ML042940382
| ML042940382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Watts Bar, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/2004 |
| From: | Watts J Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Davis P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of TN, Dept of Environment & Conservation |
| References | |
| TN0005355, TN0005410, TN0005428, TN0005436, TN0005444, TN0005452, TN0005461, TN0005789, TN0020168, TN0026450 | |
| Download: ML042940382 (11) | |
Text
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street. Chattanooga. Tennessee 37402-2801 October 13, 2004 Mr. Paul E. Davis, Director Division of Water Pollution Control Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 6th Floor, L&C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534
Dear Mr. Davis:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (IVA) - ALLEN FOSSIL PLANT (ALF) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005355 -
BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANT (BRF) - NPDES PERMIT NO.
TN0005410 - CUMBERLAND FOSSIL PLANT (CUF) - NPDES PERMIT NO.
TN0005789 - GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005428 - JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT (JOF) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005436 - JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT (JOF) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005444 - KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT (KIF) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005452 - SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0026450 -WATTS BAR FOSSIL PLANT (WBF) -
NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0005461 AND WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) -
NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0020168 - SCHEDULES FOR SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FINAL EPA REGULATIONS FOR PHASE II COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES As you know, the final regulations to establish requirements for cooling water intake structures at Phase II existing facilities were published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2004, and became effective on September 7, 2004. This rule will require the collection of a large amount of data to establish the "best technology available" for the plants' intake structures and to demonstrate compliance with the rule. Collecting, generating, compiling, and analyzing the large amount of information required by the Phase II 316(b) rule will require a substantial effort. (TVA has 3 nuclear plants and 11 coal fired plants in three states that are subject to the Phase II rule).
The final regulations require, under 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(r) and 125.95(a)(2), the submission of source water physical data, cooling wateir intake structure data and Co02c PnrWed on wycd padw
I Mr. Paul E. Davis Page 2 October 13, 2004 cooling water system data, and all applicable portions of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) as part of the application for renewal of a facility's NPDES permit.
The CDS includes the following:
Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) - submitted prior to collecting new data
- Source water body flow information Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization (as applicable) studies
- Site-specific requirements documentation (i.e., Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study, Benefits Evaluation Study, Site-Specific Technology Plan), if applicable Design and Construction Technology Plan, if applicable
- Technology Installation and Operation Plan (TIOP), if applicable Restoration Plan, if applicable, and
- Verification Monitoring Plan, if applicable.
TVA will have to both collect and review a substantial amount of plant, source water body, and biological information. In addition, detailed studies and other information will be required to determine which intake structure technologies or other measures may be required for compliance.
For facilities with NPDES permits that expire prior to July 9, 2008, 40 CFR § 1 25.95(a)(2)(ii) allows the Director to establish a schedule for submitting this information (other than the Proposal for Information Collection) as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than January 7, 2008. Further, 40 CFR § 125.95(a)(1) requires that the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) be submitted prior to the start of information collection activities. PICs for TVA's facilities are being prepared and will be submitted prior to start.of substantive information collection activities.
In order to satisfy the 'as expeditiously as practicable" requirement, WVA initiated analysis of the rule and the collection of necessary information as soon as the rule was published. We have formed an internal WVA multi-disciplinary team to facilitate these efforts. In support of preparing the CDS, TVA plans to begin impingement mortality monitoring in fiscal year 2005 which began October 1. Entrainment sampling, as applicable, would be conducted during the spawning season in 2005. Despite this early start, we will still need time until January 7, 2008 (in all likelihood), to complete the studies and collect the information required by 40 C.F.R. § 125.95.
Please note that EPA has recently made implementation schedule guidance available on its web page ("316(b) Phase 11 Implementation Question and Answer Document" dated August 19, 2004). A copy is enclosed for your information. Based on the rule and EPA guidance, WVA anticipates that the schedules for submitting the source water physical data, cooling water intake structure data, and cooling water system data along with the applicable portions of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) will be as follows:
I I -
Mr. Paul Davis Page 3 October 13, 2004 Plant &
Pemt Basis of 316(b) Permit Status NPDE Issuance &
Limitations in the next mig of CDS Permit No.
ExDation reissued permit Sbiso Permit KIF 9/1/2003 Will be based on the Not later than expires after TN0005452 8/31/2008 provisions specified in 40 180-days prior the 316(b)
CFR § 125.94(a) taking to permit rule takes into account the CDS and expiration (i.e.,
effect.
other information by March 4, Permit submitted under §125.95.
2008) expires after July 9, 2008.
Permit ALF 8/15/2002 Would continue to be As expires after TN0005355 4/28/2005 based on BPJ under expeditiously the 316(b)
CUF 1211/2001 authority of 40 CFR § as practicable rule takes TN0005789 11/30/2005 125.95 (a)(2)(ii).
which may effect.
The permit would also require until Permit GAF 11/30/1999 need to include a January 7, expires TN0005428 11/30/2004 schedule requiring the 2008.
before July facility to submit the 9, 2008.
comprehensive demonstration study and other information required by 40 CFR § 125.95.
Permit BRF 11/30/1999 The 316(b) limitations in As expires TN0005410 11/29/2003 the proposed and final expeditiously before the JSF 4/28/2000 permit would be based on as practicable 316(b) rule TN0005436 4/28/2004 BPJ under authority of 40 which may takes effect.
JOF 11/30/1999 CFR § 125.95 (a)(2)(ii).
require until Draft permit TN0005444 11/30/2003 The permit would also January 7, proposed SQN 7/31/2001 need to include a 2008.
after the TN0026450 12/31/2003 schedule requiring the 316(b) rule WBN 7/16/1999 facility to submit the takes effect.
TNO020168 9/28/2001 comprehensive demonstration study and other information required by 40 CFR § 125.95.
TVA's Watts Bar Fossil plant is no longer operated as a generating station and there are no current plans to generate electricity at this facility. Compliance with the 316(b) rule for the fossil plant's intake structure will be addressed under the NPDES permit for WBN since the nuclear plant utilizes the intake structure for its Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water system.
f; Mr. Paul Davis Page 4 October 13, 2004 TVA requests written approval of our 316(b) compliance schedule at your earliest convenience and appreciates your assistance in this matter. If you need further information, please contact Mike Stiefel at (423) 751-6844 in Chattanooga or by email at mbstiefele-tva.gov.
Sincerely, Q Janet K. Watts Manager Environmental Affairs 5D Lookout Place Enclosure cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control. Desk Washington, D.C.
20555
I 316(b) Phase II Implementation Question and Answer Document Table of Contents
- 1.
Introduction
- 2.
Timing of Requirements
- 3.
Development of Facility Costs and Cost-Cost Test
- 4.
Does the Rule Apply to This Facility?
- 5.
Application Requirements/Comprehensive Demonstration Study
- 6.
Calculation Baseline/Use of Historical Data
- 7.
Performance Standards
- 8.
More Stringent Standards
- 9.
Velocity
- 10.
Restoration
- 11.
Model Permit Language
- 12.
Miscellaneous Figure 1 Timing of Requirements August 19, 2004 Page I of 7
316(b) Phase II Implementation Question and Answer Document
- 1.
Introduction On July 9, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published final regulations under Clean Water Act (CWA) § 316(b) establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures at Phase II facilities. See 69 Fed. Reg. 41576 (July 9, 2004). The purpose of this Question and Answer document is to provide guidance on the implementation of the 316(b) Phase II rule. It is being posted on EPA's web site. As EPA receives additional questions from permit writers, industry, environmental groups, and other members of the public, this document will be updated. The advice in this document is based on EPA's regulations. Users of this document should also consult applicable state law, because the CWA reserves to the States the authority to adopt or enforce any requirement with respect to control or abatement of pollution that is more stringent than those required by federal law. See CWA § 510; 40 CFR § 125.90(d).
This document discusses existing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and EPA's implementing regulations. Those CWA provisions and regulations contain legally binding requirements. This document describes these requirements; it does not substitute for those provisions or regulations. This document also contains recommendations. These recommendations are not binding; indeed, there may be other approaches that would be appropriate in particular situations. EPA expects the permitting authority to make its decisions based on the applicable requirements of the CWA and implementing regulations, taking into account comments and information presented at that time by interested persons. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
- 2.
Timing of Requirements 2.A.
Each of the following scenarios (QI through Q5) assumes that a facility's permit expired prior to the effective date of the 316(b) Phase II rule and that the facility had filed its application for renewal on a timely basis.
Ql:
The final permit is issued by the State or EPA Region (as the case may be) before the 316(b) Phase II rule takes effect. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
Al:
Because the Phase II rule was not in effect at the time of permit issuance by the State or EPA Region (as the case may be), the 316(b) limitations must continue to be based on BPJ under authority of 40 C.F.R. § 401.14 and 40 CFR § 122.43.
Q2:
The draft permit is proposed before the 316(b) Phase II rule takes effect, but the final permit would be issued after the Phase II rule takes effect. At the time of final permit issuance by the State or the Region (as the case may be), the facility has not submitted the comprehensive demonstration study and other information needed to determine limitations under the 316(b) Phase II rule. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
August 19, 2004 Page 2 of 7
A2:
The 316(b) limitations in the draft permit would be based on BPJ under authority of 40 C.F.R. § 401.14. The 316(b) limitations in the final permit can be based on BPJ under the same authority. However, under 40 C.F.R. § 122.43(b), the Director has the discretion to reopen the permit proceedings when he or she determines prior to issuance of the final permit, based on information in the record, that the new Phase II requirements, e.g.,
including authorization to impose a schedule, are of sufficient magnitude to make additional proceedings desirable (e.g., re-proposing the draft permit to reflect the new Phase II requirements). A decision whether or not to reopen the proceedings should be explained in the permitting record. For example, the Director could reasonably determine that the Phase II requirements are not of sufficient magnitude at that time to justify reopening the permit to consider new limitations when, as here, the facility has not provided the permit writer with the comprehensive demonstration study or other information needed to determine limitations based on one of the compliance alternatives in the Phase II rule. The 316(b) limitations would be based on BPJ whether or not the Director reopens the permit, because under § 125.95(a)(2)(ii) of the Phase II rule, a BPJ-based permit limit is required for facilities that have not submitted the information required under the Phase II rule. However, because the permittee will have to comply with the information submission requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 125.95 for the next permit anyway, the Director should consider including in the final permit a schedule by which the facility must submit the Phase II information. The schedule would need to reflect a deadline that is as expeditious as practicable but not later than January 7, 2008. See 40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2)(ii).
Q3:
The draft permit is proposed after the 316(b) Phase II rule takes effect. At the time of permit issuance, the facility has not submitted the comprehensive demonstration study and other information needed to determine limitations under the 316(b) Phase II rule. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
A3:
The 316(b) limitations in the proposed and final permit would be based on BPJ under authority of 40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2)(ii). The permit would also need to include a schedule requiring the facility to submit the comprehensive demonstration study and other information required by 40 C.F.R. § 125.95 as expeditiously as practicable but not later than January 7, 2008.
Q4:
The permit is proposed before the 316(b) Phase II rule takes effect, but would be issued after the Phase II rule takes effect. Prior to issuance of the final permit, the facility submits the comprehensive demonstration study and other information needed to determine limitations under the 316(b) Phase II rule. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
A4:
The 316(b) limitations in the draft permit would be based on BPJ under authority of 40 C.F.R. § 401.14. However, as noted above, the Director has the discretion to reopen the permit proceedings when he or she determines, based on information in the record, that the new Phase II requirements are of sufficient magnitude to make additional proceedings desirable (e.g., re-proposing the draft permit to reflect the new Phase II requirements). In this fact pattern, the Director possesses the comprehensive demonstration study and other information necessary to calculate Phase II limitations. Therefore, the Director should reopen the proceedings and propose new 316(b) limitations based on the studies and other August 19,2004 Page 3 of 7
information unless the Director has a good reason, on the record, for declining to exercise this discretion.
Q5:
The draft permit is proposed after the 316(b) Phase II rule takes effect. Prior to publication of the proposed permit, the facility submits the comprehensive demonstration study and other information needed to determine limitations under the 316(b) Phase II rule. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the final rule?
A5:
The 316(b) limitations in the proposed and final permit would be based on the requirements set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 125.94, taking into account the comprehensive demonstration study and other information submitted under § 125.95.
2.B.
Each of the following scenarios (Q6 through Q7) assumes that a facility's permit expired after the effective date of the 316(b) Phase II rule and that the facility had filed its application for renewal on a timely basis.
Q6:
The facility's permit expires before July 9, 2008. Neither the application nor any other submission from the facility during the permit proceeding contains the comprehensive demonstration study and other information needed to determine limitations under the 316(b) Phase II rule. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
A6:
The 316(b) limitations in the proposed and final permit would be based on BPJ under authority of 40 C.F.R. § 125.95(a)(2)(ii). The permit would also need to include a schedule requiring the facility to submit the comprehensive demonstration study and other information required by 40 C.F.R. § 125.95 as expeditiously as practicable but not later than January 7, 2008.
Q7:
The facility's permit expires on or after July 9, 2008. What is the basis for the 316(b) limitations in the permit?
A7:.
The 316(b) limitations in the proposed and final permit would be based on the provisions in 40 C.F.R. § 125.94, taking into account the comprehensive demonstration study and other information submitted under § 125.95. The studies and other information must be provided to the permit writer as part of the facility's timely filed application for permit renewal. See 122.21 (r)(1)(ii).
- 3.
Development of Facility Costs and Cost-Cost Test [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 4.
Does the Rule Apply to This Facility? [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 5.
Application Requirements/Comprehensive Demonstration Study [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 6.
Calculation Baseline/Use of Historical Data [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 7.
Performance Standards [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 8.
More Stringent Standards [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
August 19, 2004 Page4 of 7
- 9.
Velocity [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 10.
Restoration [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 11.
Model Permit Language [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
- 12.
Miscellaneous [UNDER DEVELOPMENT]
August 19,2004 Page 5 of 7
Figure 1. Timing of Requirements The timelines in figure 1 illustrates the different scenarios discussed in Section 2, Timing of Requirements. See sections 2A and 2B for answers to QI through Q7.
KEY P = proposed permit F = final permit gray bar = effective date of the rule (September 7, 2004) double line = four years after date of publication in the Federal Register (July 9, 2008)
Assumptions for QI through Q3:
Facility's permit expired prior to the effective date of the 316(b) Phase II rule.
Facility had filed its application for renewal on a timely basis.
Facility has not provided the permit writer with the Comprehensive Demonstration Study or other information needed to determine limitations under the Phase II rule.
P F
P X F P
F v
A-----A A -+
-+-
Q1 Q2 l Q3 Assumptions for Q4 and Q5:
Facility's permit expired prior to the effective date of the 316(b) Phase II rule.
Facility had filed its application for renewal on a timely basis.
For Q4, facility has provided the permit writer with the Comprehensive Demonstration Study or other information needed to determine limitations under the Phase II rule prior to issuance of the final permit and for Q5 prior to public t on of the proposed permit.
P I
F P
F
A------------ -EI---A
* ----------- + ----------------------------
Q4 Q5 Assumptions for Q6 and Q7:
For Q6, facility's permit expired after the effective date of the 316(b) Phase II rule but before July 9, 2008 and for Q7 on or after July 9, 2008.
Facility had filed its application for rereiwal on a timely basis.
P F
P F
Q6 Q7 Page 6 of 7 August 19,2004
August 19, 2004 Page 7 of 7