Notebook Ref. 5.5

Summary of the Issue Part 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 Issue What 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 Workgroup 1. 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 delays 2.Avoids negative public reviews 3.Increases resource and time allocation efficiency Consider all feasible alternatives 1.Non-discharge approaches 2.Wastewater treatment & reuse 3.Relocation of discharge 4.Process changes 5.Seasonal discharges 6.New technologies

How should technical and economic feasibility of alternatives be demonstrated? (cont’d)? Consider technical feasibility first and economic feasibility last 1.Rank technically feasible methods by degradation level 2.Work down the list to the least degrading, economically feasible alternative Consider cross-pollutant and cross-media impacts 1.Chlorination of effluent 2.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 feasible a.Non- linear treatment cost b.Use any affordable increases in pollutant reduction

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?