# EPA may rewrite limits on coal plant discharges



## georgepds (Aug 21, 2017)

Just curious... who thinks the new rules will give us cleaner lakes and rivers?

Not me 


"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering rewriting Obama-era limits on toxic heavy metals discharged from coal-fired power plants into lakes and rivers,"

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/epa-may-rewrite-limits-on-coal-plant-discharges/449414/


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 21, 2017)

georgepds said:


> Just curious... who thinks the new rules will give us cleaner lakes and rivers?
> 
> Not me
> 
> ...




This seems unnecessary with solar on a path to become cheaper than coal. I guess the new administration wants to go backwards. Next thing you know they'll want to put lead back in gasoline so car makers don't have to harden the valve seats anymore!


----------



## georgepds (Aug 21, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> This seems unnecessary with solar on a path to become cheaper than coal. I guess the new administration wants to go backwards. Next thing you know they'll want to put lead back in gasoline so car makers don't have to harden the valve seats anymore!



I know... sometimes it seems like pig headed nostalgia

I remember rivers and lakes in the early 70s, before the epa began to bite it wasn't pretty


We could have a contest... stupidest nostalgic rollback of current administration

Why stop at lakes and rivers... let's rollback sulfur and mercury content in stack emissions


----------



## BrotherBart (Aug 21, 2017)

Guess I need to start throwing the hamburger wrappers and bags out the car window like we did in the fifties and sixties.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 22, 2017)

BrotherBart said:


> Guess I need to start throwing the hamburger wrappers and bags out the car window like we did in the fifties and sixties.



 Good one.. iirc, that was lady bird Johnson who fixed that problem


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 22, 2017)

georgepds said:


> Why stop at lakes and rivers... let's rollback sulfur and mercury content in stack emissions



I think they are working on that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html?mcubz=1&_r=0

One paragraph from the article:

"Mr. Pruitt, according to the employees, who requested anonymity out of fear of losing their jobs, often makes important phone calls from other offices rather than use the phone in his office, and he is accompanied, even at E.P.A. headquarters, by armed guards, the first head of the agency to ever request round-the-clock security."

And another:

"His aides recently asked career employees to make major changes in a rule regulating water quality in the United States — without any records of the changes they were being ordered to make. And the E.P.A. under Mr. Pruitt has moved to curb certain public information, shutting down data collection of emissions from oil and gas companies, and taking down more than 1,900 agency webpages on topics like climate change, according to a tally by the Environmental Defense Fund, which did a Freedom of Information request on these terminated pages."

And this from a Trump supporter:

"Mr. Schnare, a conservative Republican who has backed President Trump’s broader agenda, had taken on what was expected to be a more permanent role at the E.P.A.


"But he resigned last month in protest of what he said is Mr. Pruitt’s mismanagement of the agency.

"Mr. Schnare noted that some previous E.P.A. administrators had been secretive — during the Obama administration, for example, Lisa Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, came under criticism for using an email alias, “Richard Windsor,” to conduct official business.

"But Mr. Schnare said that Mr. Pruitt’s methods stood out from all of his predecessors.

“My view was that under this administration we would be good at transparency, particularly in the regulatory area,” he said. “But these guys aren’t doing that.”

Pruitt is a zealot about dismantling the EPA and the related regulations, regardless of the health and economic costs to his fellow citizens.  They are trying to undue a lot of regulations in secretive ways to cover their tracks.  Instead of having an open debate of ideas backed up by scientific analysis that leads to the best solution.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 22, 2017)

And say good by to mountain tops in the appalachians

"<the> Department of the Interior has told the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to stop studying the effects of coal mining on health."


https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-halts-research-mountaintop-224400038.html


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 22, 2017)

This is wastewater that is used to cool boilers, heat exchangers, and such and is pulled from the river and then put back into the river.  It does not ever get contaminated by combustion.  
Sometimes de-scaling events occur to remove the concentrated deposits from the river that have reacted with the metals in the wastewater piping.  

Is that correct?

What about the new Obama regs (that had states suing the EPA), makes it cost prohibitive to retrofit to new standards?


----------



## vinny11950 (Aug 22, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> This is wastewater that is used to cool boilers, heat exchangers, and such and is pulled from the river and then put back into the river.  It does not ever get contaminated by combustion.
> Sometimes de-scaling events occur to remove the concentrated deposits from the river that have reacted with the metals in the wastewater piping.
> 
> Is that correct?
> ...



I am all for reviewing regulations that hurt one group versus another, maybe there are ways to do it better.  But have hearings, review process,  let all parties involved have a say, including scientist, and come to a consensus.  But changing these rules secretly without a review process or even notes at meetings, smells of corruption.  If even Republicans are complaining about it, you know they are going too far.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 22, 2017)

vinny11950 said:


> I am all for reviewing regulations that hurt one group versus another, maybe there are ways to do it better.  But have hearings, review process,  let all parties involved have a say, including scientist, and come to a consensus.  But changing these rules secretly without a review process or even notes at meetings, smells of corruption.  If even Republicans are complaining about it, you know they are going too far.


That is the inherit problem with a group like the EPA.  Us citizens/peons elect people to represent us and those people in turn make political appointments, not necessarily the best for the environment or the country, but usually favors.  Because those are appointments and not elections, the POTUS has a great deal of authority over them. 
Trump will have whims, just like Obama did.  Obama doubled down on Solyndra and wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer money..whos execs later show up to campaign fund raisers.   
How many defense contractors give to republican and democrat campaigns?  How about drug companies?  Both sides benefit from crony capitalism.  Don't believe for a second it is one sided.  That just pits us against each other.  

Anyway,,I was curious if anyone knew what the reason for the pushback was from the power companies...the details of what made the power plant modifications to new guidelines so expensive.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 22, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> This is wastewater that is used to cool boilers, heat exchangers, and such and is pulled from the river and then put back into the river.  It does not ever get contaminated by combustion.
> Sometimes de-scaling events occur to remove the concentrated deposits from the river that have reacted with the metals in the wastewater piping.
> 
> Is that correct?
> ...




It is partly thermal wastewater.. but it is not hazard free. There is a link to a PBS discussion on the bottom of the original post that notes

"The wastewater flushed from the coal-fired plants into rivers and lakes typically contains traces of such highly toxic heavy metals as lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium."

Believe this refers  to the Obama reg effects...

"EPA estimates that the 2015 rule, if implemented, would reduce power plant pollution by about 1.4 billion pounds a year. Only about 12 percent of the nation’s steam electric power plants would have to make new investments to meet the higher standards, according to the agency.,"

all quotes from


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...obama-era-limits-coal-power-plant-wastewater/


----------



## georgepds (Aug 22, 2017)

http://powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=6

describes how the water gets polluted 


"The following procedures all can occur during routine operations and maintenance of power plants and each can significantly impact water quality:

*Boiler blowdown:* This waste stream results from periodic purging of the impurities that become concentrated in steam boiler systems. These pollutants include metals such as copper, iron and nickel, as well as chemicals added to prevent scaling and corrosion of steam generator components.

*Coal pile run-off: *This waste stream is created when water comes in contact with coal storage piles maintained on the power plant site. While most piles are kept covered, active piles used to meet the power plants immediate needs are often open to the elements. Metals and other naturally occurring contaminants contained in coal leach out with the rainfall and are deposited in nearby water bodies.

*Cooling process wastes:* Water used for power plant cooling is chemically altered for purposes of extending the useful life of equipment and to ensure efficient operation. Demineralized regenerants and rinses are chemicals employed to purify waters used as makeup water for the plant's cooling system. Cooling tower blowdown contains chemicals added to prevent biological growth in the towers and to prevent corrosion in condensors.

*Boiler cleaning wastes:* These wastes derive from the chemical additives intended to remove scale and other byproducts of combustion.

*Thermal pollution:* Thermal plants create or use steam in the process of creating electricity require water for cooling. This water typically comes from adjacent water bodies or groundwater sources and is discharged back into the water body at significantly higher temperatures. By altering the temperature in the "mixing zone," the discharge of thermal wastewater can both negative and positive effects on aquatic life.....


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 22, 2017)

I read all of those articles.  I was looking for real, hard figures on what was getting released and how much of it was new introduction to the water from the plant, and not just concentrations of metals and trace amounts that were already in the river.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 22, 2017)

georgepds said:


> It is partly thermal wastewater.. but it is not hazard free. There is a link to a PBS discussion on the bottom of the original post that notes
> 
> "The wastewater flushed from the coal-fired plants into rivers and lakes typically contains traces of such highly toxic heavy metals as lead, arsenic, mercury and selenium.



Let me get this straight...They want to put toxic chemicals back in our air and water but make it a criminal offense to have a puff on a joint?

I guess that makes sense if you're:




or:


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Aug 23, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Let me get this straight...They want to put toxic chemicals back in our air and water but make it a criminal offense to have a puff on a joint?


Not going to comment on the drug remark...

...all water has trace elements of toxic chemicals in it.  Key word, "trace".  It's all about the concentrations.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 23, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Not going to comment on the drug remark...
> 
> ...all water has trace elements of toxic chemicals in it.  Key word, "trace".  It's all about the concentrations.



Exactly! That's why the current regulations allow toxic chemicals in the water as long as the concentrations are below the threshold that will cause substantial harm according to the best available science. Federal regs also must balance the difficulty of meeting the standard with the amount of harm that can be expected. Without a large body of new scientific evidence showing the earlier standards were more strict than necessary to protect human health, it is a step backwards to relax them. And we know recent moves are not driven by science but by greed and ideology.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 23, 2017)

sportbikerider78 said:


> I read all of those articles.  I was looking for real, hard figures on what was getting released and how much of it was new introduction to the water from the plant, and not just concentrations of metals and trace amounts that were already in the river.




Re” figures on what was getting released”


https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule

“On an annual basis, the rule is projected to reduce the amount of toxic metals, nutrients, and other pollutants that steam electric power plants are allowed to discharge by 1.4 billion pounds and reduce water withdrawal by 57 billion gallons”


On what it covers.. this is not stuff that was already in the water.. this is stuff added to the waste stream


“The final rule sets new or additional requirements for wastewater streams from the following processes and byproducts: flue gas desulfurization, fly ash, bottom ash, ,lue gas mercury control, gasification of fuels such as coal and petroleum coke””


If you really want to get into the weeds the support docs for the rule are here


https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule-documents


----------



## georgepds (Aug 23, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> .....Federal regs also must balance the difficulty of meeting the standard with the amount of harm that can be expected......




There is a top level summarry of the cost/benefit analysis of the rule here 


https://www.epa.gov/eg/steam-electric-power-generating-effluent-guidelines-2015-final-rule


_Estimated annual compliance costs for the final rule are $480 million_
_Estimated benefits associated with the rule are $451 to $566 million_

The background docs quoted above cover the details. Rough summary the costs are about the same going either way, but, if the rule stands,  the benefits are cleaner water and all the "downstream' benefits associated with it


----------



## georgepds (Aug 23, 2017)

The discussion has driven me to look deeper into the docs supporting the rule. I knew about bi accumulation, but had no idea how detailed the analysis can get.. like the difference between lentic and loctic systems (huh?????).. turns out it is the difference between a lake and a stream. The comment below on streams remind me of the old 70's mantra" the solution to pollution is dilution"

https://www.epa.gov/sites/productio...steam-electric_detailed_study_report_2009.pdf

"In lentic aquatic systems, the hydraulic residence time, or the amount of time it takes for the water in the aquatic system to be replaced by influent (i.e., streams, precipitation), is relatively long, allowing pollutants to build up over time and making lentic systems more vulnerable to impacts from coal combustion wastewater"

"Lotic systems are water bodies with flowing water such as streams, rivers, and springs that may provide more rapid dilution of coal combustion wastewater discharges than lentic systems. The moving water in lotic systems provides a transport mechanism to disperse coal combustion constituents greater distances from the power plant, and enables aquatic organisms to move away from the areas of coal combustion wastewater contamination"

The EPA breaks down the effects into three categories: Lethal , sub lethal, and communitiy

"Lethal effects – fish kills and mortality to other organisms;

"Sublethal effects – histopathological changes, or accumulation of trace elements in tissue, and damage to reproductive and developmental success; and

"Population and community effects – changes in species abundance and composition."

You can kill the fish outright  

" organisms were exposed to sediments, water, and food from the D-Area Power Facility grounds, and experienced a 75 percent mortality rate after 45 days. These studies and others indicate that the lethal effects of coal combustion wastewater exposure can be quite potent,"

Or you can just make their life miserable with sub lethal effects

"Exposure to coal combustion wastewater has caused a number of organisms to experience reproductive failure and other forms of diminished reproductive success

Or you can just annoy the humans in the area, (green well water ummmmmmm)

"Metals and other pollutants present in coal combustion wastewater may contaminate actual or potential drinking water sources by leaching from surface impoundments or landfills into groundwater or surface waters. For example, at the Chisman Creek Disposal Site, a fly ash landfill in Virginia, water in nearby residential wells turned green and testing revealed the wells were contaminated with selenium and sulfate from groundwater contaminated with leachate from coal combustion wastewater"

The EPA did their homework in promulgating the rule: fish kills, reproductive failure and green well water are not minor trace effects..


----------

