Issue #5: Tier 2: Alternative Analysis

Notebook Ref. 5.5

Summary of the IssuePart of a Tier II antidegradation review should

incorporate the consideration of feasible alternatives, some of which may help minimize water quality degradation while still achieving the desired activity

Stems from the requirement to demonstrate that the proposed degradation to water quality is necessary

Ties in with socioeconomic issues discussed previously

Summary of the IssueWhat is required to meet “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”?

How are methods determined to be “most effective and economically feasible”?

Should there be a cost threshold for evaluating alternatives?

For example, must an alternative be adopted if the cost is within a certain percentage of the proposed activity?

Questions for the Workgroup1. How should economic and technical

feasibility of alternatives be considered? 2. When do pollution prevention alternatives

go beyond the “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”?

3. Can other alternatives evaluations meet the need?

How should technical and economic feasibility of alternatives be demonstrated?

Consider alternatives for minimizing degradation during project design

1. Avoids project design revision delays2. Avoids negative public reviews3. Increases resource and time allocation efficiency

Consider all feasible alternatives1. Non-discharge approaches2. Wastewater treatment & reuse3. Relocation of discharge4. Process changes5. Seasonal discharges6. New technologies

How should technical and economic feasibility of alternatives be demonstrated? (cont’d)?• Consider technical feasibility first and economic

feasibility last1. Rank technically feasible methods by degradation level2. Work down the list to the least degrading,

economically feasible alternative

• Consider cross-pollutant and cross-media impacts1. Chlorination of effluent2. Solid waste production

• Provide documentation of alternatives considered

Some State Examples

• Nevada• Alternatives part of initial design

• Oregon• List of “at minimum” alternatives provided

• Washington• Examples of alternatives provided

When do pollution prevention alternatives go beyond the “highest statutory and regulatory requirements”?

Lowest degree of degradation feasible 1. Technologically feasible

a. Consider All Known, Available, and Reasonable Treatments (AKART)

2. Economically feasiblea. Non- linear treatment costb. Use any affordable increases in pollutant

reduction

AlternativePollution Removed

(lbs.)

Cost ($/MGD)

Cost/Pound ($)

A 99 5,000 50.50B 90 1,000 11.11C 45 450 10.00

Some Examples

• Delaware and Region 8• Alternatives costing < 110% of the proposed

pollution control measures are deemed reasonable • Oregon• “all known, available, and reasonable” alternatives • Includes a list of “at minimum” alternatives

• Nevada• “the highest and best degree of waste treatment

available under the existing technology consistent with the best practice in the particular field under the conditions applicable”

Can other alternative evaluations meet the need?

• NEPA Environmental Impact Statements

• CWA Sec 404 permit reviews pursuant to US Army Corps of Engineers approval• For general & individual 404 permits, the USACE

process under 404 (which requires avoidance / minimization /mitigation) may be sufficient?