................................            -3.0            -2.0            -7.6           -0.13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA estimated the monetized value of human health benefits among
populations exposed to changes in PM2.5 and ozone. The
proposed rule is expected to alter the emissions of primary
PM2.5, SO2 and NOX, which will in turn
affect the level of PM2.5 and ozone in the atmosphere. Using
photochemical modeling, EPA predicted the change in the annual average
PM2.5 and summer season ozone across the United States. EPA
next quantified the human health impacts and economic value of these
changes in air quality using the environmental Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program--Community Edition. EPA quantified effects using
concentration-response parameters, which are consistent with those the
Agency used in the PM NAAQS, Ozone NAAQS, and ACE RIAs (U.S. EPA, 2012;
2015; 2019).
    To estimate the climate benefits associated with changes in
CO2 emissions, EPA used estimates of the social cost of
carbon (SC-CO2) to value changes in CO2
emissions. The SC-CO2 is the monetary value of the net harm
to society associated with a marginal increase in CO2
emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ In principle, the SC-CO2 includes the value of
all climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes
in net agricultural productivity, human health effects, property
damage from increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption
of energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and
the value of ecosystem services. The SC-CO2 therefore,
reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of by one metric
ton. EPA and other Federal agencies began regularly incorporating
estimates of SC-CO2 in their benefit-cost analyses
conducted under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 since 2008, following a
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remand of a rule for failing to
monetize the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions in a
rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA estimates the climate benefits of CO2 emission
reductions expected from the proposed rule using the SC-CO2
estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost
of Greenhouse Gases (IWG) in the February 2021 Technical Support
Document (TSD): Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide
Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990 (IWG 2021). These SC-CO2
estimates are interim values developed under E.O. 13990 for use in
benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of the impacts of climate
change can be developed based on the best available climate science and
economics. EPA has evaluated the SC-CO2 estimates in the TSD
and have determined that these estimates are appropriate for use in
estimating the climate benefits of CO2 emission reductions
expected from this proposed rule. After considering the TSD, and the
issues and studies discussed therein, EPA finds that these estimates,
while likely an underestimate, are the best currently available SC-
CO2 estimates. These SC-CO2 estimates were
developed over many years, using a transparent process, peer-reviewed
methodologies, the best science available at the time of that process,
and with input from the public.\142\ The IWG is currently working on a
comprehensive update of the SC-CO2 estimates (under E.O.
13990) taking into consideration recommendations from the National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, recent scientific
literature, public comments received on the February 2021 TSD and other
input from experts and diverse stakeholder groups. The EPA is
participating in the IWG's work. In addition, while that process
continues, EPA is continuously reviewing developments in the scientific
literature on the SC-CO2, including more robust
methodologies for estimating damages from emissions, and looking for
opportunities to further improve SC-CO2 estimation going
forward. Most recently, EPA has developed a draft updated SC-
CO2 methodology within a sensitivity analysis in the
regulatory impact analysis of EPA's November 2022 supplemental proposal
for oil and gas standards that is currently undergoing external peer
review and a public comment process. See Chapter 8 of the BCA for more
discussion of this effort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ As discussed in Chapter 8 of the BCA, these interim SC-
CO2 estimates have a number of limitations, including
that the models used to produce them do not include all of the
important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate
change recognized in the climate-change literature and that several
modeling input assumptions are outdated. As discussed in the
February 2021 TSD, the IWG finds that, taken together, the
limitations suggest that these SC-CO2 estimates likely
underestimate the damages from CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table XII-6 of this preamble shows the annualized climate change,
PM2.5, and ozone-related human health benefits for the
proposed rule (Option 3). Climate change benefits are presented for
each of four SC-CO2 values and discounted using the same
discount rate used in developing the SC-CO2 values, whereas
the PM2.5 and ozone-related human health benefits are based
on long-term ozone exposure mortality risk estimates and with three and
seven percent discount rates. Consistent with the 2015 rule, summary
benefits and net benefits estimates focus on the three percent
(average) SC-CO2 value. See Chapter 8 of the BCA report for
benefits based on pooled short-term ozone exposure mortality risk
estimate.

                         Table XII-6--Estimated Changes in Air Pollutant Emissions Under the Proposed Rule Compared to Baseline
                                                                   [Millions of 2021$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             PM2.5 and
                                                                           ozone related                                     PM2.5 and
                                                          Climate change   human health                   Climate change   ozone related
                         SC-CO2                              benefits     benefits at 3%       Total         benefits      human health        Total
                                                                           discount rate                                  benefits at 7%
                                                                                \a\                                        discount rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% (Average)............................................            $440          $1,100          $1,540            $440            $840          $1,280
5% (Average)............................................             140           1,100           1,240             140             840             980
2.5% (Average)..........................................             630           1,100           1,730             630             840           1,470
3% (95th Percentile)....................................           1,300           1,100           2,400           1,300             840           2,140
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Reflects long-term ozone exposure mortality risk estimate.

    Estimates of monetized co-benefits shown here do not include
several important benefit categories, such as direct exposure to
SO2, NOX, and HAPs, including mercury and
hydrogen chloride. Although EPA does not have sufficient information or
modeling available to provide monetized estimates of changes in
exposure to these pollutants for the proposed rule, EPA includes a
discussion of these unquantified benefits in the BCA. For more
information on the benefits analysis, see Chapter 8 of the BCA Report.
4. Other Quantified and/or Monetized Benefits
a. Changes in Dredging Costs
    The four regulatory options would affect discharge loadings of
various categories of pollutants, including TSS, thereby changing the
rate of sediment deposition to affected waterbodies, including
navigable waterways and reservoirs that require dredging for
maintenance. Sediment buildup in navigable waterways, including rivers,
lakes, bays, shipping channels, and harbors can reduce the navigable
depth and width of the waterway. In many cases, periodic dredging is
necessary to keep them passable. Reservoirs serve many functions,
including storage of drinking and irrigation water supplies, flood
control, hydropower supply, and recreation. Streams can carry sediment
into reservoirs, where it can settle and cause buildup of silt layers
over time. Sedimentation reduces reservoir capacity and the useful life
of reservoirs unless measures such as dredging are taken to reclaim
capacity. As it had done for the 2015 and 2020 rule analyses, EPA
estimated changes in sedimentation and associated maintenance dredging
costs in reaches and reservoirs affected by steam electric plant
discharges. Chapter 9 of the BCA provides additional detail on the
methodology.
    EPA expects that the proposed rule may provide relatively small
annualized cost savings ranging from $3,900 to $5,500 per year, using
three percent and seven percent discount rates, respectively.
b. Benefits to Threatened and Endangered Species
    To assess the potential for the rule to benefit threatened and
endangered species (both aquatic and terrestrial) relative to the 2020
ELG baseline, EPA analyzed the overlap between waters expected to see
reductions in wildlife water quality criteria exceedance status under a
particular option and the known critical habitat locations of high-
vulnerability threatened and endangered species. EPA examined the life
history traits of potentially affected threatened and endangered
species and categorized them by potential for population impacts due to
surface water quality changes. Chapter 7 of the BCA Report provides
additional detail on the methodology. EPA's analysis showed that there
are 28 species whose known critical habitats overlap with surface
waters where facilities may be affected by the proposed options.
Improvements under the proposed rule between 2025 and 2029 are
estimated to potentially benefit five species, including two species
EPA categorized as having a higher vulnerability to water pollution
(Colorado pikeminnow and Razorback sucker). Improvements projected
after 2030 are estimated to benefit three species, including one higher
vulnerability species (Topeka Shiner). Principal sources of uncertainty
include the specifics of how changes under the regulatory options will
impact threatened and endangered species, exact spatial distribution of
the species, and additional species of concern not considered.

C. Total Monetized Benefits

    Using the analysis approach described above, EPA estimated
annualized benefits of the four regulatory options for all monetized
categories. Table XII-7 and Table XII-8 of this preamble summarize the
total annualized benefits using three percent and seven percent
discount rates, respectively. The proposed rule (Option 3) has
monetized benefits estimated at $1,557 million using a three percent
discount rate and $1,290 million using a seven percent discount rate.

             Table XII-7--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Three Percent
                                               [Millions of 2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Benefit category                     Option 1        Option 2        Option 3        Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes.            $3.4           $12.4           $12.7           $15.8
Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure             <0.01           <0.01            0.01            0.01
 to lead \a\....................................
Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure               2.9             3.0             3.1             3.1
 to mercury.....................................
Reduced cancer risk from disinfection byproducts             0.5             9.4             9.6            12.7
 in drinking water..............................
Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use                   3.0             3.8             4.1             4.3
 Changes........................................
Use and nonuse values for water quality                      3.0             3.8             4.1             4.3
 improvements...................................
Market and Productivity \a\.....................           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01

Changes in dredging costs \a\...................           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01
Air-Related Effects.............................             690           1,320           1,540           1,650
Changes in CO2 air emissions \b\ \c\............             190             370             440             450
Changes in human health effects from Changes in              500             950           1,100           1,200
 NOX and SO2 emissions \b\......................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             696           1,336           1,557           1,670
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``<$0.01'' indicates that monetary values are greater than $0 but less than $0.01 million.
\b\ EPA estimated the air-related benefits for Option 3 using IPM. EPA did not analyze Options 1, 2, and 4 using
  IPM. Instead, EPA extrapolated estimates for air-related benefits from Options 1, 2, and 4 from the estimate
  for Option 3 in proportion to social costs.
\c\ Changes in CO2 air emissions monetized using the SC-CO2 at 3% (average). See Section XII.B.3 of this
  preamble for benefits monetized using other SC-CO2 values.

             Table XII-8--Summary of Total Estimated Annualized Monetized Benefits at Seven Percent
                                               [Millions of 2021$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Benefit category                     Option 1        Option 2        Option 3        Option 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health Effects from Water Quality Changes.            $0.8            $6.6            $6.8            $8.8
Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure             <0.01           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01
 to lead \a\....................................
Changes in IQ losses in children from exposure               0.5             0.6             0.6             0.6
 to mercury.....................................
Reduced cancer risk from DBPs in drinking water.             0.3             6.1             6.2             8.3
Ecological Conditions and Recreational Use                   2.6             3.3             3.6             3.7
 Changes........................................
Use and nonuse values for water quality                      2.6             3.3             3.6             3.7
 improvements...................................
Market and Productivity \a\.....................           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01
Changes in dredging costs \a\...................           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01           <0.01
Air-Related Effects.............................             570           1,070           1,280           1,320
Changes in CO2 air emissions \b\ \c\............             190             370             440             450
Changes in human health effects from Changes in              380             700             840             870
 NOX and SO2 emissions \b\......................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             573           1,080           1,290           1,333
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ``<$0.01'' indicates that monetary values are greater than $0 but less than $0.01 million.
\b\ EPA estimated the air-related benefits for Option 3 using IPM. EPA did not analyze Options 1, 2, and 4 using
  IPM. Instead, EPA extrapolated estimates for air-related benefits from Options 1, 2, and 4 from the estimate
  for Option 3 in proportion to social costs.
\c\ Changes in CO2 air emissions monetized using the SC-CO2 at 3% (average). See Section XII.B.3 for benefits
  monetized using other SC-CO2 values.

D. Additional Benefits

    The monetary value of the proposed rule's effects on social welfare
does not account for all effects of the proposed options because, as
described above, EPA is currently unable to quantify and/or monetize
some categories. EPA anticipates the proposed rule would also generate
important unquantified benefits, including but not limited to:
     health benefits to over 30 million people who will
experience reductions in PWS-level arsenic, lead, and thallium
concentrations, including reductions in unmonetized cancer and non-
cancer effects from exposure to toxic pollutants from consumption of
fish consumption or drinking water;
     reduced cardiovascular disease from changes in exposure to
lead from fish consumption;
     unquantified and unmonetized averted IQ losses and
educational effects from childhood lead exposure and in-utero mercury
exposure from fish consumption by households that do not engage in
recreational and subsistence fishing;
     reduced cancer morbidity effects beyond medical expenses;
     improved habitat conditions for plants, invertebrates,
fish, amphibians, and the wildlife that prey on aquatic organisms;
     enhanced ecosystem productivity and health, including
reduced toxic discharges into habitats for over 100 high-vulnerability
threatened and endangered species;
     changes to water treatment costs for drinking water,
irrigation, and agricultural uses;
     changes in fisheries yield and harvest quality from
aquatic habitat changes;
     changes in health hazards from recreational exposures; and
     groundwater quality impacts.
    While some health benefits and willingness to pay for water quality
improvements have been partially quantified and/or monetized, those
estimates may not fully capture all important water quality-related
benefits. Although the following quantifications cannot necessarily be
combined with other monetized effects, another way to characterize the
benefits is that the proposed rule is expected to result in a 12.5
percent reduction in chronic exceedances and a 100 percent reduction in
acute exceedances of the national recommended water quality criteria,
and up to an 82 percent reduction in the number of reaches with ambient
concentrations exceeding human health criteria for at least one
pollutant.
    The BCA Report discusses changes in these potentially important
effects qualitatively, indicating their potential magnitude where
possible. EPA will continue to seek to enhance its approaches to
quantify and/or monetize a broader set of benefits for any final rule
and solicits comment on monetizing some of these additional

benefits categories consistent with the approach discussed in IPI
(2022).\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ IPI (Institute for Policy Integrity). June 2022. Measuring
the Benefits of Power Plant Effluent Regulation: The 2020 Steam
Electric Reconsideration Rule and Potential Future Methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIII. Environmental Justice Impacts

    Consistent with EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, the Agency has analyzed the
impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns and sought input
and feedback from stakeholders representing these communities. EPA has
prepared this analysis to implement the recommendations of the Agency's
EJ Technical Guidance.\144\ For ELG rulemakings, this analysis is
typically conducted as part of the BCA alongside other nonstatutorily
required analyses such as monetized benefits, but for this action was
placed in a standalone Environmental Justice Analysis (EJA) document to
present in more detail the potential EJ impacts of this proposal and
the initial outreach to communities with potential EJ impacts. This
analysis is intended to provide the public with a discussion of the
potential EJ impacts of this proposal. The analysis does not form a
basis or rationale for any of the actions EPA is proposing in this
rulemaking. Executive Order 12898 is discussed in Section XI.J of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2016.
Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory
Analysis. June. Available online at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the analysis showed that benefits associated with
improvements to water quality, wildlife, and human health resulting
from reductions in pollutants in surface water and drinking water will
accrue to minority and low-income populations at a higher rate under
some or all of the proposed regulatory options. Remaining exposures,
impacts, costs, and benefits analyzed either accrue at a higher rate to
populations which are not minority or low-income, accrue
proportionately to all populations, or are small enough that EPA could
not conclude whether changes in disproportionate impacts would occur.
While the changes in GHGs attributable to the proposed regulatory
options are relatively small compared to worldwide emissions, findings
from peer-reviewed evaluations demonstrate that actions that reduce GHG
emissions are also likely to reduce climate impacts on vulnerable
communities, including minority and low-income communities. The methods
and findings of the EJA are described in further detail below.

A. Literature Review

    EPA conducted a literature review to identify academic research and
articles on EJ concerns related to coal-fired power plants. EPA
identified four papers that focused on coal-fired power plants in the
United States that were directly relevant to this proposed rule. The
findings of these papers suggest that coal-fired power plants tend to
be in poor, minority, and indigenous communities. Toomey (2013)
reported that 78 percent of African Americans in the United States live
within a 30-mile radius of a coal-fired power plant.\145\ Impacts
discussed in the reports included adverse health impacts resulting from
air pollutants (e.g., SO2, NOX, PM2.5)
for those living in proximity to coal-fired power plants, climate
justice issues resulting from GHG emissions, and risk of impoundment
failures for populations living in proximity to coal waste surface
impoundments where coal is mined.146 147 148 All these
impacts were found in one or more papers to disproportionately impact
poor, minority, and indigenous communities. EPA solicits comment on
additional literature that discusses EJ impacts related to the specific
changes being made to steam electric power plants. For further
discussion of the literature review, see section 5 of the EJA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Toomey, Diane. 2013. Coal Pollution and the Fight for
Environmental Justice. Yale Environment 360. June 19. Available
online at: www.e360.yale.edu/features/naacp_jacqueline_patterson_coal_pollution_and_fight_for_environmental_justice.
    \146\ Li[eacute]vanos, R.S., P. Greenberg, and R. Wishart. 2018.
In the Shadow of Production: Coal Waste Accumulation and
Environmental Inequality Formation in Eastern Kentucky. Social
Science Research, Vol. 71: pp. 37-55.
    \147\ Israel, B. 2012. Coal Plants Smother Communities of Color.
Scientific American. www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-plants-
smother-communities-of-color/
#:~:text=People%20living%20near%20coal%20plants,percent%20are%20peopl
e%20of%20color.
    \148\ NAACP. 2012. National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People. Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People.
www.naacp.org/resources/coal-blooded-putting-profits-people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Screening Analysis and Community Outreach

    EPA performed a set of screening analyses with the EJSCREENBatch
tool to identify the environmental and socioeconomic characteristics of
the communities that are expected to be impacted by discharges from
steam electric plants via relevant exposure pathways. First, EPA
conducted a screening for potential air impacts using one- and three-
mile buffers around the facility GIS coordinates. Second, EPA conducted
a screening for potential impacts in downstream surface waterbodies
using one-, three-, 50-, and 100-mile buffer distances around each
waterbody segment downstream of the initial common identifiers (COMIDs)
identified for each effluent discharge.\149\ Finally, EPA conducted a
screening for potential drinking water impacts using ZIP code
information for downstream public water systems (PWSs) in the absence
of a complete data set of actual service area boundaries for all PWSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Defined as 300 kilometers (~187 miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using the results of these screening analyses, EPA tiered
communities under all three screening analyses to prioritize
communities for potential outreach and engagement. To tier the
communities, EPA evaluated how many of the following criteria applied
to a community's screening results:
     The community has both demographic (minority and low
income \150\) indicators and at least one environmental indicator \151\
above the 50th percentile nationally or has all environmental
indicators and at least one demographic indicator above the 50th
percentile nationally;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ The minority and low-income indicators are derived from
EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN).
For more information on EJSCREEN's definitions of minority and low
income, see U.S. EPA. 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EJSCREEN Technical Documentation. www.epa.gov/ejscreen/technical-information-about-ejscreen.
    \151\ EPA used environmental indicators from EJSCREEN that
include direct and proxy indicators of potential pollution
exposures. For more information on the environmental indicators
included in EJSCREEN see U.S. EPA (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The community has two or more demographic and/or
environmental indicators above the 80th percentile nationally;
     The community has one or more demographic and/or
environmental indicators above the 90th percentile nationally; or
     The community has one or more demographic and/or
environmental indicators above the 95th percentile nationally.
    Tier 3 communities met one of the above criteria, Tier 2
communities met two or three of the above criteria, and Tier 1
communities met all four of the above criteria. EPA sought to conduct
initial outreach meetings with nine communities. Thus, for each of the
three screening analyses (air, surface water, and drinking water), EPA
selected the top three Tier 1 communities for outreach. For the latter
two screening analyses, there were no Tier 1 communities in scope. In
these cases,

EPA supplemented up to three by adding either the top Tier 2
communities or communities EPA had engaged with prior to the decision
to conduct the current rulemaking. A list of communities and selection
criteria is presented in Table XIII-1 of this preamble. The communities
that EPA engaged with prior to the initiation of the current rulemaking
are indicated by a ``YES'' in the Pre-Rule column.
    EPA conducted initial outreach to local environmental and community
development organizations, local government agencies, and individual
community members involved in community organizing in all nine
communities. Between May and September of 2022, EPA was able to meet
with community members in five of the identified communities either
virtually (indicated in the table by ``Virtual Meeting'') or in a
hybrid format with some in-person participation (indicated in the table
by ``Hybrid Meeting''). While EPA has not been able to hold a virtual
or hybrid meeting with the remaining four communities (those indicated
in the table as ``Initial Outreach''), EPA is continuing to consider
whether and how to engage with these communities. Each meeting began
with a presentation providing background information about the
rulemaking before opening the meeting for questions and comments from
community members.
    EPA received a broad range of input from individuals in these
communities on regulatory preferences, environmental concerns, human
health and safety concerns, economic impacts, cultural/spiritual
impacts, ongoing communication/public outreach, and interest in other
EPA actions. Two broad themes were conveyed consistently across
communities. First, community members conveyed several perceived
harmful impacts from steam electric power plants and their desire for
more stringent regulations to reduce these harmful impacts. Second,
community members expressed the desire for more transparency and
communication to overcome their decreasing trust in the regulated power
plants and state regulatory agencies and, thus, a corresponding
skepticism that their community would be protected from these harmful
impacts. In addition to these broad themes, commenters also raised
concerns unique to each community. For example, members of the Navajo
Nation discussed with EPA the spiritual and cultural impacts to the
community from pollution related to steam electric power plants. In
Jacksonville, Florida, community members raised concerns regarding
tidal flows of pollution upstream and storm surges during extreme
weather events which cause additional challenges in their community.
More detailed summaries of these meetings are described in section 7.5
of the EJA.

                               Table XIII-1--Initial Community Outreach Selection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Screening result
     #       (plant/waterbody/PWS)     State          Screen          Tier      Pre-Rule \b\        Proposal
                      \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........  EIA #667, Northside    FL           Air.............          1  ................  Virtual Meeting.
              Generating Station.
2..........  EIA #3297, Wateree     SC           Air.............          1  ................  Initial
              Station.                                                                           Outreach.
3..........  EIA #2442, Four        NM           Air.............          1  YES.............  Virtual Meeting.
              Corners Steam
              Electric Station.
4..........  COMID 10161978, Ohio   KY           Surface Water...          2  ................  Virtual Meeting.
              River (EIA #6071,
              Trimble County).
5..........  COMID 6499098, Etowah  GA           Surface Water...          2  ................  Initial
              River (EIA #703,                                                                   Outreach.
              Plant Bowen).
6..........  COMID 3124250, Rabbs   TX           Surface Water...          2  ................  Hybrid Meeting.
              Bayou (EIA #3470,
              W.A. Parish E.G.S.).
7..........  PWSID 84690510,        ND           Drinking Water..          2  ................  Initial
              Standing Rock Rural                                                                Outreach.
              Water System, Fort
              Yates (EIA #2817,
              Leland Olds Station).
8..........  PWSID MI0001800, City  MI           Drinking Water..          2  ................  Initial
              of Detroit (EIA                                                                    Outreach.
              #6034, Belle River
              Power Plant and EIA
              #1733, Monroe Power
              Plant).
9..........  PWSID NC0279010,       NC           Drinking Water..          3  YES.............  Hybrid Meeting.
              NC0279030,
              NC0279040, and
              NC3079031 Town of
              Eden, Town of
              Madison, Dan River
              Water Inc,
              Rockingham Co--220
              Corridor (EIA #8042,
              Belews Creek Steam
              Station).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Steam electric power plants, surface waters, and PWSs are identified by their U.S. Energy Information
  Administration (EIA) identification number, National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) V2.1 common identifier
  (COMID), and Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Public Water System ID (PWSID).
\b\ While not included in the list of communities for outreach, EPA also met with members of Clean Power Lake
  County before the supplemental rule announcement to discuss potential EJ impacts of the Waukegan Power Plant,
  a plant that is retired.

    EPA considered all feedback received in these outreach meetings,
including feedback regarding the stringency of potential new
regulations and negative impacts experienced as a result of steam
electric discharges. The proposed rule, if finalized, would result in
more stringent limitations that would further reduce negative impacts
associated with steam electric discharges. EPA also considered feedback
expressing the desire for increased transparency and communication. As
discussed in Section XV.C.5 of this preamble, EPA is proposing posting
of required reports to a publicly available website to improve
transparency. Furthermore, EPA calls attention to the availability of
the more recent feature of Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) called ECHO Notify. ECHO Notify provides weekly email
notifications of changes to enforcement and compliance data in ECHO.
Notifications are tailored to the geographic locations, facility IDs,
and notification options that users select. EPA encourages interested
community members to sign up for these alerts. Further information is
available on EPA's website at www.echo.epa.gov/tools/echo-notify. EPA
also encourages individual facilities to work with local communities to
foster trust and communication, for example, through text alert
systems. Finally, EPA solicits

comment on whether and how the Agency could update its analyses to
reflect the site-specific information presented in these meetings.

C. Distribution of Risks

    EPA evaluated the distribution of pollutant loadings, estimated
human health, and estimated environmental impacts resulting from
polluted air, surface water, and drinking water. EPA examined these
distributions under both baseline and the regulatory options to
identify where current conditions and future improvements may have a
disproportionate impact on communities with potential EJ concerns
(PEJC). The following sections discuss EPA's methodology and findings.
1. Air
    EPA evaluated air quality impacts in terms of changes in warm
season maximum daily average 8-hour (MDA8) ozone and average annual
PM2.5 concentrations, as described in the BCA. EPA used the
results of the analysis to further evaluate the distribution of air
quality impacts in the EJA to determine whether population groups of
concern experience disproportionately high exposures to MDA8 ozone and
average annual PM2.5 under baseline and Option 3.
    The results of EPA's analysis of baseline MDA8 ozone and average
annual PM2.5 concentrations showed that there are
differences in baseline exposures across population groups and area
categories (no change, improving, worsening). EPA found that Option 3
results in similar absolute and relative changes in MDA8 ozone and
average annual PM2.5 exposures across population groups in
areas with improving and worsening air quality. The modeled changes in
MDA8 ozone and average annual PM2.5 exposures generated by
Option 3 are relatively small and not expected to have significant
impacts on distributional disparities. For more information on the
analysis of air quality impacts, see section 9.1 of the EJA.
2. Surface Water
    EPA evaluated both immediate receiving waters \152\ and downstream
surface waters,\153\ as described in the EA and BCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ The immediate receiving water analysis focused on
evaluating baseline and regulatory impacts at the point of
discharges in surface waters receiving wastewater discharges from
steam electric power plants.
    \153\ The downstream analysis focused on evaluating baseline and
regulatory impacts 300 kilometers (~187 miles) downstream from the
point of discharges in surface waters receiving wastewater
discharges from steam electric power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Immediate Receiving Waters
    Using results from the immediate receiving water analysis performed
in the EA, EPA further evaluated the immediate receiving water impacts
in the EJA to determine whether these impacts disproportionately affect
population groups of concern. This analysis was done with respect to
waters that exceeded benchmarks for national recommended water quality
criteria (NRWQC) and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), benchmarks for
sediment biota and piscivorous wildlife, and human health benchmarks.
b. Distribution of Water Quality Impacts
    After examining baseline results of the EA where arsenic, cadmium,
selenium, or thallium concentrations exceeded benchmark NRWQC and MCL
values,\154\ EPA's analysis showed that, in communities with immediate
receiving waters with pollutant-specific benchmark exceedances, the
percent of the population identified as American Indian or Alaskan
Native (non-Hispanic) is larger than the national average. This result
is driven by baseline exceedances observed in the Unnamed tributary to
the Chaco River, which is in the Navajo Nation, an area in which about
98 percent of the population is identified as American Indian or Alaska
Native (non-Hispanic). When compared to communities with immediate
receiving waters without exceedances, communities with immediate
receiving waters with exceedances had larger proportions of the
population identifying as African-American (non-Hispanic), American
Indian or Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic), Other (non-Hispanic), and
Hispanic or Latino. Based on these findings regarding the distribution
of population groups of concern in communities with immediate receiving
waters with exceedances, EPA concluded that there are PEJC present
under the baseline. EPA's analysis of the regulatory options showed
that all regulatory options resulted in a reduction in the number of
immediate receiving waters with pollutant-specific benchmark
exceedances and in the population affected by these exceedances
compared to the baseline. Options 3 and 4 generated the largest
reductions in immediate receiving waters with exceedances and the
affected population relative to the baseline. Furthermore, Options 3
and 4 produced the greatest improvements in the distribution of water
quality impacts across population groups of concern relative to the
baseline when comparing proportions of these populations to the
national average and communities with immediate receiving waters
without exceedances. For more information on the results of the water
quality impact analysis, see section <IP_ADDRESS> of the EJA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ The IRW Model did not identify any immediate receiving
waters with benchmark value exceedances under the baseline for
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc loadings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Distribution of Wildlife Impacts
    After examining baseline results of the EA where sediment biota,
eagle, and mink impacts exceeded benchmark values, EPA's analysis
showed that communities with immediate receiving waters with
exceedances had a larger proportion of the population identified as
American Indian or Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic) than the national
average. Additionally, communities with immediate receiving waters with
exceedances under baseline had larger proportions of various population
groups of concern than communities with immediate receiving waters
without exceedances. Based on these findings regarding the distribution
of population groups of concern in communities with immediate receiving
waters with exceedances, EPA concluded that there are PEJC present
under the baseline. EPA's analysis of wildlife impacts under the
regulatory options showed that none of the regulatory options results
in increases in the number of immediate receiving waters with
exceedances of wildlife- and pollutant-specific benchmarks compared to
the baseline. Across the wildlife analyses, Options 3 and 4 generated
the largest reductions in the number of immediate receiving waters with
exceedances and in the affected population compared to the baseline.
Furthermore, relative to the baseline, Options 3 and 4 produced the
greatest improvements in the distribution of wildlife impacts across
population groups of concern when comparing proportions of these
populations to the national average and communities with immediate
receiving waters without exceedances. For more information on the
analysis of wildlife impacts, see section <IP_ADDRESS> of the EJA.
d. Distribution of Human Health Risks
    After examining baseline results of the EA where fish consumer
cohort- and pollutant-specific noncancer hazard quotients and lifetime
excess cancer risks exceeded benchmark values,\155\ the record
indicates that across all fish consumer cohorts, communities with

immediate receiving waters with noncancer and cancer exceedances have
larger proportions of the population identified as population groups of
concern, particularly American Indian or Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic),
than the national average. This result is driven by baseline
exceedances observed in the Unnamed tributary to the Chaco River, which
is in the Navajo Nation. Additionally, communities with immediate
receiving waters with noncancer and cancer exceedances have larger
proportions of the population identified as population groups of
concern than communities with immediate receiving waters without
noncancer and cancer exceedances. Based on these findings regarding the
distribution of population groups of concern in communities with
immediate receiving waters with noncancer and cancer exceedances, EPA
concluded that there are PEJC present under the baseline. EPA's
analysis under the regulatory options showed human health improvements,
in terms of the reduction in the number of immediate receiving waters
with noncancer and cancer benchmark exceedances, across fish consumer
cohorts. Options 3 and 4 generated the largest reductions in the number
of immediate receiving waters with noncancer and cancer exceedances and
in the affected population. Additionally, Options 3 and 4 produced the
greatest improvements in the distribution of human health impacts
across population groups of concern relative to the baseline when
comparing proportions of these populations to the national average and
communities with immediate receiving waters without exceedances. For
more information on the analysis of human health risks, see section
<IP_ADDRESS> of the EJA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ Fish consumer cohorts analyzed were child subsistence,
child recreational, adult subsistence, and adult recreational fish
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Downstream Waters
    Using the results from the downstream analysis performed in the
BCA, EPA further evaluated the downstream surface water impacts in the
EJA to determine whether population groups of concern experience a
disproportionate share of noncancer and cancer health effects from
exposure to lead, mercury, and arsenic through consuming fish in
contaminated downstream surface waters. The results of EPA's analysis
are discussed in the following two sections.
f. Distribution of Noncancer Health Impacts
    Noncancer health impacts evaluated by EPA were cognitive and
neurological impacts--expressed as total IQ points under baseline and
avoided IQ point losses under the regulatory options--among children
exposed to lead and mercury through consuming fish at subsistence and
recreational consumption rates caught in contaminated surface waters.
The distribution of impacts within the two consumer cohorts was
evaluated by racial and ethnic group (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian,
American Indian and Alaskan Native, and Other) and by income group
(below the poverty line or not below the poverty line). When comparing
across income groups and racial and ethnic groups, baseline results of
the analysis of neurological and cognitive health impacts from exposure
to lead and mercury showed that population groups of concern in the
children of subsistence and recreational cohorts had a proportional or
larger share of total baseline IQ points compared to their share of the
exposed population. The results of the analysis indicated no disparate
IQ impacts to minority and low-income groups under baseline.
    Based on EPA's evaluation of the four regulatory options, each of
the regulatory options would result in avoided IQ point losses for
children of subsistence fishers and recreational fishers who regularly
consume fish caught in local water compared to baseline across all
racial, ethnic, and income groups in the children of both subsistence
and recreational consumer cohorts. While children of all racial and
ethnic population groups in the subsistence and recreational cohorts
are expected to experience avoided IQ point losses under the regulatory
options compared to baseline, these improvements were relatively small
and did not change the distribution of IQ points compared to baseline.
For more information on the analysis of noncancer health impacts in
downstream surface waters, see section <IP_ADDRESS> and section <IP_ADDRESS> of
the EJA.
g. Distribution of Cancer Health Impacts
    EPA evaluated national cancer health impacts--in terms of cancer
cases (any type of cancer) under baseline and avoided cancer cases (any
type of cancer) under the regulatory options--among adult subsistence
and recreational fishers exposed to arsenic through fish consumption.
The distribution of impacts within the two fisher cohorts was evaluated
by racial and ethnic group and by income group.
    When comparing total cancer cases across racial and ethnic groups,
the results of the baseline analysis showed that population groups of
concern (except for those in the Black population group) in the adult
subsistence fisher cohort had a larger proportion of cancer cases
compared to their share of the exposed population. In contrast, when
comparing total cancer cases across income groups, the results of the
baseline analysis showed that those below the poverty line in both the
adult subsistence and recreational fisher cohorts had a smaller
proportion of cancer cases compared to their share of the exposed
population, while those not below the poverty line in both fisher
cohorts had a larger proportion of cancer cases. The results of the
analysis indicate PEJC in the baseline related to the distribution of
cancer health impacts when comparing across racial and ethnic
population groups, but not across income groups.
    Based on EPA's evaluation of the four regulatory options, each of
the regulatory options would result in avoided cancer cases compared to
baseline across all racial, ethnic, and income population groups in
both the adult subsistence and recreational fisher cohorts. While all
racial, ethnic, and income population groups in the adult subsistence
and recreational fisher cohorts were expected to experience avoided
cancer cases under the regulatory options compared to baseline, these
improvements were relatively small and did not change the distribution
of total cancer cases compared to baseline. For more information on the
analysis of cancer health impacts in downstream surface waters, see
section <IP_ADDRESS> of the EJA.
3. Drinking Water
    Using the results from the drinking water analysis performed in the
BCA, EPA further evaluated downstream drinking water impacts in the EJA
to determine whether population groups of concern served by potentially
affected drinking water systems experience a disproportionate share of
bladder cancer cases from exposure to TTHM. In the BCA, EPA modeled
baseline incremental TTHM concentrations and bladder cancer cases
attributable to steam electric discharges.\156\ Since EPA evaluated
only the changes in TTHM concentrations and avoided bladder cancer
cases and deaths attributable to steam electric discharges in the BCA,
in this analysis, EPA only evaluated whether the distribution of
exposures and health effects indicated PEJC under the incremental
changes resulting from the regulatory options. The results of

EPA's analysis are discussed in the following two sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Background TTHM concentrations and bladder cancer cases
attributable to sources other than steam electric discharges were
not modeled under the baseline but would not impact the analysis of
incremental changes as discussed in the BCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Distribution of TTHM Exposures and Resulting Avoided Bladder Cancer
Cases and Deaths
    Based on EPA's evaluation of the four regulatory options, EPA's
record shows that all regulatory options would result in decreases in
TTHM concentrations and cases of bladder cancer and deaths across
potentially affected drinking water systems. Of the regulatory options
EPA evaluated, across the states with affected systems, Option 4
generated the greatest reductions in TTHM concentrations and bladder
cancer cases and deaths. Under all of the regulatory options, for those
potentially affected systems with modeled reductions in TTHM
concentrations and in bladder cancer cases and deaths, most serve
populations that have a higher proportion of at least one population
group of concern as compared to the national average, with the largest
proportion serving populations with two population groups of concern
above the national average. Additionally, EPA found that states with
affected systems serving populations with one population group of
concern above the national average experienced the largest median
reductions in TTHM concentrations and bladder cancer cases and deaths.
Furthermore, EPA found that the magnitude of the median change in TTHM
and bladder cancers decreased with the more stringent regulatory
options in communities with one, two, or three or more population
groups of concern above the national average. EPA determined that this
was not due to there being fewer reductions in TTHM concentrations and
in bladder cancer cases and excess bladder cancer deaths with more
stringent options, but rather that more new states with affected
systems experiencing smaller changes were being added under the more
stringent options. Therefore, Option 4 still generated the greatest
improvements across analyses. For more information of the analysis of
drinking water impacts, see sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 of the EJA.
4. Cumulative Risks
    In the EA, EPA expanded upon its assessment of human health impacts
from individual pollutant exposures to include an evaluation of
potential human health risks from exposures to mixtures of pollutants
present in steam electric power plant discharges. Using information on
human health risks related to pollutant mixtures from the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), EPA estimated potential
human health risks among fish consumer cohorts exposed to pollutant
mixtures of concern--Arsenic-Cadmium-Lead (As-Cd-Pb), Zinc-Lead (Zn-
Pb), and Methylmercury-Lead (MeHg-Pb)--from consuming fish caught in
potentially affected immediate receiving waters of steam electric power
plants. EPA used the results of this analysis to assess the
distribution of potential human health risks across population groups
of concern in communities with immediate receiving waters with human
health endpoint-specific Hazard Index (HI) exceedances.
    After examining baseline results of the EA where human health
endpoint-specific HI values were greater than 1, the record indicates
that across mixtures of concern and fisher cohorts, EPA found that in
communities with immediate receiving waters with exceedances there are
larger proportions of the population identified as groups of concern,
particularly American Indian or Alaskan Native (non-Hispanic), than the
national average. This result is driven by baseline exceedances
observed in the Unnamed tributary to the Chaco River, which is in the
Navajo Nation. Additionally, the record indicates that across mixtures
of concern and cohorts, communities with immediate receiving waters had
larger proportions of various population groups of concern under the
baseline than communities with immediate receiving waters without
exceedances. Based on these findings regarding the distribution of
population groups of concern in communities with immediate receiving
waters with exceedances, EPA concluded that there are PEJC present
under the baseline.
    EPA's analysis under the regulatory options showed that, across
mixture of concern and cohorts, none of the regulatory options results
in increases in the number of immediate receiving waters with
exceedances and in the population affected compared to the baseline.
Across mixtures of concern and cohorts, Options 3 and 4 most often
generated the largest reductions relative to the baseline in immediate
receiving water with exceedance and in the population affected.
Additionally, Options 3 and 4 most often produced the greatest
proportional reductions in the distribution of human health impacts for
population groups of concern in communities with immediate receiving
waters with exceedances compared to the national average and
communities with immediate receiving waters without exceedances. For
more information on the analysis of potential cumulative human health
risks, see section 9.4 of the EJA.

D. Distribution of Benefits and Costs

    EPA examined the estimated benefits and costs of the regulatory
options in this proposal for potential differences in how they are
distributed across socioeconomic groups, in addition to evaluating the
distribution of exposures and health impacts discussed above. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, which implements E.O. 12866,
states that regulatory analyses ``should provide a separate description
of distributional effects (i.e., how both benefits and costs are
distributed among sub-populations of particular concern).'' As
discussed below, EPA research demonstrates that climate change impacts
are likely to accrue to minority and low-income populations, but other
benefits and costs under the proposed rule may not have substantial
impacts.
    EPA began its evaluation of benefits with a screening of the
benefits categories. For Option 3, at both three percent and seven
percent discount rates, approximately 99 percent of monetized benefits
accrued from reductions in air pollution due to estimated shifts in
electric generation resulting from the incremental costs of the
proposed rule. Furthermore, these air benefits were always comprised of
approximately a 3-to-1 ratio of conventional air pollutant health
benefits to GHG benefits.\157\ Thus, while EPA evaluated a number of
exposures and endpoints for disproportionate baseline impacts, the
Agency screened these two benefit categories through this initial
comparison for further evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ EPA scaled the air benefits to other regulatory options
based on total costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to GHG benefits, scientific assessments and Agency
reports produced over the past decade by the U.S. Global Change
Research Program,158 159 the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change,160 161 162 163

and the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
164 165 provide evidence that the impacts of climate change
raise PEJC. These reports conclude that poorer or predominantly non-
White communities can be especially vulnerable to climate change
impacts because they tend to have limited adaptive capacities, are more
dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food
supplies, or have less access to social and information resources. Some
communities of color, specifically populations defined jointly by
ethnic/racial characteristics and geographic location, may be uniquely
vulnerable to climate change health impacts in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ USGCRP, 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.
    \159\ USGCRP, 2016. The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp.
www.dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX.
    \160\ Oppenheimer, M., M. Campos, R.Warren, J. Birkmann, G.
Luber, B. O'Neill, and K. Takahashi, 2014: Emergent risks and key
vulnerabilities. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros,
D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee,
K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA, pp. 10391099.
    \161\ Porter, J.R., L. Xie, A.J. Challinor, K. Cochrane, S.M.
Howden, M.M. Iqbal, D.B. Lobell, and M.I. Travasso, 2014: Food
security and food production systems. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral
Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field,
C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E.
Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma,
E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 485-533.
    \162\ Smith, K.R., A.Woodward, D. Campbell-Lendrum, D.D. Chadee,
Y. Honda, Q. Liu, J.M. Olwoch, B. Revich, and R. Sauerborn, 2014:
Human health: impacts, adaptation, and co-benefits. In: Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,
T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B.
Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and
L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 709-754.
    \163\ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2018.
Global Warming of 1.5 [deg]C, An IPCC Special Report on the impacts
of global warming of 1.5 [deg]C above pre-industrial levels and
related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,
sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-
Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. P[ouml]rtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R.
Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. P[eacute]an, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy,
T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.
    \164\ National Research Council. 2011. America's Climate
Choices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www.doi.org/10.17226/12781.
    \165\ NASEM. 2017. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health
Equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. www./doi.org/10.17226/24624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recently conducted a peer-reviewed analysis of the distribution
of climate change impacts. EPA (2021) evaluated the disproportionate
risks to socially vulnerable populations (defined based on age, income,
education, race, and ethnicity) associated with six impact categories:
air quality and health, extreme temperature and health, extreme
temperature and labor, coastal flooding and traffic, coastal flooding
and property, and inland flooding and property.\166\ EPA calculated
risks for each socially vulnerable group relative to its ``reference
population'' (all individuals outside of each group) for scenarios with
2 [deg]C of global warming or 50 centimeters of sea level rise. The
estimated risks were based on current demographic distributions in the
contiguous United States. EPA (2021) includes findings \167\ that the
following groups are more likely than their reference population to
currently live in areas with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. Climate
Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six
Impacts. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-21-003.
    \167\ EPA (2021) also noted that American Indian and Alaska
Native individuals may place a high value on risks to subsistence,
cultural, and other natural resources that were not explored in the
report. This is consistent with concerns raised by tribal community
members as part of the outreach discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The highest increases in childhood asthma diagnoses from
climate-driven changes in PM2.5 (low-income, Black and
African American, Hispanic and Latino, and Asian populations);
     The highest percentage of land lost to inundation (low-
income and American Indian and Alaska Native populations);
     The highest increases in mortality rates due to climate-
driven changes in extreme temperatures (low-income and Black and
African American populations);
     The highest rates of labor hour losses for weather-exposed
workers due to extreme temperatures (low-income, Black and African
American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic and Latino, and
Pacific Islander populations);
     The highest increases in traffic delays associated with
high-tide flooding (low-income, Hispanic and Latino, Asian, and Pacific
Islander populations); and
     The highest damages from inland flooding (Pacific Islander
populations).
    For further discussion of the impacts analyzed in U.S. EPA (2021)
and other peer-reviewed evaluations, see section 10.1.1 of the EJA.
    EPA notes that the changes in GHG emissions attributable to the
proposed regulatory options are relatively small compared to worldwide
emissions. Nevertheless, the findings of peer-reviewed evaluations
demonstrate that actions that reduce GHG emissions are likely to reduce
climate impacts on vulnerable communities such as minority and low-
income populations.
    With respect to conventional air pollutant health benefits, the
current EPA modeling methodology results in benefits that are
proportional to exposures. In other words, the distributional findings
of air pollutant exposures discussed above are the same findings EPA
has for this benefit category: exposure and health benefit improvements
and degradations attributable to this proposal will be proportionately
experienced by all demographic populations evaluated. However, there
are several important nuances and caveats to this conclusion owing to
differences in vulnerability and health outcomes across population
subgroups. For example, there is some information suggesting that the
same PM2.5 exposure reduction will reduce the hazard of
mortality more so in Black populations than in White
populations.168 169 In addition, demographic-stratified
information relating PM2.5 and ozone to other health effects
and valuation estimates is currently lacking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ U.S. EPA (2019). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Public Health
and Environmental Assessment. Research Triangle Park, NC. U.S. EPA.
EPA/600/R-19/188. December 2019. Available at: www.epa.gov/naaqs/particulate-matter-pm-standards-integrated-science-assessments-current-review.
    \169\ U.S. EPA (2022). Supplement to the 2019 Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for
Public Health and Environmental Assessment. Research Triangle Park,
NC. U.S. EPA. EPA/600/R-22/028. May 2022. Available at: www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-particulate-matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to costs, EPA notes that the impacts on ratepayers
will depend on the degree to which compliance costs are passed through
to electricity consumers via higher electricity rates. In general,
lower-income households spend less, in the absolute, on energy than
higher-income households, but energy expenditures represent a larger
share of their income. Therefore, electricity price increases tend to
have a relatively larger effect on lower-income households. Further
discussion of these disparities is provided in

section 10.2 of the EJA. EPA estimated the potential impacts of
incremental ELG compliance costs on households' utility bills based on
average electricity consumption and assuming a worst-case scenario
where all costs are passed through to consumers. EPA estimated that the
proposed rule corresponds to an average increase of $0.63 per household
per year, with a range of $0.09 to $1.31 per year across NERC regions.
These cost increases are too small to indicate the potential for
significant direct impacts to household electricity consumers.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ EPA notes that other electricity consumers (e.g.,
industrial consumers) could also face increased electricity prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Results of the Analysis

    Overall, the analysis showed that benefits associated with
improvements to water quality, wildlife, and human health resulting
from reductions in pollutants in surface water and drinking water will
accrue to minority and low-income populations at a higher rate under
some or all of the proposed regulatory options. Remaining exposures,
impacts, costs, and benefits analyzed either accrue at a higher rate to
populations which are not minority or low-income, accrue
proportionately to all populations, or are small enough that EPA could
not conclude whether disproportionate positive or negative impacts from
the options being considered would occur. While the changes in GHGs
attributable to the proposed regulatory options are relatively small
compared to worldwide emissions, findings from peer-reviewed
evaluations demonstrate that actions that reduce GHG emissions are also
likely to reduce climate impacts on vulnerable communities, including
minority and low-income communities.

F. Solicitations on Environmental Justice Analysis and Community
Outreach

    EPA solicits comment on the data, analysis, and results of the EJA.
EPA solicits comment on additional data or methods that could be used
to further expand the EJA and better capture the potential impacts of
the proposed rule. In light of the considerations EPA discussed for
conventional air pollution health benefits, EPA solicits comment on
whether and how the Agency could further evaluate the distributional
impacts of this benefit category in a final rule analysis. EPA also
solicits comment on any regulatory options not explicitly analyzed that
would further benefit communities with PEJC and could be built into any
final rule analyses.
    EPA solicits comment on how the Agency should continue to engage
with the communities from Table XIII-1 of this preamble that were
included in the initial outreach. EPA asks that comments suggesting
additional outreach activities, especially those that might occur
during the public comment period, be provided early in the comment
period to allow the Agency sufficient time to plan and execute any
outreach. EPA solicits comment on whether EPA should conduct in-person
or hybrid public hearings in any or all of these communities during the
public comment period, in addition to the two nationwide virtual public
hearings already planned. EPA solicits comment on the best means for
maximizing public participation at any such meetings. EPA also solicits
comment on other communities that may warrant additional outreach and
engagement based on the results of the full-scale analysis or for
reasons not well documented in the EJA due to site-specific information
that was not readily available to the Agency.

XIV. Development of Effluent Limitations and Standards

    This section describes the statistical methodology used to
calculate the long-term averages, variability factors, and proposed BAT
limitations and PSES. The effluent limitations and standards are based
on long-term average effluent values and variability factors that
account for variation in treatment performance of the model technology.
The proposed effluent limitations and/or standards, collectively
referred to in the remainder of this section as ``limitations,'' for
pollutants for each technology option are provided as ``daily
maximums'' and ``maximums for monthly averages.'' Definitions provided
in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the daily maximum limitation is the
``highest allowable `daily discharge,' '' and the maximum for monthly
average limitation is the ``highest allowable average of `daily
discharges' over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all `daily
discharges' measured during a calendar month divided by the number of
`daily discharges' measured during that month.'' Daily discharges are
defined to be the `` `discharge of a pollutant' measured during a
calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of sampling.'' In this section, the term
``option long-term average'' and ``option variability factor'' refer to
the long-term averages and variability factors for technology options
for an individual wastestream rather than the regulatory options
described in Section VII of this preamble.

A. Criteria Used To Select Data as the Basis for the Limitations and
Standards

    In developing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for any
industry, EPA qualitatively reviews all the data before selecting data
that represents proper operation of the technology that forms the basis
for the limitations. EPA typically uses four criteria to assess the
data.
    The first criterion requires that the plants have the model
treatment technology and demonstrate consistently diligent and optimal
operation. Application of this criterion typically eliminates any plant
with treatment other than the model technology. EPA determines whether
a plant meets this criterion based upon site visits; discussions with
plant management; and/or comparison to the characteristics, operation,
and performance of treatment systems at other plants. EPA often
contacts plants to determine whether data submitted were representative
of normal operating conditions for the plant and equipment. As a result
of this review, EPA typically excludes the data when the plant has not
optimized the performance of its treatment system to the degree that
represents the appropriate level of control (e.g., BAT).
    The second criterion requires that the influents and effluents from
the treatment components represent typical wastewater from the
industry, without incompatible wastewater from other sources.
Application of this criterion results in EPA selecting plants where the
commingled wastewaters did not result in substantial dilution, un-
equalized slug loads resulting in frequent upsets and/or overloads,
more concentrated wastewaters, or wastewaters with different types of
pollutants than those generated by the wastestream for which EPA is
proposing effluent limitations.
    The third criterion ensures that the pollutants are present in the
influent at sufficient concentrations to evaluate treatment
effectiveness. To evaluate whether the data meet this criterion for
inclusion as a basis of the limitations, EPA uses the long-term average
test for plants where EPA possesses paired influent and effluent data
(see section 13 of the 2015 TDD for details of the long-term average
test). The test measures the influent concentrations to ensure a
pollutant is present at a sufficient concentration to evaluate
treatment effectiveness. If a data set for a pollutant fails the test
(i.e., pollutant

not present at a treatable concentration), EPA excludes the data for
that pollutant at that plant when calculating the limitations.
    The fourth criterion requires that the data are valid and
appropriate for their intended use (e.g., the data must be analyzed
with a sufficiently sensitive method). Also, EPA does not use data
associated with periods of treatment upsets because these data would
not reflect the performance of well-designed and well-operated
treatment systems. In applying the fourth criterion, EPA may evaluate
the pollutant concentrations, analytical methods and the associated
quality control/quality assurance data, flow values, mass loading,
plant logs, and other available information. As part of this
evaluation, EPA reviews the process or treatment conditions that may
have resulted in extreme values (high and low). Because of this review,
EPA may exclude data associated with certain time periods or other data
outliers that reflect poor performance or analytical anomalies by an
otherwise well-operated site.
    EPA also applies the fourth criterion when reviewing data
corresponding to the initial commissioning period for treatment
systems. Most industries incur commissioning periods during the
adjustment period associated with installing new treatment systems.
During this acclimation and optimization process, the effluent
concentration values tend to be highly variable with occasional extreme
values (high and low). This occurs because the treatment system
typically requires some ``tuning'' as the plant staff and equipment and
chemical vendors work to determine the optimum chemical addition
locations and dosages, vessel hydraulic residence times, internal
treatment system recycle flows (e.g., filter backwash frequency,
duration and flow rate, return flows between treatment system
components), and other operational conditions like clarifier sludge
wasting protocols. It may also take several weeks or months for
treatment system operators to gain expertise on operating the new
treatment system, which also contributes to treatment system
variability during the commissioning period. After this initial
adjustment period, the systems should operate at steady state with
relatively low variability around a long-term average over many years.
Because commissioning periods typically reflect one-time operating
conditions unique to the first time the treatment system begins
operation, EPA generally excludes such data in developing the
limitations.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Examples of conditions that are typically unique to the
initial commissioning period include operator unfamiliarity or
inexperience with the system and how to optimize its performance;
wastewater flow rates that differ significantly from engineering
design, altering hydraulic residence times, chemical contact times,
and/or clarifier overflow rates, and potentially causing large
changes in planned chemical dosage rates or the need to substitute
alternative chemical additives; equipment malfunctions; fluctuating
wastewater flow rates or other dynamic conditions (i.e., not steady
state operation); and initial purging of contaminants associated
with installing the treatment system, such as initial leaching from
coatings, adhesives, and susceptible metal components. These
conditions differ from those associated with the restart of an
already commissioned treatment system, like that which may occur
from a treatment system that has undergone either short or extended
duration shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Selection for Each Technology Option

    For FGD wastewater and BA transport water, the preferred regulatory
option proposes zero discharge of pollutants; therefore, no effluent
concentration data were used to develop the limitations for these
wastestreams.\172\ As described in Section VII of this preamble, EPA is
proposing that permitting authorities establish limitations for
discharges of pollutants in SI decant wastewater, SI dewatering
wastewater, and legacy wastewater on a case-by-case basis. Thus, no
effluent concentration data were used to set national effluent
limitations. For the limitations on CRL based on the chemical
precipitation technology option, EPA is proposing to transfer the
limitations calculated based on the 2015 and 2020 rule chemical
precipitation technology option for FGD wastewater because while EPA
does not have effluent data for leachate from plants that employ
chemical precipitation technology on CRL, EPA's record demonstrates
that CRL is chemically similar to FGD wastewater and amenable to such
treatment. EPA used the same approach in the 2013 proposed rule and in
the final 2015 rule for NSPSs for CRL, and the Agency solicits comment
on additional pilot tests or full-scale installations that could be
used in lieu of, or to supplement, this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ This is also true for some of the technologies EPA
solicits comment on for CRL, SI decant wastewater, SI dewatering
wastewater, and legacy wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. CRL

    EPA is proposing limitations on mercury and arsenic in leachate
based on chemical precipitation. As discussed in Section VII.B.3 of
this preamble, some discharges of leachate may also occur through
groundwater. EPA solicits comment on whether site-specific variability
in the subsurface soils, sorbents, and other characteristics could
result in lowering measured concentrations of the two chosen indicator
pollutants (mercury and arsenic) below the proposed CRL limitations
without actually treating the full suite of pollutants that EPA
proposes chemical precipitation is able to treat. Thus, for leachate
discharged through groundwater, EPA solicits comment on whether the
Agency should calculate daily and monthly limitations for these other
pollutants in Table XIV-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ The pollutants treated by chemical precipitation are
discussed in Section 8 of the TDD.

  Table XIV-1--Other Pollutants Treated by Chemical Precipitation \173\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony                             Magnesium
Barium                               Manganese
Beryllium                            Molybdenum
Cadmium                              Nickel
Chromium                             Thallium
Cobalt                               Titanium
Copper                               Vanadium
Lead                                 Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should EPA elect to calculate daily and monthly limitations for the
pollutants in Table XIV-1, EPA solicits comment on whether to use the
same data sets and methods used to calculate limitations for arsenic
and mercury that the Agency used in the 2015 rule record. Specifically,
EPA solicits comment on the data set of FGD wastewater treated by
chemical precipitation with regard to each of these pollutants. EPA
also solicits comment on the methodology described in the 2015 and 2020
rule records, which consists of interim steps of calculating a long-
term average and variability factors. EPA also solicits comment on data
where leachate was treated in a pilot or full-scale chemical
precipitation system that could be used in the calculation of such
limitations either in lieu of, or in addition to, the data discussed
above.

XV. Regulatory Implementation

A. Continued Implementation of Existing Limitations and Standards

    EPA has continually stressed, since the announcement of this
supplemental rulemaking, that the 2015 and 2020 limitations (or lack
thereof) continue to apply.\174\ In the sections below, EPA discusses
considerations for permitting authorities and regulated entities as
they continue to implement existing

regulations and look ahead to the regulations in this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ 86 FR 41801 (August 3, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Reaffirmation of Expectation That Requirement That FGD and BA
Transport Water BAT Limitations Apply ``as Soon as Possible'' Requires
Careful Consideration of the Soonest Date That the Discharger Can Meet
the Limitations
    EPA reaffirms that permitting authorities must continue to write
permits that include the current 2015 and 2020 rule BAT limitations,
whether as part of permit renewals or permit modifications. Similarly,
permittees must meet applicable permit limitations as soon as possible.
EPA stresses that the Agency did not issue a postponement rule for the
2020 rule FGD wastewater and BA transport water BAT limitations as it
did in 2017 for the 2015 rule. The 2017 rule postponed the earliest
compliance dates of the 2015 rule for FGD wastewater and BA transport
water to November 2020 to ``preserve the status quo for FGD wastewater
and bottom ash transport water until EPA completes its next
rulemaking.'' \175\ This made sense at the time because EPA had
received new information in petitions suggesting that the 2015 rule
limitations could not be met with the 2015 BAT technology basis.\176\
In contrast, EPA's 2020 rulemaking generally reaffirmed, and provided
further flexibilities for, the technology bases established in the 2015
rule. There is no basis in the record indicating that the limitations
finalized in 2020 are not available or economically achievable, and
thus there is no reason for EPA to postpone their implementation.
Instead, EPA focused on progress toward eliminating discharges,
consistent with CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). Thus, EPA's announcement of
this supplemental rulemaking stated that ``the pollutant reductions
accomplished by the existing Rules will occur while the Agency engages
in rulemaking to consider more stringent requirements'' (86 FR at
41802, August 3, 2021). This is consistent with the CWA's structure of
progressively more stringent limitations pushing technological advances
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Fact
Sheet: Postponement of Certain Compliance Dates for the Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power
Generating Industry. EPA 823-S-17-001. September. Available online
at: www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-09/documents/steam-electric-elg_final_postpone-compliance-dates_fact-sheet_sept-2017.pdf.
    \176\ EPA notes that upon review in the 2020 rule record, these
suggestions were found to be without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since EPA did not postpone the earliest compliance dates,
permitting authorities should not establish an ``as soon as possible''
date that is anything other than as soon as possible for the selected
technology. For example, where an applicant provides site-relevant
information on its biological treatment system that demonstrates it can
meet limitations by 2023, it would not be appropriate for the applicant
to request an ``as soon as possible'' date that is later by using as an
``other factor'' the fact that EPA is currently undergoing a
supplemental rulemaking. This would serve to further postpone
compliance with limitations intended to reflect technological advances
since promulgation of steam electric ELGS in 1982. EPA also notes that
the Agency is soliciting comment in the sections above on alternative
flexibilities such as alternative formulations of an early adopter
subcategory, one of which may include plants that have already
contracted for, but not yet installed, biological treatment. Though EPA
solicits comment on various potential permutations of any final rule,
the Agency is not changing or postponing the existing 2020 rule. Thus,
anything but steadfast implementation of the current 2020 rule
limitations at this time is not warranted.
    In some cases, however, a facility may not yet have contracted for
a specific technology and may be considering alternatives. In such
circumstances, a permitting authority may consider the timeframes of
more advanced technologies when determining the ``as soon as possible''
date. For example, if a permit applicant submitted timeframes for both
a ZVI system that could be operational in 2024 and an alternative
consisting of plant modifications to recycle wastewater and operate
zero discharge by 2025, it would be reasonable for the permitting
authority to set an ``as soon as possible'' date for the facility to
eliminate its discharge in 2025.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ Note that a decision between biological vendors or between
a biological and ZVI vendor with essentially the same performance
would not warrant a later date just because one vendor cannot
complete its system until a later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar parallels can be seen with BA transport water. Limitations
based on a high recycle rate system should still be included in a
permit with a date that is ``as soon as possible'' to meet the site-
specific purge limitation. If a facility has not yet contracted for a
technology and is deciding between a dry handling system (e.g.,
pneumatic) and a high recycle rate system, it would be reasonable for
the permitting authority to consider the longer timeframe necessary for
the dry handling system.
2. Reaffirmation That CRL and Legacy Wastewater BAT Limitations Require
a Site-Specific BPJ Analysis and Careful Consideration of Technologies
Beyond Surface Impoundments
    Under current law, permitting authorities must continue to conduct
BPJ analyses and establish TBELs pursuant to 40 CFR 125.3(c)(2) and (3)
for BA purge water, CRL,\178\ and legacy wastewater unless and until
EPA promulgates nationwide BAT. In conducting these analyses, EPA has
discussed several technologies in the 2015, 2020, and current proposed
rule TDDs and preambles that permitting authorities may consider or
select as the basis for TBELs. Where these technologies are included in
a BPJ analysis, they must be evaluated by the permitting authority
pursuant to the factors set forth in section 125.3(d)(3).\179\
Furthermore, as EPA notes in the discussion of FGD wastewater above,
there may be multiple, separate legacy wastewaters at a single plant.
Thus, in some cases, permitting authorities may have to decide whether
these wastewaters should receive separate limitations.\180\ Due to the
ongoing rulemaking, EPA also recommends, but is not requiring, that
permits issued or modified between this proposal and any final rule
contain a reopener clause in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62(a)(7) and
124.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ For CRL discharged via groundwater, EPA notes that this is
a technology-based CWA requirement--a separate and distinct
requirement from any CCR rule corrective action requirements which
may apply.
    \179\ Consistent with section 304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA, these
consist of: (i) The age of equipment and facilities involved; (ii)
The process employed; (iii) The engineering aspects of the
application of various types of control techniques; (iv) Process
changes; (v) The cost of achieving such effluent reduction; and (vi)
Non-water quality environmental impact (including energy
requirements).
    \180\ Furthermore, permitting authorities could determine that
more stringent water quality-based effluent limitations are needed
to achieve water quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consideration of Late Notice of Planned Participation
    In Section VII of this preamble above, EPA discussed the proposed
retention of the subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing coal
combustion by 2028. EPA also solicited comment on extending the period
for filing a NOPP for this subcategory. EPA also solicits comment on
whether this extended period should be available to LUEGUs and high FGD
flow plants. Any final rule would not be promulgated until 2024.
Therefore, the effect of removing these subcategories in a final rule
would be that the three impacted plants of which EPA is aware

would still be required to meet any permitted subcategory limitations
presently, and in the next permit renewal these plants would be
required to meet the zero-discharge limitations for FGD wastewater in
this proposal. Given the five-year permit cycle and assuming
implementation through permitting immediately after promulgation of the
final rule in 2024, the ``no later than'' date would be December 31,
2029. Thus, under the flexibility of the permitting authority to
consider ``other factors'' under section 423.11(t), these plants could,
subject to permitting authority discretion, effectively have one
additional year to discharge under the current, less stringent
limitations than plants in the existing subcategory for EGUs
permanently ceasing coal combustion by 2028. EPA solicits comment on
the reasonableness of this possible result, including whether these
plants should be required to file a NOPP for limitations under the
subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion by 2028,
should they elect to retire.

B. Implementation of New Limitations and Standards

    The limitations and standards in this proposed rule would apply to
discharges from steam electric power plants through incorporation into
NPDES permits issued by EPA and authorized states under CWA section
402, and through pretreatment programs under CWA section 307. NPDES
permits or control mechanisms issued after a final rule's effective
date must incorporate the ELGs, as applicable. Where permits with the
2015 and/or 2020 rule limitations have already been issued, EPA expects
that any final rule requirements would be incorporated in the next
permit. Also, under CWA section 510, states can require effluent
limitations under state law as long as they are no less stringent than
the requirements of any final rule. Finally, in addition to requiring
application of the technology-based ELGs in any final rule, CWA section
301(b)(1)(C) requires the permitting authority to impose more stringent
effluent limitations, as necessary, to meet applicable water quality
standards.
1. Availability Timing of Proposed Requirements
    The direct discharge limitations in this rule apply only when
implemented in an NPDES permit issued to a discharger. Under the CWA,
the permitting authority must incorporate these ELGs into NPDES permits
as a minimum level of control. The proposed rule provides the plant's
permitting authority with discretion to determine the date when the new
effluent limitations for FGD wastewater and BA transport water would
apply to a given discharger. EPA proposes that the earliest date these
new limitations could apply to a discharger is the effective date of
any final rule. Except for the limitations in certain subcategories,
for any finalized effluent limitation that is specified to become
applicable after the effective date, the specified date must be as soon
as possible after that date, but in no case later than December 31,
2029. For dischargers subject to less stringent limitations based on
certifications that they qualify for a subcategory based on permanent
cessation of coal combustion, however, EPA proposes to require
permitting authorities to put the more stringent zero-discharge
limitations for FGD wastewater and BA transport water in the existing
permit effective the day after the date of closure. This way, EPA would
ensure that dischargers would not benefit from less stringent
limitations based on closure by a certain date if that closure does not
occur. This proposal would not impact dischargers choosing to meet the
2020 VIP effluent limitations for FGD wastewater; the date for meeting
those limitations is December 31, 2028.
    Pretreatment standards, unlike effluent limitations, are directly
enforceable and must specify a time for compliance not to exceed three
years from the date of promulgation under CWA section 307(b)(1). Under
EPA's General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources,
POTWs with flows in excess of five MGD must develop pretreatment
programs meeting prescribed conditions. These POTWs have the legal
authority to require compliance with applicable pretreatment standards
and control the introduction of pollutants to the POTW through permits,
orders, or similar means. POTWs with approved pretreatment programs act
as the control authorities for their industrial users. Among the
responsibilities of the control authority are the development of the
specific discharge limitations for the POTW's industrial users. Because
pollutant discharge limitations in categorical pretreatment standards
may be expressed as concentrations or mass limitations, in many cases,
the control authority must convert the pretreatment standards to
limitations applicable to a specific industrial user and then include
these in POTW permits or another control instrument.
    Regardless of when a plant's NPDES permit is ready for renewal, EPA
recommends that each plant immediately begin evaluating how it intends
to comply with the requirements of any potential final rule. In cases
where significant changes in operation are appropriate, EPA recommends
that the plant discuss such changes with its permitting authority and
evaluate appropriate steps and a timeline for the changes as soon as
any final rule is promulgated, even before the permit renewal process.
    The ``as soon as possible'' date is the effective date of any final
rule, unless the permitting authority determines another date after
receiving relevant information submitted by the discharger.\181\ The
proposed rule would not revise the specified factors permitting
authorities must consider in determining the as soon as possible date
under the 2015 and 2020 rules. Based on receiving relevant information
from the discharger, the NPDES permitting authority may determine a
different date is ``as soon as possible'' within the implementation
period, using the factors below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Information in the record indicates that most facilities
should be able to complete all steps to implement changes needed to
comply with proposed BA transport water requirements within 32-35
months, the FGD wastewater requirements within 28 months, and the
CRL requirements within 22 months (DCN SE08480).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Time to expeditiously plan (including to raise capital),
design, procure, and install equipment to comply with the requirements
of the final rule.
    (2) Changes being made or planned at the plant in response to GHG
regulations for new or existing fossil fuel-fired plants under the CAA,
as well as regulations for the disposal of coal combustion residuals
under subtitle D of the RCRA.
    (3) For FGD wastewater requirements only, an initial commissioning
period to optimize the installed equipment.
    (4) Other factors as appropriate.
    The ``as soon as possible'' date determined by the permitting
authority may or may not be different for each wastestream. The NPDES
permitting authority should provide a well-documented justification of
how it determined the ``as soon as possible'' date in the fact sheet or
administrative record for the permit. If the permitting authority
determines a date later than the effective date of any final rule, the
justification should explain why allowing additional time to meet any
final limitations is appropriate, and why the discharger cannot meet
the effluent limitations as of the effective date. Finally, while the
Agency is proposing a ``no later than'' date of December 31, 2029, EPA
solicits comment on earlier

or later ``no later than'' dates such as five years from the effective
date of the rule or a date that would harmonize with air regulations
currently being developed for this same industry.
2. Conforming Changes for Transfers in Sections 423.13(o) and 423.19(i)
    EPA is proposing to remove the LUEGU subcategory as discussed in
Section VII.C of this preamble above. For consistency, EPA is proposing
to remove the portions of section 423.13(o) that refer to this
subcategory. This includes removal of paragraph (o)(1)(i), removal of
paragraphs (o)(1)(ii)(C)-(E), and a renumbering of the remaining
paragraphs. EPA is also revising paragraph (o)(3) as it would now apply
to all remaining transfers. EPA is proposing to revise the reporting
and recordkeeping requirements of section 423.19(i) to reflect the
remaining transfer provisions. EPA solicits comment on whether any
additional conforming changes are necessary for the transfer provisions
of section 423.13(o).
3. Conforming Changes for Voluntary and Involuntary Delays in Sections
423.18(a) and 423.19(j)
    EPA is proposing to remove the LUEGU subcategory and add an early
adopter subcategory, as discussed in Section VII.C of this preamble
above. For consistency, EPA is proposing to remove reference to LUEGUs
and add a reference to early adopter EGUs in the permit conditions of
section 423.18(a). EPA is also proposing conforming changes to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in section 423.19(i).
Specifically, EPA is proposing to add reference to the filings for
material delays associated with the early adopter subcategory and
associated 2032 permanent cessation of coal combustion date. EPA
solicits comment on whether any additional conforming changes are
necessary for the permit conditions or reporting and recordkeeping
provisions to document these voluntary and involuntary delays.
    EPA also wishes to clarify the applicability of section 423.18(a)
with respect to TVA. TVA is not subject to regulation or oversight by
either a public utility commission or an independent system operator
but rather serves those functions for itself in its service territory.
In addition, as of May 31, 2007, TVA was certified by NERC as the
reliability coordinator for itself, as well as for TVA Reliability
Coordinator Members.\182\ As the NERC-certified reliability
coordinator, TVA has the authority to issue operating instructions and
emergency operating instructions with which the TVA Reliability
Coordinator Members must comply. It is in every respect a competent
electricity regulator. The current regulations broadly refer to ``a
competent electricity regulator (e.g., an independent system
operator)'' and therefore would reasonably include unique situations
such as that of TVA. Nevertheless, EPA solicits comment on whether this
unique situation should explicitly be included in the regulatory text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ These members consist of Memphis Light, Gas, and Water
(MLGW), Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AECI), Louisville Gas
& Electric and Kentucky Utilities (LG&E/KU), Owensboro Municipal
Authority, and Smoky Mountain Transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Recommended Information To Be Submitted With a Permit Application
for a Potential Discharge of CRL Through Groundwater
    The question of whether facilities in this sector require a permit
for any wastewater that travels through groundwater is a long-standing
one. The Supreme Court recently clarified that discharges of pollutants
through groundwater to WOTUS are subject to the NPDES permit program if
they are the functional equivalent of a direct discharge. See County of
Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S. Ct. 1462 (2020). The record
indicates that it is currently uncommon for CRL discharges through
groundwater to be controlled in NPDES permits. Thus, EPA is
recommending that all facilities with CCR landfills or surface
impoundments evaluate whether there are any such discharges that are
subject to the NPDES permit program. For any such discharges that are
not currently authorized by an NPDES permit, EPA strongly recommends
that the permittee expeditiously seek permit coverage. CWA section
301(a) explains that, except as in compliance with certain provisions
of the act, ``. . . the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall
be unlawful.'' The process to obtain NPDES permit authorization for any
discharges typically begins when a permittee submits a permit
application to seek permit coverage for discharge(s).
    To help permitting authorities decide whether to issue a permit
authorizing such discharges, EPA recommends that the permittees submit
a permit application with sufficient information to inform that
decision. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.21(e) prohibit permitting
authorities from issuing an individual permit until and unless a
prospective discharger provides a complete application. Section
122.21(e)(1) states, ``an application for a permit is complete when the
Director receives an application form and any supplemental information
which are completed to his or her satisfaction.'' Absent EPA or state
permit application forms specific to discharges through groundwater,
EPA recommends that permit applicants with potential CRL discharges
through groundwater subject to 40 CFR part 423 submit a permit
application using the existing form(s) the permitting authority
requires for industrial facilities, along with any supplemental
information that would assist the permitting authority, including any
of the information described below.
    EPA recommends that permitting authorities also meet with
applicants early in the process to understand what supplemental
information they may need. The itemized elements of general and
technical information described below are provided for consideration;
the permitting authority may determine it needs this information, only
a subset of this information, or other information. Providing the
supplemental information that the permitting authority deems
appropriate will help expedite the permitting authority's review of the
permit application and potential permit issuance. As discussed in the
NPDES Permit Writer's Manual: \183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Available online at: www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-writers-manual.

    ``[A]fter the initial application review, the permit writer may
request that an applicant submit other information needed to decide
whether to issue a permit and for permit development. The requested
information could include the following: additional information,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quantitative data . . .''

    Supplemental information also can be obtained later when the permit
writer is drafting the permit. The applicant may submit additional
information voluntarily or be required to do so under CWA section 308
or a similar provision of state law. This process can be time consuming
and intensive, as described in the Permit Writer's Manual: ``in some
situations, a considerable amount of correspondence might be required
before the permit writer obtains all the information that he or she
believes is necessary to draft the permit.'' For permittees that
request NPDES permit authorization for discharges of CRL through
groundwater, EPA recommends that the permittee provide the information
described below as soon as possible to the permitting authority. This
information is unique to the steam electric industrial

sector and may not be warranted for other industrial sectors at this
time. This sector contains hundreds of large, unlined landfills and
surface impoundments that are within a mile of a surface waterbody (and
often substantially closer). Furthermore, EPA believes much of the
supplemental data and information described below (and that would be
part of the permit application) is already required and made publicly
available under the CCR rule. Thus, the incremental burden to
facilities should be minimal, especially when compared to the potential
burden of the permitting authorities seeking out and compiling this
same information.
     EPA Recommended General Information. General information
helps the permitting authority identify the major site features and
monitoring capabilities of the facility. The general information could
include:
    (1) Facility name and owner(s).
    (2) The identification number of the most recent final national
pollution discharge elimination permit, if any, and the date of
issuance.
    (3) A table listing all coal-fired EGUs, if any, or a statement
that all EGUs have permanently ceased combustion of coal. The table
shall also include the name or identifier, commission year, and
nameplate capacity of each such EGU.
    (4) A table listing all landfills and surface impoundments subject
to 257.50 et seq. For each such landfill or surface impoundment, the
table should also include the name or identifier, commission year,
acreage, the liner status consistent with the definitions of sections
257.70-257.72, types of solid wastes present, quantity of waste
present, and a statement that the landfill or surface impoundment is
either active or has ceased receipt of waste, listing the date it
ceased receipt of waste.
    (5) A table listing all groundwater monitoring wells. For each such
well, the table should also include the name or identifier, commission
year, location information, screen depths, and type of geologic
material in which the well was screened (e.g., sand, silt, clay).
    (6) A table listing all surface waterbodies located within one mile
of any landfill or surface impoundment from the table in #4 above, if
any, or the closest such waterbody if none are located within one mile.
The table should also include the hydraulic unit code and the shortest
measurable distance from any edge of the nearest landfill or surface
impoundment to any edge of the waterbody. This shortest distance should
be measured and reported at an average water level, maximum water level
(e.g., flood conditions), and minimum water level.
    (7) A map with a legend depicting the location and boundaries of
all items listed in the above information, including labels identifying
such items.
     EPA Recommended Technical Information. Technical
information on groundwater and subsurface data provides permitting
authorities a compiled set of information to evaluate the seven factors
identified in Maui. EPA notes that permitting authorities may request
any other information or data as appropriate. Technical information
could include:
    (1) For each aquifer underlying the landfills and surface
impoundments identified in the general information above, a time series
of groundwater elevations as measured in the groundwater monitoring
wells covering either 2015 through the present, or the groundwater
monitoring well commission year through the present, whichever is
shorter.
    (2) For each surface water identified in the general information
above, a time series of surface water elevations covering the same date
range of as in #1.
    (3) For each landfill or surface impoundment from the general
information above, the elevation of the waste bottom. For each surface
impoundment, the operating level and freeboard shall also be included.
    (4) A graph plotting the elevations in #1-3 over time.
    (5) Measured, calculated, or estimated values of the site hydraulic
conductivity, hydraulic gradient, velocity of groundwater, and
effective porosity, giving particular consideration to these along the
trajectory of groundwater flow from the landfill or surface impoundment
to the surface waterbody.
    (6) Estimated groundwater travel time from each landfill or surface
impoundment into each surface waterbody in the general information. In
addition to average estimates, minimum and maximum travel times should
be estimated.
    (7) A groundwater potentiometric surface map of the facility
illustrating the average travel times estimated in #6. To the extent
possible, such a map should be created with data collected during the
same sampling round.
    (8) Summary statistics including the minimum, maximum, and average
of the data and estimates in #1, 2, and 6.
    (9) Using all available data, summary statistics (including
minimum, maximum, and average) of the concentration of each pollutant
in the table following this section for each groundwater monitoring
well supported by appendix tables containing all groundwater monitoring
data. Where no data exist for any pollutant in this table, there should
be a certification for each such pollutant that no groundwater
monitoring data exist. Erroneous data (e.g., due to lab error) may be
excluded with a narrative explaining the exclusions.
    (10) Three isoconcentration plots showing the horizontal extent of
the most dispersed pollutant reported in #9 using the minimum, maximum,
and average values from each well. These plots should be supported by
an appendix containing isoconcentration plots showing the horizontal
extent of all remaining pollutants reported in #9 in the same manner.
    (11) Three isoconcentration plots showing the vertical extent of
the most dispersed pollutant reported in #9 using the minimum, maximum,
and average values. These plots should be supported by appendix
isoconcentration plots showing the vertical extent of all remaining
pollutants reported in #9 in the same manner.
    (12) Boring logs, geotechnical laboratory reports, and sieve
analyses from the initial safety factor assessment, if any, other site-
specific data and evaluations of the subsurface, and supplemental
geologic subsurface data from regional databases where necessary.
    (13) A list of sorbents for the pollutants listed in the table
following this section, a list of which pollutants are known to sorb to
each, and a discussion of which sorbents are present in the subsurface
that contaminated groundwater would pass through to the surface
waterbodies listed in the general information. If available, include
laboratory measurements of contaminated uppermost aquifer material.
    (14) The estimated cross-sectional surface area through which CRL
enters each surface waterbody listed in the table in the general
information.
    (15) For each pollutant listed in the table following this section,
a minimum, maximum, and average estimate of the mass flux from each
landfill or surface impoundment and into each surface waterbody in the
general information, the mass sorbed in the subsurface, and the mass
dissolved in the groundwater.

                   BAT/PSES Treated Pollutants in CRL
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony                             Magnesium
Arsenic                              Manganese
Barium                               Mercury
Beryllium                            Molybdenum
Cadmium                              Nickel
Chromium                             Thallium
Cobalt                               Titanium

Copper                               Vanadium
Lead                                 Zinc
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA solicits comment on every aspect of these recommendations.
While administrative burden to permitting agencies may initially
increase, given the Maui decision and the high visibility of the data
collected under the CCR rule, EPA anticipates that some of these
facilities may need permit coverage in the future. EPA's intent is to
assist permitting agencies by clarifying some of the supplemental data
that would be useful for determining the presence and nature of a
discharge of CRL through groundwater. EPA solicits comment on the
extent to which this recommended information would reduce the existing
burden to permitting authorities post-Maui and on alternatives that
might further reduce this burden.
    EPA also solicits comment on three alternative approaches for
obtaining this information. First, EPA solicits comment on directly
obtaining this information through a series of CWA 308(a) information
request letters to all plants subject to 40 CFR part 423. Second, EPA
solicits comment on placing the recommendations above directly in a
regulation that would require provision of this information under CWA
308 authority. Third, EPA solicits comment on adding a requirement to
the permit application regulations of part 122 that a facility must
provide this information to the permitting authority as part of the
permit application process. Under all these alternatives, EPA solicits
comment on whether and how this information could be made publicly
available to increase transparency.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    EPA is proposing several new reporting and recordkeeping
requirements or changes and soliciting comment on others. First, to
implement the proposed rule's removal of two subcategories and addition
of an early adopter subcategory, under CWA sections 304(i) and 308,
this proposal includes four proposed changes to the individual
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of section 423.19. In
particular, EPA is proposing to add an additional component to the