Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category: Unmanaged Combustion Residual Leachate

A coalition of environmental organizations, including Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, argues that the EPA should withdraw the Proposed Rule because it weakens wastewater treatment standards for coal plants. They contend that the EPA is unlawfully using broad energy policy goals to justify less stringent pollution limits and that zero-discharge technologies are both available and economically achievable.

Larry Dembrun, a private citizen, supports the development of effluent limitation standards for unmanaged combustion residual leachate. He argues that regulations should be based on scientific research and practical implementation while prioritizing water quality protection, transparency, and public accountability.

PPL Corporation supports the EPA's proposed Option 1 for numerical limits on mercury and arsenic for unmanaged combustion residual leachate and the proposed clarifications regarding retired plants and closed waste management units. However, the company strongly opposes the 2024 Effluent Limitations Guideline (ELG) rule, arguing that zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) technologies are neither technically feasible nor economically achievable for most coal-fired units.

The Cross-Cutting Issues Group, a group of electric generating companies, supports the EPA's preferred approach (Option 1) for addressing unmanaged combustion residual leachate. They argue that this approach provides a reasonable, site-specific solution using best professional judgment while opposing the less feasible and more costly zero-discharge and existing 2024 ELG requirements.

The American Public Power Association (APPA), representing not-for-profit, community-owned utilities, supports the EPA's proposal to reconsider the 2024 ELG Rule's requirements for unmanaged combustion residual leachate (UCRL). They advocate for a site-specific permitting framework (Option 1) for certain leachate types, the retention of national arsenic and mercury limits with a 2034 deadline for pumped UCRL, and the repeal of zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) requirements for other wastestreams.

The Attorneys General of 28 states submitted a joint comment supporting the EPA's proposed revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for unmanaged combustion residual leachate. They specifically advocate for Option 1, arguing it provides a more technologically feasible, cost-effective, and site-specific regulatory framework than the previous 2024 Rule while preserving state-federal cooperative federalism.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) supports the proposed rule to revise effluent limitations for unmanaged combustion residual leachate, citing its potential to reduce costs for steam electric power generating facilities. While generally supportive, IDEM recommends removing the requirement for interim best professional judgment (BPJ) limits for certain discharges to avoid administrative burdens and recommends further revisions to prevent burdensome BAT analyses for functional-equivalent discharges.

The National Mining Association (NMA) supports the proposed rule regarding unmanaged combustion residual leachate (CRL) because it provides regulatory clarity and avoids infeasible zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) standards. However, the NMA also urges the EPA to repeal the ZLD standards for other wastewater streams and remove retirement subcategories from the 2024 ELG Rule, arguing they are technologically unachievable and incentivize the closure of coal-fired power plants.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a federal government agency, supports Option 1 of the proposed rule but requests additional time to gather data. They argue for regulatory flexibility, specifically requesting the retention of a high FGD flow subcategory and expressing concerns regarding the feasibility and costs of zero liquid discharge (ZLD) requirements.

The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) opposes the proposed revisions to the Effluent Limitations Guidelines because they would redirect coal combustion products (CCP) from beneficial use markets back into disposal settings. The association argues that the EPA's analysis overestimates fly ash availability and fails to account for the regional nature of markets and the impact of other regulations on CCP harvesting.