Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category-Deadline Extensions

The EPA is finalizing a site-specific timing flexibility to be incorporated in the permit conditions set forth in 40 CFR 423.18(d), based on the statutory factors of “availability,” as well as “non- water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)” or, alternatively, “other factors” the Administrator deems appropriate (i.e., sudden changes in resource adequacy needs for a particular service area or supply-chain issues). See 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(A), 1314(b)(2)(B). As discussed further below, this flexibility is primarily intended to address challenges previously described in this final rule that may result in a plant, or even a single EGU at a plant, pivoting too quickly or too late into an alternative compliance pathway to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. Unlike the compliance deadline extensions for the 2024 rule's zero-discharge limitations discussed above, this site-specific timing flexibility could potentially apply to the 2020 rule limitations.

While the EPA is aware that several utilities have already pushed back plans to retire coal units by 2028 in order to support regional resource adequacy, trade associations and regional transmission organizations have discussed further scenarios with the Agency that could lead to impractical timeframes for the installation of technologies needed to meet applicable limitations. In one scenario, such as that experienced at Buckeye Power's Cardinal Plant (DCN SE12043), a utility may have announced that one or more EGUs at a plant would retire by 2028 (making it eligible for the 2020 rule's subcategory for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028), while the remainder would continue generation. If the IRP process or capacity auctions indicate that future needs may not be met, these EGUs may need to back out of previous retirement decisions. However, the plant may have combined wastewaters, such as combined FGD wastewaters from a joint FGD unit that treats flue gas from the entire plant. In the case that the plant was properly developing a treatment system that could treat wastewater from the EGUs it had intended to continue operating, the continued operation of one or more additional EGU(s) could lead to more wastewater than the system can treat. In such circumstances, the plant would be forced to choose between noncompliance or retiring an EGU needed for local resource adequacy. The EPA agrees that a plant in such a situation should be given the time to build out treatment systems and comply with the 2020 rule given the rapidly evolving resource needs for this critical industry.

In another scenario, such as that experienced at KeyCon's Conemaugh plant (DCN SE12042), a plant that had submitted a NOPP for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028 may learn through the IRP process or capacity auctions that its continued operation is necessary to support local resource adequacy. Such facilities can still use the transfer flexibilities in 40 CFR 423.13(o) to transfer to the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater and the generally applicable limitations for BA transport water by December 31, 2025. However, if a plant had not taken significant steps to design, bid, and procure these technologies prior to the transfer deadline, it would not be practicable for the plant to do so by the deadlines in the 2020 rule, particularly where the generally applicable BA transport water limitations have the same deadline as the transfer itself. In such circumstances, a plant could be forced into deciding whether to risk noncompliance or retire despite being needed for local resource adequacy. Furthermore, requirements to first notify or gain approval from a state public utility commission might make formally submitting a transfer notice by December 31, 2025, impracticable.\19\ As with the previous example, the EPA

agrees that, in such circumstances, the plant should be given time to both get approvals needed to submit a transfer notice and build out treatment systems to comply with the 2020 rule.

\19\ Some utilities may also be required to conduct environmental reviews of such decisions under state or Federal law, further delaying the date by which a notice to transfer could be filed.

Finally, stakeholders have expressed concerns with supply chains, as discussed in sections V and VI. As also discussed, the rapid growth of data centers, in some cases, takes materials and components that might otherwise have been used in an ELG compliance technology. Thus, it is possible that facilities may have to wait on parts that are available on the market, but that are not available on the timelines originally believed or agreed to in a contract. In such cases, it is reasonable and consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme that a plant should have sufficient time to obtain and install its compliance technologies and should not be penalized for factors outside of its control. While the EPA cited supply-chain concerns as part of the reason for the compliance deadline extensions for the 2024 rule's zero-discharge limitations from 2029 to 2034 discussed above, here, supply-chain concerns serve as an independent basis for the additional site-specific flexibilities because these flexibilities would also apply to 2020 rule deadlines and are limited to unexpected circumstances that might arise in a site-specific context affecting a project schedule, which is not as likely to be an issue for deadlines farther out into the future, such as the 2034 deadlines. Moreover, while the more general compliance deadline extensions until 2034 are intended to address systemic issues experienced at the industry-level, this site-specific flexibility is intended to address unforeseen issues at particular facilities. See the response to comments document (DCN SE12008) for further discussion on EPA's decision to finalize these site-specific flexibilities.

The EPA is requiring that a plant submit an initial request letter and regular progress reports to their permitting authority. The initial request letter must include the circumstance under which it is requesting alternative applicability timing. The letter must also include detailed engineering dependency charts that would allow the permitting authority to establish an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, an associated schedule of milestones in the permit, as well as determine the frequency of regular progress reports. For instance, if a plant needed only an extra six months to install relevant technologies, then monthly progress reports might be warranted; however, if the same plant needed an extra six years to install relevant technologies, then annual or biannual progress reports might be sufficient.\20\ Furthermore, the plant's engineering dependency charts should identify contingencies, especially for uncertain or critical path steps, so that any associated schedule can be sufficiently flexible to avoid the potential for permit modifications upon a predictable delay. Finally, the letter must be accompanied by any missing NOPPs or progress reports. While the EPA intends that this flexibility be used only when necessary, the Agency is finalizing it in a way that provides sufficient flexibility in terms of time and need. Facilities and permitting authorities should continue to plan for compliance through normal pathways to the extent possible.

\20\ Note that nothing in this requirement prevents a permitting authority from requesting additional information or information at additional times, consistent with applicable law.

The EPA received comments both in support of, and in opposition to, these provisions. Commenters opposed to the flexibilities argued that they are arbitrary and unlawfully fail to include sufficient safeguards. These commenters more specifically took issue with the EPA presenting no new data to indicate that facilities require additional time for compliance. Commenters argued that the EPA has not explained why the 2024 rule and its deadlines do not already account for reliability, capacity needs, or supply-chain issues. Commenters also suggested that the CWA already allows the EPA and state authorities to adjust national requirements for unique site-specific circumstances through statutory variances, such as fundamentally different factors (FDF) variances. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should, while others suggested the Agency should not, explicitly describe the circumstances which warrant or qualify for flexibility.

Commenters in favor of the flexibilities also asked that these flexibilities be automatically applied via a fixed extension. Some commenters also requested some specific changes to the language in 40 CFR 423.18(d). Commenters asked that language be revised or added to call out facilities or EGUs that move within a permanent cessation of coal combustion subcategory. One commenter provided an example of an EGU changing from retiring to continuing operation but changing fuel sources. Commenters also requested that the EPA clarify whether 40 CFR 423.18(d) provisions apply to requirements for zero discharge only or also apply to advanced biological treatment systems. Another commenter requested that the EPA establish national guidance and an interim implementation framework. Finally, the EPA received feedback on specific language changes for the provisions.

In general, the EPA disagrees that the establishment of the new site-specific applicability date provision in section 423.18(d) is arbitrary, unnecessary, or otherwise insufficiently supported. However, the EPA acknowledges that, as part of the proposal, it did rely on relatively generic scenarios rather than provide specific examples to demonstrate the need for these provisions. The EPA has also added a new memoranda to the record, Implementation of the Steam Electric ELGs Deadline Extension Final Rule, providing further examples on how these provisions could be implemented in facilities' individual permits (DCN SE12026).

The EPA also disagrees with comments that the Agency should explicitly list additional circumstances in the new section 423.18(d) and agrees with those instead recommending the same or similar approach to the proposal. These provisions are meant for extraordinary measures beyond what was foreseen in the ELG analysis or even in a facility's initial planning. The EPA expects that facilities should and will plan to meet the compliance dates as specified in the ELG; however, should market conditions change too late for a facility to feasibly come into compliance, then 40 CFR 423.18(d) may be invoked. The EPA views these flexibilities as extraordinary measures. Thus, the EPA recommends that utilities and their permitting authorities turn to these flexibilities only as a last resort and only for the reasons and issues described in 423.18(d)(3).

Given the emergency nature that the provisions are intended to address, despite some comments requesting more prescriptive language in the regulation, the EPA is declining to explicitly list conditions or qualifiers which must be met prior to being granted these flexibilities. Likewise, the EPA also disagrees with the commenter suggesting that the flexibility be finalized as an automatic extension. Such an extension would be overbroad for some facilities while potentially being too short for others. The EPA finds that the decisions surrounding when and how to administer these flexibilities should be left to the permitting authority, who will be best positioned to consider all the relevant factors at that time and establish alternative applicability dates that are appropriate in light of each facility's specific circumstances.

The EPA also disagrees with some commenters stating that the flexibilities do not include safeguards. The EPA has crafted a set of circumstances that require very detailed showings. For example, section 423.18(d)(3)(iii) is only available when supply-chain issues result in a delay of “a necessary component (not merely a preferred component where there are reasonable substitutes) at a key stage of fabrication or installation . . .” Furthermore, while the EPA does not explicitly include backstops as requested by these commenters, the 2020 rule implementation is complete on December 31, 2028. Thus, as of January 1, 2029, a facility would have to be in compliance, have permanently ceased coal combustion, or have begun some formal transfer with today's new extensions. A facility failing to complete one of these actions would already be in noncompliance. Third, these site-specific flexibilities are not automatic like the transfers of section 423.13(o). Instead, a facility would be required to undergo a permit renewal or permit modification to incorporate any alternative applicability timing.

Finally, the EPA has included a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including requirements for some of the very information commenters suggest is needed, and a requirement to post this documentation to the facility's public-facing ELG Compliance Data and Information website. For further discussion of implementation, see the implementation memo (DCN SE12026).

After considering the feedback received from the public on this topic and the full record before it, the EPA is finalizing a requirement for permitting authorities to extend the NOPP submission dates or applicability timing for any compliance date in the 2020 or 2024 rules (including the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater) due to these or any other unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances. These flexibilities, as determined appropriate by a permitting authority, would be included as a new permit condition via 40 CFR 423.18(d). This would allow an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, associated schedule of milestones, to be included in a permit, notwithstanding the existing applicability timing in the regulatory text. See the EPA's response to comments document (DCN SE12008) for further discussion of the public comments received on this provision, as well as additional detail supporting the Agency's findings.

In the 2020 rule, the EPA discussed how changed circumstances in a plant's operations could affect compliance with the ELG. This discussion distinguished voluntary versus involuntary changes in operations. As examples of involuntary changes, the EPA noted that electric utilities are regulated by a variety of agencies that can legally require continued generation at a plant (e.g., section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act). For these types of reliability-related issues, the EPA established permit conditions that would ensure non- interference with resource adequacy and reliability when such orders were issued.\21\ After this provision was established, stakeholders raised questions as to the applicability of the section to energy emergency alerts (EEAs). In response to these stakeholder concerns, when finalizing the 2024 rule, the EPA reinforced its commitment to not interfering with the provision of reliable power by amending 40 CFR 423.18(a) to expressly include EEAs as a valid trigger for the protections therein.

\21\ In contrast, the EPA noted that a plant voluntarily changing operations needed to “carefully plan its implementation.” 85 FR 64650, 64709 (October 13, 2020).

Since the 2024 rule, stakeholders have questioned whether 40 CFR 423.18(a) can be read to include other types of actions not explicitly listed. Specifically, four scenarios were raised for which stakeholders wish further clarification from the EPA. These include the following:

Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) is interpreted to include FERC's acceptance of a reliability must-run agreement as being a reliability must-run agreement issued by a public utility commission as contemplated within this subsection;

Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(3) is interpreted to include the following as a qualifying event: where an EGU(s) has certified it would cease combustion of coal, and an appropriate balancing authority projects, pursuant to its authority, that doing so would cause a resource adequacy shortfall for an upcoming delivery year;

Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(1)(ii) is interpreted to include the 30-day submission applicability to any findings made pursuant to 40 CFR 423.18(a)(3); and

Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(3) is interpreted such that the termination of need statement submission is also triggered 30 days from when the source is no longer subject to extended production (which is increased production) resulting from the qualifying event.

With respect to the first issue, the EPA intended for any reliability must-run agreement or similar order to be covered. The EPA believes that, between 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) and 423.18(a)(3), there is sufficient flexibility that either provision or both could apply to such orders depending on the entity making or receiving the filing.

With respect to the second issue, the EPA received a similar question from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) at the time of the 2023 proposal. There, the EPA pointed out that TVA was certified by NERC as the reliability coordinator for itself and several other utilities. Therefore, the record supported that TVA had the authority to issue operating instructions and emergency operating instructions with which any utilities (including itself) must comply, making TVA a competent electricity regulator. Since 40 CFR 423.18 refers broadly to “a competent electricity regulator (e.g., an independent system operator),” the EPA concluded that this broad definition allowed for load balancing authorities to be included and thus made no textual changes.

With respect to the third issue, the EPA notes that 40 CFR 423.19(i)(2)(ii) refers back to (i)(2)(i), which in turn refers back to any qualifying event in 40 CFR 423.18(a). Since the reference does not limit qualifying events to any subparagraph in 40 CFR 423.18(a), the EPA agrees that any event under (a)(3) would trigger the reporting and recordkeeping requirement.

With respect to the final issue, the EPA again agrees that extended production is increased production.

The EPA received comments supporting these clarifications. One commenter requested further clarification as to whether a reliability must-run directive may emanate from NERC-certified reliability coordinator that oversees the balancing area. Finally, one commenter asked the EPA to codify these clarifications.

With respect to directives from a NERC-certified reliability coordinator, the EPA agrees that such an order could qualify under section 423.18(a)(3) as “any other reliability-related order [. . .] by a competent electricity regulator . . .”

Finally, the EPA disagrees with the single comment suggesting codification of these clarifications. Unlike the codification of “energy emergency alert” in the 2024 rule, where that type of action was not clearly in line with the other enumerated actions in section

423.18(a)(3), here a reliability must-run order fits squarely within the types of orders and agreements covered by existing regulatory text.

As set forth in section III, explaining the EPA's authority for taking this action, unless otherwise provided by law, agencies may reconsider past decisions and revise them, so long as they provide a reasoned explanation and consider significant reliance interests. FCC v. Fox Telev. Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. at 515; Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 42; see also Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. EPA, 682 F.3d at 1038 & 1043. In addition to the reasoned explanation for the decisions in this rule described in this section above, the Agency has also considered whether there are significant reliance interests affected by the rule. Despite requesting feedback on possible reliance interests impacted by this rule, the Agency received very few comments on the subject, and the comments that it did receive are either not material to this final action or lacking in sufficient specificity. Some commenters raised concerns about reliance interests related to the underlying technology bases for previous rules (e.g., biological treatment) or on various subcategories (e.g., the permanent cessation of coal combustion subcategories in the 2020 or 2024 rules). These concerns are not germane to this final rule, which deals only with deadline extensions and related provisions and does not address the underlying technology bases or subcategories of prior rules. One commenter argued that certain “engineering, procurement, and construction firms, consultants and/or vendors” have reliance interests that are adversely affected by this rule. It stated that “these entities and their supply-chain partners will lose or have delayed market opportunities. These entities may have made investments that will be stranded or they will see a considerable delay in recouping sunk costs.” The Agency notes that this commenter is not itself an engineering, procurement, or construction firm, nor is it a consultant or vendor of any treatment or related technology. In fact, no such entity submitted comments with similar concerns, including any that are small businesses, which the commenter urged the EPA to especially consider. Even in light of this final rule, there may be other reasons why a utility would move forward with installation of zero-discharge technologies on the timeline envisioned by the 2024 rule. Moreover, this comment fails to recognize that, in light of the supply-chain issues identified in this action, some vendors may be helped by the delay in compliance deadlines. Finally, the commenter offers no specific evidence regarding delayed market opportunities, stranded investments, or sunk costs. Without more, the EPA cannot quantify any potential impacts. Finally, one commenter claimed that there may be reliance interests on the part of States, Tribes, local communities, and environmental groups adversely affected by this rule because “[t]hose stakeholders set up permits, health protections, and restoration projects based on the original schedule.” This commenter, however, did not provide any specific information to support these reliance interest claims. Again, without more, these claims appear speculative, and the EPA cannot quantify any potential impact. Moreover, as noted in its response to comments document, the Agency disagrees with some commenters that previously estimated pollutant reductions will no longer occur simply as a result of this deadline extensions rule; based on this rule's analysis, the EPA expects the full range of benefits (i.e., water, air, non-water quality, human health) will still occur, but on a different timeline than stated in the 2024 rule. In light of comments received, the EPA has determined that it is appropriate to finalize the rule, including to the extent the rule revises decisions made previously, for the reasons discussed above in section VI.

In the 2024 rule, the EPA estimated that the cost to industry of zero discharge of FGD wastewater would be $179 million per year, the cost to industry of zero discharge of BA transport water would be $19 million per year, and the cost to industry of zero discharge and chemical precipitation of CRL would be $218 million per year in annualized costs at a 3.76 percent discount rate. Combined, this led to a total compliance cost estimate of $416 million per year at a 3.76 percent discount rate. At that time, the EPA determined that these costs were economically achievable to the industry. The deadline extensions and flexibilities finalized in today's action are designed to lessen the burden to comply with the existing Steam Electric ELGs, in part due to the dramatic increase in energy demand described above, and the EPA anticipates that these flexibilities will allow utilities to better make compliance decisions that impose minimum economic impact across the industry and to their customers.

As discussed in today's preamble, there have been significant changes in market conditions and state and federal legislation affecting the power sector since the EPA conducted the 2024 Rule analysis; therefore, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the costs and benefits presented based on the 2024 analysis, given recent changes affecting the electricity sector.

The final rule extends by five years the “no later than” deadline for complying with zero-discharge limitations for BA transport water, FGD wastewater, and managed CRL. As the rule specifies that the limitations are to be met “as soon as possible . . . but no later than,” it is possible that plants will comply sooner and according to a schedule that is similar to that for the baseline. To model the effects of the final rule, the EPA conservatively assumed that each affected plant would implement technologies five years later than assumed in the analysis of the 2024 rule, i.e., implementation starting in 2030 under this final rule and being completed by 2034, so as to not underestimate potential impacts. At a three percent discount rate, the EPA estimates that this rule would save utilities approximately $61 million annualized; and at a seven percent discount rate, the EPA estimates that this rule would save utilities approximately $112 million annualized. As such, the EPA finds that, with these cost savings, this final action is economically achievable.

The EPA also received several adverse comments stating that the underlying cost and economic impact analysis for the 2024 rule used old data, particularly in light of the incredible increase in energy demand across the U.S. in the last year and current projections. Subsequent to this rulemaking effort, the EPA intends to undertake a further reconsideration of certain aspects of the existing regulations. Should the EPA decide in a future action to reopen the BAT basis for the underlying 2024 rule more broadly, it will make a decision at that time (based on the current conditions of the industry) as to the need for updating both the underlying data and/or the Agency's modeled costs and economic impacts.

The purpose of this section is to clarify the EPA's intent with respect to the severability of provisions of this final rule. In the event of a stay or invalidation of part of this rule, the Agency's intent is to preserve the remaining portions of the rule to the

fullest extent possible. The EPA notes the following existing regulatory text at 40 CFR 423.10(b) that is not altered by this final rule: “The provisions of this part are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall continue in effect.” Moreover, to dispel any doubt regarding the EPA's intent and to inform how any final regulation would operate if severed, the Agency is adopting each portion of this rule independent of the other portions. As explained below, the EPA carefully crafted this rule so that each provision or element of the rule can operate independently. Moreover, the EPA has organized the rule so that if any provision or element of this final rule is determined by judicial review or operation of law to be invalid, that partial invalidation would not render the remainder of the rule invalid.

This final rule extends the NOPP submission deadline for the subcategory for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034. It is the EPA's position that this extension is justified and supported by the record independently of the compliance date extensions. Although the invalidation of compliance date extensions would result in a NOPP submission date in 2031 that is two years after the latest compliance dates for the generally applicable limitations, the EPA finds that this would still be appropriate as the practicalities of permitting would result in facilities submitting NOPPs prior to the latest compliance dates to avoid receiving permits with zero-discharge limitations.

This final rule extends certain compliance dates associated with zero-discharge limitations and standards for discharges of pollutants found in three steam electric wastestreams. The final rule provides extended dates for limitations and standards associated with each wastestream in separate sections that do not rely on one another. Although the decision to extend deadlines applicable to each wastestream rests on overlapping facts, the decision to extend the compliance dates for limitations for each wastestream was made independently of the decisions to extend the other compliance dates.

In addition, the rule creates a site-specific flexibility for additional time to comply with the limitations in the 2020 and 2024 rules under four separate sets of circumstances. The EPA finds that there is support and authority for this site-specific flexibility independent of the support and authority for the general compliance deadline extension for zero-discharge limitations. Thus, the EPA would have promulgated this flexibility even if it did not simultaneously promulgate the more general compliance deadline extension until 2034. Furthermore, the EPA finds that there is support and authority for each circumstance provided for in this site-specific flexibility, which is independent of the support and authority for the other circumstances. For example, if a court were to find that the site-specific flexibility for one circumstance (e.g., supply-chain risks) was not justified, the EPA would maintain that the site-specific flexibility should still be retained for the remaining three circumstances.

This final rule also provides flexibility for steam electric facilities to opt into different compliance pathways that exist in the rule, for example, due to changed circumstances. This flexibility to transfer to a different compliance pathway is unrelated to other provisions in the final rule, and the EPA's decision to allow for such transfers is unrelated to other aspects of the rule.

Finally, this final rule creates authority for alternative applicability dates for limitations promulgated in the 2020 or 2024 rules, based on site-specific factors. This authority is independent from other changes being finalized, and the EPA's decision to provide for such authority is unrelated to other aspects of this final rule. For example, in the event of a stay or invalidation of any extended compliances dates for the zero-discharge limitations or standards, the EPA finds there is continued authority for alternative applicability dates, as discussed in this paragraph, and such authority could continue to be implemented.

These examples are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and the EPA intends for each portion of this final rule to be independent and severable. Furthermore, if application of any portion of this final rule to a particular circumstance is determined to be invalid, the EPA intends that this rule remain applicable to all other circumstances.

The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 7814.02 (OMB Control Number 2040-0313) and is included in the docket for this rule. The ICR is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

The EPA is promulgating several new reporting and recordkeeping requirements or changes as part of the final rule. First, to implement this rule's expanded transfer flexibilities, under CWA sections 304(i) and 308, this rule includes expanded reporting and

recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 423.19(l). Second, to implement this final rule's new tiered PSES for facilities that wish to receive applicability dates as direct dischargers from a permitting authority, the rule includes a new reporting and recordkeeping requirement in 40 CFR 423.19(p). Third, to implement the final rule's new flexibility for alternative applicability dates, the rule includes two new reporting and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 423.19(q). Specifically, the rule includes requirements for an initial request letter and regular progress reports. Finally, to implement the final rule, permitting authorities need time to read and analyze additional submissions. The EPA also notes that with these additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements, the rule also expands the filings required to be posted to each plant's public-facing website.

Respondents/affected entities: steam electric facilities.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 423.19).

Estimated number of respondents: 90.

Frequency of response: Annually.

Total estimated burden: 3,225 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $335,343 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the EPA will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule.

Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power facilities, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

Lee Zeldin, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 423 as follows:

PART 423--STEAM ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0 1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 1311; 1314(b), (c), (e), (g), and (i)(A) and (B); 1316; 1317; 1318 and 1361.

0 2. Amend Sec. 423.13 by: 0 a. Revising paragraphs (g)(4)(i)(A), (k)(4)(i), and (l)(1)(i)(A); and 0 b. Adding paragraph (o)(1)(iii).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec. 423.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology economically achievable (BAT).

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(4) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for FGD wastewater in this paragraph (g)(4)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. These effluent limitations apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the effluent limitations, as specified in this paragraph (g)(4)(i). * * * * *

(k) * * *

(4) * * *

(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraphs (k)(4)(ii) through (iv) of this section applies, or when the bottom ash transport water is used in the FGD scrubber, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water. Dischargers must meet the discharge limitation in this paragraph (k)(4)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The limitation in this paragraph (k)(4)(i) applies to the discharge of bottom ash transport water generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the discharge limitation, as specified in this paragraph (k)(4)(i). * * * * *

(l) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for combustion residual leachate in this paragraph (l)(1)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The effluent limitations in this paragraph (l)(1)(i) apply to the discharge of combustion residual leachate generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the effluent limitations, as specified in this paragraph (l)(1)(i). * * * * *

(o) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) On or before December 31, 2034, a facility may convert:

(A) From the generally applicable zero discharge limitations under paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this section to limitations for electric generating units permanently ceasing coal combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or (l)(2)(i) of this section; or

(B) From limitations for electric generating units permanently ceasing coal combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or (l)(2)(i) of this section to the generally applicable zero discharge limitations under paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this section.

0 3. Amend Sec. 423.16 by revising paragraphs (e)(3), (g)(3), and (j)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 423.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) 2024 PSES. Except as provided for in paragraph (e)(4) of this section, for any electric generating unit with a total nameplate generating capacity of more than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil- fired unit:

(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by January 1, 2028. The standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this section apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after January 1, 2028.

(ii) By the dates in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section there shall be no discharge of pollutants in FGD wastewater:

(A) January 2, 2028; or

(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to Sec. 423.19(p), December 31, 2034. * * * * *

(g) * * *

(3) 2024 PSES. Except as provided for in paragraph (g)(4) of this section, for any electric generating unit with a total nameplate generating capacity of more than 50 megawatts and that is not an oil- fired unit:

(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this section by January 1, 2028. The standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this section apply to the discharge of bottom ash transport water generated on and after January 1, 2028.

(ii) By the dates in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water:

(A) January 2, 2028; or

(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to Sec. 423.19(p), December 31, 2034. * * * * *

(j) * * *

(1) 2024 PSES. Until and including the dates specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and(ii), or paragraph (j)(2) of this section, the EPA is declining to establish PSES for combustion residual leachate and is reserving such standards to be established by the control authority on a case-by-case.

(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section applies, by the dates in paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in combustion residual leachate:

(A) January 2, 2028; or

(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to Sec. 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.

(ii) After the retirement of all units at a facility, the quantity of pollutants in CRL shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow of CRL permeate times the concentrations listed in the table 7 to Sec. 423.13(g)(3)(i) or the flow of CRL distillate times the concentrations listed in the table in Sec. 423.15(b)(13).

0 4. Amend Sec. 423.18 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 423.18 Permit conditions.

* * * * *

(d)(1) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any limitations in Sec. 423.13(g), (k), or (l), a permitting authority shall establish, in a facility's permit, an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, an associated schedule of milestones, for achieving the required limitations when the facility meets one of the circumstances in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, provided that the facility submits an initial request letter pursuant to Sec. 423.19(q) and the permitting authority finds that request factually supported in the letter and attachments provided.

(2) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any notice of planned participation required to be submitted under Sec. 423.19(g), (j), or (l), a permitting authority may accept a late notice of planned participation provided that the facility meets one of the circumstances in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, submits an initial request letter pursuant to Sec. 423.19(q), and the permitting authority finds that request factually supported in the letter and attachments provided. Transfers pursuant to Sec. 423.13(o)(1)(ii) but receiving alternative Sec. 423.19(l) submission dates in this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed timely. In no case may a late notice of planned participation be accepted pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) after December 31, 2028.

(3) Circumstances which a permitting authority shall find warrant an alternative applicability date or later notice of planned participation submission date based on factual support under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section include:

(i) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date upon making a permissible transfer between limitations prior to the deadlines in Sec. 423.13(o) due to:

(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or

(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource plans or other planning documents;

(ii) Where a facility has one or more electric generating units using a wastewater treatment system treating combined wastewater (e.g., wastewater from a single flue gas desulfurization system servicing different units) and needs an alternative applicability date after making a decision to back out of a commitment to permanently cease coal combustion at one or more different electric generating units at the same plant due to:

(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or

(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource plans or other planning documents;

(iii) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date because it faces an unexpected supply chain issue that delays a necessary component (not merely a preferred component where there are reasonable substitutes) at a key stage of fabrication or installation such that the timeline for reaching steady-state treatment is delayed; or

(iv) Where a facility faces any other circumstance that requires additional time and is wholly outside both the facility's control and the facility's ability to plan for.

(4) A facility availing itself of this paragraph (d) may consider the alternative applicability dates or alternative notice of planned participation submission dates when evaluating compliance for purposes of Sec. 423.13(o)(2).

0 5. Amend Sec. 423.19 by: 0 a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (h)(1), (l) paragraph heading, and (l)(1); and 0 b. Adding paragraphs (p) and (q).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 423.19 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, each facility subject to one or more of the reporting requirements in paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section must maintain a publicly accessible internet site (ELG website) containing the information specified in paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section, if applicable. This website shall be titled “ELG Rule Compliance Data and Information.” The facility must ensure that all information required to be posted is immediately available to anyone visiting the site, without requiring any prerequisite, such as registration or a requirement to submit a document request. All required information must be clearly identifiable and must be able to be immediately downloaded by anyone accessing the site in a format that enables additional analysis (e.g., comma-separated values text file format). When the facility initially creates, or later changes, the web address (i.e., Uniform Resource Locator (URL)) at any point, they must notify the EPA via the “contact us” form on EPA's Effluent Guidelines website and the permitting authority or control authority within 14 days of creating the website or making the change. The facility's ELG website must also have a “contact us” form or a specific email address posted on the website for the public to use to submit questions and issues relating to the availability of information on the website. * * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) Notice of Planned Participation. For sources seeking to qualify as an electric generating unit that will achieve permanent cessation of coal combustion by December 31, 2034, under this part, a Notice of Planned Participation shall be made to the permitting authority, or to the control authority in the case of an indirect discharger, no later than December 31, 2031. * * * * *

(l) Requirements for facilities seeking protections under this part--(1) Notice of Planned Participation. For sources which intend to make changes that would qualify them for a different set of requirements under Sec. 423.13(o), a Notice of Planned Participation shall be made to the permitting authority, or to the control authority in the case of an indirect discharger, no later than the dates stated in Sec. 423.13(o)(1). * * * * *

(p) Requirements for facilities subject to zero discharge pretreatment standards for existing sources by 2034. For sources seeking to be subject to the second tier of the tiered standards in Sec. 423.16(e)(3)(ii)(B), (g)(3)(ii)(B), or (j)(2)(i)(B), a certification statement shall be submitted to the control authority by January 1, 2028 stating that the facility has submitted a permit application, permit renewal application, or permit modification request to its permitting authority seeking an as soon as possible date for achieving the corresponding generally applicable zero discharge limitations in Sec. 423.13(g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i), subject to the considerations in Sec. 423.11(t). Furthermore, the certification statement will include an affirmative statement that the facility will also cease its indirect discharge by the as soon as possible date determined in this permitting action.

(q) Requirements for facilities seeking an alternative applicability date under this part--(1) Initial request letter. A facility may submit a letter to its permitting authority requesting that it receive an alternative applicability date pursuant to Sec. 423.18(d).

(2) Contents and timing. The initial request letter must detail the significant unexpected circumstance in Sec. 423.18(d)(2) and a compelling narrative that explains why these unexpected circumstances warrant an alternative applicability date by the permitting authority in light of the facility's plans and execution of those plans. The letter must also contain a proposed schedule of compliance to be incorporated into the permit, supported by detailed engineering dependency chart that clearly shows the milestones leading to compliance as soon as possible given the unexpected circumstances described in the letter, including contingencies for critical path steps. In the case of a missed notice of planned participation, annual progress report, or other reporting or recordkeeping requirement that should have been submitted prior to March 2, 2026, the letter must also attach such reporting requirements. Such submissions shall be deemed timely by the permitting authority. The facility shall submit an initial request letter within 60 days of the significant unexpected circumstance detailed in the letter or by March 2, 2026, whichever is later.

(3) Progress reports. A facility that submits an initial request letter pursuant to paragraph (q)(1) of this section must submit regular progress reports with its permitting authority at a frequency determined in paragraph (q)(4) of this section.

(4) Contents and timing. Progress reports must include a description of tasks and sub-tasks completed towards each of the milestones listed in the initial request letter, any changes to the

expected dates of milestones, and any contingencies from the initial request letter which have been effectuated. The permitting authority shall establish the timing of regular progress reports based on the following considerations:

(i) The estimated duration of the alternative applicability timing;

(ii) The timeframes of various milestones, tasks, and sub-tasks;

(iii) The number and magnitude of contingencies; and

(iv) Any other appropriate and relevant factor.

(5) Request letter. A facility may submit a single initial request letter under this paragraph (q)(5) to provide factual support for circumstances specified in Sec. 423.18(d)(3) that would support of one or more requests for alternative dates in Sec. 423.18(d)(1) or (2).

[FR Doc. 2025-24102 Filed 12-30-25; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P