3J.          United States Environmental Protection Agency
A                        Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
                                Washington, D.C 20460

                     United States Department of the Army
                              US Army Corps of Engineers
                                Washington, D.C 20314
                                29 October  1992

    EPA/CORPS JOINT MEMORANDUM FOR THE FIELD

    SUBJECT: Alternatives Analysis under the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines for Projects
    Subject to Modification Under the Clean Air Act

    1. The 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments require most electric generating plants
    to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide in phases beginning in 1995 and requiring full
    compliance by 2010. The Congressional endorsement of the industry's ability to select
    the most effective compliance method (e.g., sulfur dioxide scrubbers, low sulfur coal, or
    other methods) recognizes the expertise of the industry in these cases and is a
    fundamental element in the CAA market-based pollution control program.  Given the
    need for cooling water, a substantial number of electric power generating plants are
    located adjacent, or in close proximity, to waters of the United States, including
    wetlands.  Depending on the method chosen by the plants to reduce emissions, we
    expect that these facilities wfll be applying for Clean Water Act Section 404 permits for
    certain proposed activities.

    2, The analysis and regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of activities in
    waters of the United States conducted by specific power plants to comply with the 1990
    Clean Air Act amendments must ensure protection of the aquatic environment
    consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act The review of applications for
    such projects will fully consider, consistent with requirements under the Section
    404(b)(l) Guidelines, all practicable alternatives including non-aquatic alternatives, for
    proposed discharges associated with the method selected by the utility to comply with
    the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.  For the purposes of the Section 404(b)(l)
    Guidelines analysis, the project purpose will be that pollutant reduction method selected
    by the permit applicant

    3. For example, a utility may have  decided to install sulfur dioxide scrubbers on an.
    existing power plant in order to meet the new 1990 Clean Air Act standards," The
   proposed construction of the scrubbers, treatment  ponds and a barge unloading facility
   could impact wetlands.  In this case, the Section 404 review would evaluate practicable
    alternative locations and configurations for the scrubbers, ponds and of the docking
   facilities. The analysis wfll also consider practicable  alternatives which satisfy the prqect
   purpose (Le., installing scrubbers) but which have  a less adverse impact on the aquatic
   environment or do not involve discharges into waters of the United States.  However, in
   order to best effectuate Congressional intent reflected in the CAA that electric utilities
   retain flexibility to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions in the most cost effective manner, the
   Section 404 review should not evaluate alternative methods of complying with the Clean
   Air Act standards not selected by the applicant (e.g., in this example use of low sulfur
   coal).

-------
/•'  4 In evaluating the scope of practicable alternatives whkh satisfy the project purpose
'    (e.g^ constructing additional scrubber capacity), the alternatives analysis should not be
    influenced by the possibility that, based on a conclusion that practicable upland
    alternatives are available to the applicant, the project proponent may decide to pursue
    other options for meeting Clean Air Act requirements.  Continuing the above example, a
    Corps determination that practicable upland alternatives are available tor scrubber waste
    disposal .should not be affected by the possibility that an applicant may subsequently
    decide to select a different method for meeting the Clean Air Act standards (e.g^ use of
    low sulfur coal that reduces waste generated by scrubbers).

    5. The Corps and EPA wfll also recognize the tight time-frames under whkh the industry
    must meet these new air quality standards.
    Robert H. Wayland, Director              ,         John P. Ehnore, Chfef •
    Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds         Construction, Operations and
                                                       Readiness Division

-------