ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
24,
1988
IN THE MATTER OF:
SITE—SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE AT
35 ILL.
ADM.
CODE PART
304,
)
R87—22
SUBPART
B (CIPS NEWTON STATION)
PROPOSED RULE.
FIRST NOTICE.
PROPOSED OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
3.
Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board on
a petition
for site—
specific relief filed
by Central Illinois Public
Service Company
(CIPS)
on July
17,
1987.
Specifically, CIPS
is seeking relief
from the requirement
of Section 304.124(a)
as it pertains
to
effluent limits for total
suspended solids (TSS).
The relief
would apply to the discharge
from CIPS’
ash pond system
at its
Newton generating station
(Newton).
Instead of the
15 milligrams
per
liter
(mg/i) standard imposed in Section 304.124(a), CIPS
wishes
to be subject
to the following effluent limits:
30 mg/i as
a 30-day average
and 100 mg/i
as
a daily maximum.
A hearing was held
in this matter
on Noveniber
4,
1987
in
Newton.
On January
27,
1988,
the Department
of Energy and
Natural Resources
(DENR)
filed
its determination that an economic
impact study was not necessary
in this matter.
The
Board was
informed
of the Economic and Technical Advisory Committee’s
concurrence with this determination on January 29,
1988.
At Newton, CIpS generates electricity through
the production
of steam
in boilers fueled by coal.
Bottom ash from the boilers
at Newton
is sluiced out of the plant and
is processed by an ash
pond system.
Water
taken
from Newton Lake
is used for this
purpose.
The sluiced ash
is
first discharged
to the primary
settling pond.
This primary settling pond has a surface area of
401 acres.
Currently,
this
pond
is operated at
a depth of
7
feet.
The maximum design depth is
23 feet.
Originally,
the pond
system was intended
to process both fly ash and bottom ash.
However, only bottom ash
is processed
in the ash pond system;
since
1979,
the fly ash has been utilized
to stablize
scrubber
by—products before landfilling.
This change resulted
in
an 85
percent reduction
in solids entering
the pond with the result
that,
the primary settling pond now has an estimated
life of
277
years.
(R.
13).
The ponds
have
a 106 day retention
time
(R.
44).
The primary settling pond discharges
to
a 9.3 acre secondary
settling pond.
This pond
is operated at
a depth of
12 feet,
although
it has a maximum design depth of
26 feet.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
4).
87—279
2
The secondary settling pond discharges
to Newton Lake.
The
amount discharged
is estimated
to
be between
7.78
and 8.98
million gallons per day.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
3).
It
is this discharge
that
is the subject of CIPS’
request.
Aside from two isolated
instances,
CIPS first consistently
failed
to achieve the
15 mg/I standard
in January,
1986.
These
problems persisted until September,
1986.
In
that month,
CIPS
experienced
its first and only violation of the daily maximum
standard, which
is 30 mg/i
as figured pursuant
to Section
304.104.
At the time of the hearing, CIPS’
discharge had been
in
compliance since September,
1986.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
5—6;
R.
47).
After analyzing
its discharge, CIPS has considered
that
algal
blooms are a major contributing
factor
to CIPS’
past
exceedances of the total suspended solids standard.
(R.
45).
The
green algae,
found
in CIPS’
discharge, would constitute part of
the volatile suspended solids fraction of the TSS discharge.
The
ash,
for which
the ponds are designed
to
remove, would
be
included
in
the fixed solids
fraction of the TSS discharge.
Between February 1986
and October
1986,
the
total volatile
suspended solids (TVSS)
fraction ranged
from 17.7
to 68.2 percent
of the TSS recorded.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
7;
R.
15).
In
1987,
the
percent of TVSS
in the TSS was as high as 80 percent.
(R.
73).
It
is CIPS’
position that the ash ponds are doing
their
job.
That
is,
the ash
is settling out in the ponds.
CIPS does
not believe that the ponds are “short—circuiting”
(R.
44).
CIPS
comes
to this conclusion by comparing the concentration of ash
in
the pond water with the concentration of ash
in the dischare.
(R.
26).
Also,
CIPS asserts that the water discharged
to Newton Lake
has
less total
fixed solids than the water CIPS takes from the
lake
to use
in
its sluicing operation.
Data from April
1, 1987
are the only exception, according
to CIPS.
(R.
61).
For the period of time during which CIPS had compliance
problems, February 1986
through October
1986,
the fixed solids
portion of
the TSS would have only exceeded the 15 mg/i standard
twice.
The TVSS fractjon, when figured alone, would
never have
exceeded
the standard.
(Exh.
#1, Attachment
B).
It
is clear
then that the exceedances are usually
a result of the combination
of the TVSS with the fixed
solids.
The largest
exceedance by
CIPS for TSS was recorded
in September,
1986 which yielded
a
25
mg/i average.
As previously stated,
the highest daily value,
39
mg/i, was also recorded
in that month.
(Id.).
CIPS evidently did not analyze
fixed solids separately from
TVSS
for every month during
that time period.
87—280
3
CIPS claims that treatment alternatives
to the ash pond
system are cost prohibitive.
According
to CIPS,
construction
of
a wastewater treatment plant would cost between
9 and 17 million
dollars,
depending
on the design
selected.
Also,
CIPS claims
that the cost
of
a recirculation system, which would require
the
landfilling
of
the ash,
is estimated
at $17 million.
(Exh.
1,
Att.
F
&
G,.. R.
20—22).
Both the primary and secondary ponds have
a large population
of bullheads.
According
to CIPS,
the bullheads could contribute
to the fixed solids portion of the TSS.
Bullheads,
as bottom
feeders, churn up sediment thereby adding
to the TSS.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
9).
CIPS
is uncertain as
to the degree
that the bullheads
contribute
to the fixed solids count.
The only way to determine
this level
of contribution would
be
to kill
all
the fish
in the
ponds, by the use of toxicants,
and examine
if,
or
how,
the fixed
solids level
improves.
However, CIPS believes that this option
would be difficult
and would pose substantial risks
for
the fish
population
in Newton Lake.
(Exh.
#1,
p.
15).
Also, CIPS states
that the Illinois Department
of Conservation
(IDOC), which
manages Newton Lake’s fishery,
is against
the use
of toxicants
in
the ash ponds.
(Id.
at
17).
Similarly,
the green algae can be eliminated
through the use
of algicides.
As with the killing
of
fish,
such
a control would
have
to be used repeatedly.
CIPS states that the algicides would
also pose
a great environmental risk
to the biota of Newton
Lake.
IDOC does not favor this method either.
(Exh.
4~l,p. 20—
21;
R.
74).
CIPS has taken steps to
reduce TSS by managing pond
levels.
Shoreline erosion due
to wave
action has been decreased
by operating the primary pond
at
a depth of
7 feet rather
thai~23
feet.
This has encouraged
the growth of macrophytes (rooted
plants) which calm the water and help settle solids.
The
macrophytes
compete
with
algae
for
sunlight
and
nutrients.
(R.
54—57).
Environmental
Impact
CIPS asserts
that its TSS discharge
to Newton Lake has no
detrimental
impact upon Newton Lake.
In
fact, CIPS claims that
the green algae may have
a beneficial
impact upon the Lake
since
algae
is food
for
fish.
According
to CIPS,
there
is
a favorable
mix
of algal
species
in
the effluent.
Blue—green algae,
a
potentially harmful
type, are not present
(Exh.
#1,
p.
22—23;
R.
68—69).
CIPS cites an IDOC study
for the proposition that the
discharge
has no negative impact on the lake’s fishery.
Evidently, more
fish are caught per unit of effort
in the cove
where CIPS discharges as compared
to
a cove
across the lake
(Exh.
41,
p.
24).
The reasons why fish apparently congregate near the
discharge are not certain
(R.
108).
87—281
4
CIPS claims that
a standard
of 30/100 would not have
a
negative
impact on the environment
since that
is the standard
which was promulgated
(and codified at
40 CFR 423)
by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
((JSEPA)
for the discharge of ash
pond systems.
(Exh.
#1, p.
13;
R.
103).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
recommends
that
Cli’s be granted relief only to the extent
of
a
25
mg/i limit for
the 30—day average and 40 mg/i limit
for the daily
maximum.
The Agency asserts that the past performance levels of
CIPS justifies only this level
of relief.
(Agency Brief,
p.
10).
Anti—Backsliding
Provision
Both CIPS and the Agency were requested
to address,
in their
briefs,
how the requested relief related
to Section 402(o)
of the
Clean Water Act, as amended
by Pub.
L.
No.
100—4.
This Section
is entitled “Anti—Backsliding.”
In general, the Section
prohibits
the renewal
of
a permit
if the effluent limits
contained
in that renewed permit are less stringent than the
original
permit.
CuPS
initially
claims
that
the
anti—backsliding
provision
is
inapplicable
to
the situation
at hand.
CI’S asserts that the
provision only applies to effluent standards based on “best
professional
judgment” and water quality based limitations.
According
to CuPS,
the Section does not preclude backsliding for
technology—based limits which
is
the issue
in this proceeding.
In addition,
it
is CIPS’
position that
the anti—backsliding
amendment only applies
to water quality standards or
schedule of
compliance.
Finally, CuPS states that even
if the anti—backsliding
provision
is applicable,
Cli’s’
ash pond system falls
under two
expressed exceptions
to the provision.
One exception allows less
stringent limitations
if such limitations are necessary due
to
circumstances beyond
the permittees control and for when
there
is
no
reasonably available remedy.
The other exception encompasses
the situation where a permittee has installed and properly
operated treatment
facilities required
to meet the original
permit’s limits and yet the permittee
is unable to deliver
compliance.
CIPS concludes that
its situation fits both these
exceptions.
(CuPS’ Brief,
p.
3—7).
The Agency states that the latter exception, discussed
above,
would likely apply.
This exception also provides that
a
new permit contain limits which reflect
the level
of pollutant
control “actually achieved.”
(Agency Brief,
p.
9).
In its Reply Brief, CIPS takes
the position that the Board
should not concern itself with
the anti—backsliding
issue.
87—282
5
IEPA
as
the
permitting
authority
and
USEPA
under
its enforcement
authority
of
the NPDES
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
program,
not
the
Board,
are
the
proper
authorities
for
determining
if
a
revised permit can be
issued.
*
*
*
The
question
of
whether
the
anti—
backsliding provision
is applicable should be
resolved
as
a
permitting,
not
a
rulemaking,
function.
(CIPS Reply,
p.
11).
The Board
will not adopt
rules which it believes
are
contrary
to Federal law or
regulations that the State
administers.
In this matter,
the Board agrees with
the
participants that granting relief will not constitute
backsliding.
Findings
The
Board
notes
that
considerable
time
was
spent
at
hearing
trying
to clearly define the location or
configuration
of
various
structures and
items under discussion.
The exhibits such as
Exhibit #1, Attachment A which showed the entire lake and plant
area, would have been much more useful
if items such as the
ponds,
intakes,
and discharge points had been indicated.
Although there are technically feasible methods
for
compliance by utilizing treatment alternatives other than the ash
pond system,
such treatment appears
to be economically
unreasonable
in light of the nature and impact of the
discharge.
It also appears that no modification
of the current
ash pond system would significantly reduce the fixed
solids
portion of CIPS’
TSS discharge.
Given
the current levels of TSS
in CIPS’
discharge,
the use of toxicants
to kill fish or
algicides
to kill
algae
in the ponds would pose environmental
risks
to Newton Lake which are greater
than any negative impact
associated with CIPS’
current TSS discharge.
At hearing, the attending Board Member asked whether CIPS
would
be amenable
to regulating
the fixed solids portion of the
TSS apart
from the TVSS portion.
In its brief, CIPS states that
“application of the current
Board limits,
15 mg/i and 30 mg/i,
just
to
the fixed portion of the TSS
in
the effluent also has
support
in the record and certainly is
an acceptable alternative
to CIPS.”
(CuPS Brief,
p.
12).
In response, the Agency states:
87—283
6
The
suggested
bifurcation
of
TSS
into
volatile
and
fixed
portions
is
unprecedented
in
the
Board’s
regulations.
There
is
no
compelling
reason
in
the present
case
to do
so
even
though the volatile
portion
is
known
to
be
primarily
algal
and
does
not
appear
to
hve
an
adverse
impact
upon
Newton
Lake.
Further, because
still higher levels of algae
could
prove
detrimental
to
the
lake,
the
volatile
portion
of
TSS would
still
need
to
be
regulated
in
some
fashion.
The record
in
this matter
is not sufficient
to address this
issue.
(Agency Brief,
p.
5)
The Board is reluctant
to grant TSS levels of 25/40
as
suggested
by the Agency.
This could
lead
to
a situation where
fixed solids exceed 15 mg/i.
Presently,
CIPS’
discharge of
fixed
solids generally meets the current
limit of
15 mg/l.
Relief
which
ignores
the composition of
the TSS discharge could allow
CIPS to produce
an effluent which has greater
ash content when
compared
to its present discharge.
The ash pond system
is
designed
to remove ash; the record does not support amending
regulations
in any way which would accept decreased efficiency of
ash removal.
There has already been
a major change
in
the ash
loading
to the ponds.
It is impossible
to predict
the nature of
future discharges.
The CIPS witness did, however,
state
that
if
relief
is granted, CIPS would continue
to manage
the ponds to
minimize TSS.
(R.
29).
It
is evident
in the record
that the type and amount of
algae presently discharged by CIPS has
no apparent deleterious
effect on Newton Lake.
Also,
the Board
notes that the ash pond——
Newton Lake system is essentially
a closed
loop.
The lake
discharges only intermittently
to Weather Creek.
(R.
110).
Although the algal discharge
is not presently harmful due
to its
type and quantity,
the Board
agrees with the Agency that the
algal portion should not go unregulated.
The Board believes that
the record supports granting some relief from TSS caused
by
algae.
A level of
30/50
is supported by the data
in the record
as
consistent
with
current
performance
of
the
ponds
with
a
reasonable
amount
of
leeway
given
the
unpredictable
nature
of
algal
blooms.
Given
the
unique
circumstances
of
this
situation,
the
Board
will propose relief such that CIP’s TSS discharge shall
not
exceed
30 mg/i monthly average or
50 mg/l daily composite.
The
definitions
of Section 304.104(b)
shall apply
to these
limits.
Also,
the Board will impose
the requirement that the non—volatile
portion
of
the
TSS
not
exceed
15
mg/i
monthly
average
and
30
mg/l
daily composite.
In granting
this relief,
the Board notes that
the volatile fraction of TSS
in many discharges can be
87—284
7
environmentally
harmful.
The
30/50
TSS
levels
specified
in
this
rule
are
intended
to
include
both
the
fixed
and
volatile
fractions.
The
Board
granted
Illinois
Power Company’s Wood
River
Station TSS limits of 30/50
in
1985.
In
the Matter of: Proposal
of
the Illinois Power Company for
a Site—Specific Effluent Rule
Change
(Proposed Amendment
to
Ill. Adm.
Code, Title 35,
Part
304,
Subpart
B), R.
83—lI,
63 PCB
118,
(February 20,
1985).
That
matter
involved
a relatively new ash pond with
a retention time
of
67
days.
The Board denied TSS relief to
the Central Illinois Light
Company’s
(CILCO)
E.D.
Edward’s
Station South of Peoria
in 1986.
In the Matter
of:
Site Specific Rulemaking
for Central Illinois
Light Company, R85—7,
72 PCB 369 (September
11,
1986), aff’d
Central
Illinois Light Company
v.
Ill.
Pollution Control Board,
Ill.
App.
3d.
_____,
_______
N.E.2d
______
(3rd
Dist.
1987)
citation
will be supplied later
In that proceeding,
an older pond with
a retention
time of
90 hours exceeded the TSS standard.
The Board denied
the
petition for
a number of reasons including
failure
to demonstrate
that
the
excess
TSS
were
not
environmentally
harmful.
CILCO
also
failed
to adequetely address why the pond had previously met the
standard,
to support
its contention
that influent solids were
a
major contribution
to the violstion,
to refute the Agency’s
contention
that the pond had filled
with sediment
to the point
that
it did not provide
the necessary settling opportunity, and
to demonstrate that compliance was technically infeasible
or
economically unreasonable.
The Board believes its decision today is in concert with
prior decisions
in this area.
CI’S has
a relatively new pond
with
a more than adequate retention
time.
Based
on experience,
CIPS manages
the pond
to minimize
algae and inorganic
particles.
The Company had adequately characterized
the influent
and effluent water
and determined where
the problems exist.
The
Board
is convinced
that given
the current situations,
it
is
technically
feasible but economically unreasonable
to implement
further capital—intensive controls.
The proposed rule will not
allow
an increase
in fixed TSS,
but will give CIPS reasonable
relief from
its algae problem.
87—285
8
ORDER
The Board hereby proposes for First Notice the following
amendment
to
be
published
in
the
Illinois
Register.
TITLE
35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE
C:
WATER
POLLUTION
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 304
EFFLUENT STANDARDS
SUBPART
B:
SITE SPECIFIC RULES
AND EXCEPTIONS NOT OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
Section
304.216
Newton
Station
Suspended
Solids
Discharges
The limitation on the discharge of
total suspended solids (TSS)
contained
in
Section
304.124(a)
does
not
apply
to
the
discharge
from
the
ash
pond
system
of
Central
Illinois
Public
Service
Company’s
Newton
Station
(CIPS),
located
in
Jasper
County.
Instead,
CIPS’
ash
pond
system
discharge
shall
not
exceed
30
mg/i
monthly
average
and
50
mg/l
daily
composite
for
TSS,
and
15
mg/i
monthly
average
and
30
mg/i
daily
composite
for
non—volatile
TSS.
The definitions of
Section 304.104(b)
apply to these
effluent
limits.
(Source:
12
Iii.
Reg.
,
effective
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Proposed
Opinion
and
Order
was
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
~77?a.-t_~?_’
,
1988,
by a
vote
of
~I..—O
Dorothy
M.
Gunri,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
87—286