ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Siting
The Completed Proceedings on Peaker Plants
Finally, while the Board makes no recommendation on siting, any legislative amendment for siting procedures should apply only to new facilities and expansions.

December 21, 2000

IN THE MATTER OF:

NATURAL GAS-FIRED, PEAK-LOAD

ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING

FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)

)

R01-10

INFORMATIONAL ORDER OF THE BOARD (by C.A. Manning, R.C. Flemal,

G.T. Girard, E.Z. Kezelis, S.T. Lawton, Jr., M. McFawn, and N.J. Melas):

On July 6, 2000, Governor George H. Ryan asked the Illinois Pollution Control

Board to conduct inquiry hearings concerning the potential environmental impact of

natural gas-fired, peak-load electrical power generating facilities, known as peaker plants.

Governor Ryan requested that the Board, at the conclusion of the inquiry hearings,

address in writing whether any further requirements should be imposed on peaker plants to

safeguard the environment.

The Board has completed its inquiry hearings and today issues this Informational

Order. Based on the record of these proceedings, the Board makes several

recommendations to tighten environmental regulations with respect to peaker plants.

This Informational Order has a companion report that the Board will issue in

January 2001. It will provide a detailed summary of the information in the record of these

proceedings. Both the Informational Order and the companion report will be available on

the Board’s Web site (www.ipcb.state.il.us) and from the Board’s Chicago office (312-

814-3620) and Springfield office (217-524-8500).

Below, the Board first provides a summary of its recommendations. Next, the

Board sets forth background information on Governor Ryan’s request, the Board’s

completed inquiry hearing process, and the electric power generating facilities discussed

in this Informational Order. The Board then answers the five questions posed by the

Governor.

SUMMARY OF BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Air Emissions

The Board notes that peaker plants burn natural gas, which is a relatively clean

fuel environmentally. While peaker plants emit various pollutants into the air, nitrogen

oxides (NOx)

1 are of particular concern because they are ozone precursors. In Illinois,

1 For ease of reference, a list of abbreviations used in the Informational Order is in

Appendix A.

a facility that emits less than 250 tons per year (TPY) is considered a “minor” source

under current State and federal environmental regulations. Many of the proposed

peaker plants are being permitted to allow for emissions just under this threshold and

are intended to emit much less than that. Due to their “peaking” nature, however, the

Board finds that these plants are unique. They can emit most, if not all, of their

permitted annual amount of emissions during a concentrated period of time. This

period is generally the summer months when the ozone risk is greatest.

The Board recommends that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) and the Board engage in rulemaking pursuant to the Environmental Protection

Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/1

et seq

. (1998), to consider requiring these plants to use the

Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control their air emissions. BACT is a

federally-derived regulatory methodology intended to determine the maximum degree to

which air emissions can be reduced in light of energy, environmental, and economic

impacts. In Illinois, BACT only applies to “major” sources, which are generally those

that emit 250 TPY or more.

In addition, the Board recommends codifying two practices that IEPA Director

Tom Skinner, in his administrative discretion, implemented to respond to public

concern over the proliferation of peaker plants: dispersion modeling and public

hearings for all proposed peaker plant construction permits.

Dispersion modeling is intended to ensure that peaker plant air emissions do not

cause or contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS). While not required for minor sources, IEPA has recently been requesting

this modeling information from peaker plant permit applicants during the permit

process. The modeling should use conservative parameters to determine the worst-case

impact, including any cumulative impact due to the clustering of peaker plants.

Noise Emissions

The Board first finds that a peaker plant can be a very loud noise source.

Without adequate noise controls, peaker plants can greatly exceed the Board’s numeric

noise standards. The Board also finds that Illinois’ current noise regulations are

adequate to address most concerns. Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that a gap exists

in current Illinois noise regulation. While Illinois has strict noise standards, IEPA does

not currently have a program in place to ensure at the time of air permitting that

facilities will meet the noise standards. The Board recommends remedying that

problem.

Siting

As to whether peaker plants should be subject to siting requirements beyond

local zoning, the Board stops short of making any specific recommendation on siting.

Instead, the Board provides the Governor with an informed discussion of the concerns

raised and potential solutions.

BACKGROUND

Governor Ryan’s Request

Citing the recent proliferation of peaker plants in Illinois, Governor Ryan asked

that the Board hold inquiry hearings on the following issues:

Do peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than Illinois’ current air

quality statutes and regulations provide?

Do peaker plants pose a unique threat, or a greater threat than other types

of State-regulated facilities, with respect to air pollution, noise pollution, or

groundwater or surface water pollution?

Should new or expanding peaker plants be subject to siting requirements

beyond applicable local zoning requirements?

If the Board determines that peaker plants should be more strictly regulated

or restricted, should additional regulations or restrictions apply to currently

permitted facilities or only to new facilities and expansions?

5. How do other states regulate or restrict peaker plants?

The Completed Proceedings on Peaker Plants

The Board opened this docket, R01-10, by order on July 13, 2000. Board Hearing

Officer Amy Jackson conducted seven days of public hearings at five different locations

throughout the State: August 23 and 24, 2000, in Chicago; September 7, 2000, in

Naperville; September 14, 2000, in Joliet; September 21, 2000, in Grayslake; and

October 5 and 6, 2000, in Springfield. All seven Board Members were present for each

day of hearing. Over 80 persons testified at these public hearings, including individual

citizens, representatives of citizen groups, representatives of State and local government,

and representatives of industry. A list of all hearing participants is attached as Appendix

B. The Board appreciates the thoughtful participation of each of those persons.

Each hearing was transcribed by a court reporter, which resulted in nearly 1,300

pages of transcripts. Hearing Officer Jackson admitted 69 hearing exhibits into the

record, a list of which is attached as Appendix C. The Board also received 195 written

public comments, a list of which is attached as Appendix D. The Board accepts all of

those public comments into the record of these proceedings and thanks each of those

commentors for their insightful remarks.

Simple Cycle and Combined Cycle

Peaker plants are facilities that generate electricity during periods of peak

electricity demand. The period of peak demand mainly occurs during summer months

due to use of electricity for air conditioning. In Illinois, a large number of power

plants using natural gas-fired turbines are being proposed to meet peak electricity

demand.

A basic gas turbine is a rotary internal combustion engine with three major

parts: an air compressor; one or more burners; and a power turbine. The air

compressor compresses the incoming air from the atmosphere. A portion of this air is

diverted to the burner where fuel is burned raising the temperature of compressed air.

This very hot air from the burner is mixed with the rest of the compressed air and

passed through the power turbine. The force of the expanding hot compressed air

drives the turbine shaft, which is connected to a generator that produces electricity.

A gas turbine that discharges hot exhaust gases directly into the atmosphere is

called a simple cycle turbine. A gas turbine with a waste heat boiler that uses the hot

exhaust gases to generate steam is called a combined cycle turbine. The steam

produced by a combined cycle plant may be used for generating electricity or for other

industrial applications.

Gas turbines are ideally suited for generating electricity to meet peak demand

for several reasons: they can be brought on-line relatively quickly, particularly simple

cycle turbines (five to ten minutes); they are simple to operate; and they emit pollutants

into the air at much lower levels than plants using other types of fuel such as coal and

oil.

Simple cycle turbines are suitable for producing electricity to meet hourly and

seasonal peak demand. Most of the recent air permit applications filed with IEPA have

been for natural gas-fired, simple cycle combustion turbines. The generation capacity

of simple cycle plants ranges from 25 to 800 megawatts (MW) per plant. Combined

cycle turbines are more efficient than simple cycle turbines and are more suited for

generating electricity to meet seasonal peak demand or intermediate demand, or for

operating year round to supply base-load electricity. The generation capacity of

combined cycle plants ranges from 336 MW to 2,500 MW.

A simple cycle turbine may be converted to a combined cycle turbine by

retrofitting the simple cycle turbine with a waste heat boiler, steam turbine, and cooling

system. It appears that a number of simple cycle plants ultimately may convert to

combined cycle plants.

As of November 2, 2000, IEPA had received 67 applications for constructing

natural gas-fired power plants, of which 56 are for plants with simple cycle turbines to

meet peak demand, eight are for plants with combined cycle turbines to meet base-load

demand, two are for plants where the permit applicants had not decided whether to use

simple cycle or combined cycle turbines, and one is for a plant with an aero-derivative

combined cycle turbine to meet peak demand. IEPA has limited the time that simple

cycle plants can operate as follows: from 2,000 to 4,000 hours (approximately 83 to

166 days) per year per turbine. IEPA has limited the time that a combined cycle plant

can operate to 6,000 hours (250 days).

The Board recognizes that most natural gas-fired peaker plants use simple cycle

turbines. However, in this Informational Order, the Board will, for a number of

reasons, consider plants that use combined cycle turbines as well as those that use

simple cycle turbines. Combined cycle plants are used to meet seasonal peak electricity

demand. As discussed below, combined cycle plants pose similar environmental

concerns with respect to air quality and noise pollution, and combined cycle plants may

significantly impact regional water resources. Simple cycle plants may be converted to

combined cycle plants. Finally, combined cycle plants, like simple cycle plants, are

being located in developed or developing areas of Northeastern Illinois, often near

residential areas.

BOARD ANSWERS TO GOVERNOR RYAN’S QUESTIONS

Question 1: Do peaker plants need to be regulated more strictly than Illinois’ current air

quality statutes and regulations provide?

Current Air Quality Regulation of Peaker Plants

Many sources of air emissions, such as coal-fired plants, emit greater total

amounts of pollutants into the air than do peaker plants. Peaker plants burn natural gas,

which is relatively clean. Nevertheless, it would be prudent for Illinois to consider

regulating peaker plants more strictly in several discrete areas with respect to air

quality.

Peaker plants emit various amounts of air pollutants as they burn natural gas to

generate electricity. The pollutants are combustion byproducts that include NOx,

carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic material (VOM), particulate matter (PM), and

sulfur dioxide (SO2 ). Peaker plants emit NOx and CO, small amounts of VOM, and

negligible amounts of PM and SO2. NOx emissions are of particular interest because

they are precursors for ozone formation. Air emissions of NOx from identical gas

turbines used in a simple cycle and a combined cycle plant would be similar as long as

a duct burner is not used in the heat recovery applications of the combined cycle plant.

With a duct burner, the NOx emissions level for the combined cycle turbine would be

higher than that of the simple cycle turbine.

Many peaker plants are designated as “minor” sources of air emissions under

current regulations because they are permitted to have “potential air emissions” of less

than 250 TPY of NOx. Because these peaker plants are not considered “major” sources

of air emissions, they avoid the strict requirements for air quality impact modeling and

technology-driven pollution controls, such as BACT and the Lowest Achievable

Emission Rate (LAER).

A BACT analysis involves determining the maximum degree to which the

emissions of a source can be reduced in light of energy, environmental, and economic

impacts. LAER requires the source to meet the most stringent emission limit contained

in a State Implementation Plan or achieved in practice, without considering energy,

environmental, or economic impacts. Neither BACT nor LAER can be less stringent

than an applicable New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), which is an emission

standard prescribed for criteria pollutants from certain stationary source categories

under Section 111 of the federal Clean Air Act.

Generally, peaker plants using simple cycle gas turbines tend to be minor

sources, while combined cycle plants tend to be major sources. Because they generate

steam to produce electricity, combined cycle plants fall into a special category under

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, making their threshold for

major source status 100 TPY rather than the 250 TPY threshold applicable to simple

cycle plants.

Minor source peaker plants may emit their total annual permitted amount of

pollution, often just under 250 tons, into the air in a concentrated time period. As noted,

that time period tends to be the three or four months of summer because air conditioning

use creates a peak demand for electricity. The summer is the worst time of year for ozone

formation. Most peaker plants also are locating in the more densely populated

Northeastern part of the State, often near residential areas. In addition, peaker plants may

be sited in clusters, in part because each plant wants to be close to existing gas and electric

transmission lines.

Board Conclusions on Air Quality Regulation of Peaker Plants

To ensure that minor source peaker plant air emissions do not cause or

contribute to a violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

Illinois’ existing regulations should be enhanced. Specifically, when those plants apply

for air construction permits, they should be subject to air quality impact analyses using

dispersion modeling with respect to NAAQS. NAAQS are set at a level that protects

public health with an adequate margin of safety and that protects public welfare from

known or anticipated adverse effects. Existing regulations require this evaluation only

for major sources.

Conservative modeling parameters for plant operation and meteorological

conditions should be used to determine the worst-case impact. Modeling should

encompass any cumulative impacts due to clustering of peaker plants by accounting for

the emissions from other proposed or existing peaker plants in the area. A peaker

plant’s impact on air quality should be considered acceptable if the modeling results

show that the point of maximum impact at which the NAAQS are met lies at or within

the property line of the plant.

The Board recommends that IEPA propose a Board rulemaking to require that

new and expanding peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD

regulations conduct air quality impact analyses. This recommendation would primarily

affect simple cycle plants because they tend to be minor sources. Combined cycle

plants tend to be major sources, and major sources are already subject to air modeling.

Public hearings also should be held before IEPA issues its final determination on

the permit application. The Board recommends that IEPA adopt a rule requiring that

the air construction permit application process for all combined cycle and simple cycle

peaker plants include a public hearing before IEPA makes its final decision.

As noted, IEPA Director Tom Skinner, in his administrative discretion, already

has been requiring these facilities to meet the air modeling and public hearing obligations.

Citizens applauded these practices and the Board recommends that the practices be

codified, as discussed above.

In addition, further consideration should be given to requiring minor source

peaker plants to use BACT to reduce their emissions of NOx into the air. Several other

states, including Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, require BACT for sources that would

not trigger BACT under federal PSD rules. New gas turbines with readily available,

reliable emission control technology can routinely achieve very low air emission rates.

These emission rates are much lower than the only applicable technology-based

emission limitation, the potentially outdated NSPS. NSPS does not reflect BACT or

LAER for new turbines. Because they are subject only to NSPS and not the more

stringent control requirements, many peaker plants propose NOx emission limits to

IEPA that do not reflect the current emission control technology.

NOx emissions from peaker plants can be reduced either by combustion

modification techniques or add-on control devices. Combustion modification

techniques are capable of reducing NOx emissions to levels ranging from 3 parts per

million (ppm) to 25 ppm. Add-on control devices are capable of reducing NOx

emissions from peaker plants to a range of 3 ppm to 4 ppm. Newer gas turbines are

being designed to routinely achieve NOx emission rates in the range of 10 ppm to 25

ppm. The requested NOx emission rates for simple cycle plants range from 9 ppm to

175 ppm, while the requested NOx emission rates for combined cycle plants range from

3.5 ppm to 4.5 ppm.

As of August 16, 2000, IEPA had made only three BACT determinations for

NOx emissions from simple cycle peaker plants because most of the plants are

developed as minor sources. In all three instances, IEPA determined that the

combustion modification technique known as the “Dry low-NOx” burner system is

BACT, with NOx limits ranging from 9 ppm to 15 ppm.

The Board recommends that IEPA propose a Board rulemaking to require new,

expanding, and existing peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s

PSD regulations to implement BACT for reducing NOx emissions. The rulemaking

proceeding would provide the opportunity to more fully assess whether BACT should

apply in these instances, including whether imposing it would be economically

reasonable and technically feasible.

A number of participants, including Mr. Keith Harley of the Chicago Legal Clinic

and Mr. Brian Urbaszewski of the American Lung Association, urged the Board to

recommend that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rescind the

NOx waiver. The waiver grants relief from New Source Review (NSR) requirements to

certain NOx emission sources in the Chicago nonattainment area (NAA). Those

requirements include a major source designation threshold of 25 TPY of NOx, LAER, and

NOx offsets in the ratio of 1.3 to 1.

The Board notes that repealing the waiver would have ramifications well beyond

the scope of these inquiry proceedings. The waiver applies to all types of sources in

the Chicago NAA, not just peaker plants. Its repeal therefore would have substantial

impacts on industries that are not the subject of this inquiry hearing process. Based on

the record of these proceedings, the Board recommends a more tailored approach—

namely, considering applying BACT to minor source peaker plants, as described above.

The Board agrees with IEPA that any decisions concerning the NOx waiver should be

made by USEPA in the context of its upcoming review of Illinois’ attainment

demonstration for the Chicago NAA.

The Board also declines to recommend that all peaker plant air permits

automatically contain specific limits on emissions resulting from the start-up and shut-

down of the plants. Gas turbines emit greater amounts of pollutants during start-up and

shut-down, resulting in a higher emission factor (pounds of pollutant per million British

thermal units). However, the lower load during those times compensates for the higher

emission factor. IEPA requires construction permits to account for all emissions,

including emissions during start-up and shut-down, to demonstrate compliance with annual

limits. While permits do not routinely have specific limits on the amount of emissions

during start-up and shut-down, IEPA may include those limits if elevated emissions during

those periods would threaten air quality.

Question 2: Do peaker plants pose a unique threat, or a greater threat than other types of

State-regulated facilities, with respect to air pollution, noise pollution, or groundwater or

surface water pollution?

Air Pollution

As noted, many sources emit greater total amounts of pollutants into the air than

do peaker plants. Peaker plants, however, pose a unique threat of air pollution when

compared to many other State-regulated facilities. Unlike many other sources, simple

cycle peaker plants may operate only or primarily during one season, the summer.

Those plants therefore may emit most, if not all, of their annual permitted amounts of

NOx, which are ozone precursors, into the air during the ozone season. This may cause

a greater impact on air quality than a comparable manufacturing plant permitted for the

same amount of emissions that operates over an entire year. Under existing

regulations, however, as discussed above, most simple cycle peaker plants avoid the

most stringent air quality requirements.

Noise Pollution

Peaker plants pose a greater threat of noise pollution than many other types of

State-regulated facilities. The engine used, though not necessarily identical to a jet air

craft engine, is a very loud noise source. Without adequate noise controls, peaker

plants can greatly exceed the Board’s numeric noise standards. Simple cycle and

combined cycle plants pose a similar threat of noise pollution because they use the same

type of engine.

While IEPA has received no noise complaints about existing peaker plants, a large

number of peaker plants plan to begin operating soon, often in close proximity to

residential areas. In addition, many of the existing peaker plants appear to be located at or

adjacent to electric utilities.

Local governments do not automatically request that peaker plant developers

perform noise analyses as part of the local zoning process. Local governments may

lack the technical expertise or resources to assess or conduct noise studies. Moreover,

when peaker plant developers do provide noise studies to local governments, the

methodologies and level of detail in proposing noise control measures, if any, can vary

considerably.

Director Skinner stated that one of the critical objectives of IEPA is to ensure

that no permit is issued to a peaker plant unless the permit applicant proves that the

facility will not violate existing environmental laws or regulations. He emphasized the

language of Section 39(a) of the Act:

When the Board has by regulation required a permit for the construction,

installation, or operation of any type of facility, equipment, vehicle,

vessel, or aircraft, the applicant shall apply to the Agency for such

permit and it shall be the duty of the Agency to issue such a permit upon

proof by the applicant that the facility, equipment, vehicle, vessel, or

aircraft will not cause a violation of this Act or of regulations hereunder.

The Agency shall adopt such procedures as are necessary to carry out its

duties under this Section. 415 ILCS 5/39(a) (1998) (emphasis added).

The Board has adopted a thorough set of noise regulations for Illinois under the

Act. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900, 901. The problem is that IEPA has no mechanism to

ensure that peaker plants (or practically any other noise sources) receiving permits from

IEPA will not violate Illinois’ existing noise standards. Accordingly, there is a gap in

Illinois’ current regulatory approach to noise. While Illinois has stringent numeric

noise standards and thorough procedures for measuring noise, it has no regulatory

scheme for reviewing noise emitters during air permitting to ensure their compliance.

IEPA does not currently have the funding or staffing to perform that function for all

peaker plants.

The Board recommends that IEPA, in connection with its existing air permitting

programs, review demonstrations from combined cycle and simple cycle plants for

compliance with the Board’s current numeric noise standards. Existing facilities should

take sound measurements in accordance with applicable procedures, as part of their

permit renewals. Proposed facilities should perform noise modeling as part of their

construction permit applications.

IEPA agreed that with additional funding and staff, it could readily review noise

information submitted with air permit applications. In fact, for several years, IEPA has

been reviewing demonstrations of compliance with numeric noise standards as part of

the land permit application process for gas turbines used to generate electricity from

landfills. IEPA should seek and be granted adequate funds to provide the important

function that the Board recommends.

Some citizens argued that the Board’s existing numeric noise standards do not

adequately ensure that existing noise levels in quiet residential areas are maintained.

The Board’s current noise regulations impose statewide numeric limits on the sound

levels that can be emitted from one property to another. The regulations take into

account different land uses, with residential land having the most protective standards.

The regulations require sound measurements to be corrected for background noise,

which is generally the noise from sources other than the source at issue. This is done

to determine the noise attributable to the noise emitter being studied. Some citizens are

concerned that if one or more peaker plants move into a quiet area, they will raise the

background noise level in that area, without any one peaker plant violating the numeric

noise standards.

It appears that these citizens seek, in essence, to freeze noise levels currently

existing in certain neighborhoods. The Board recognizes this concern but believes it

could apply to any type of industrial or commercial growth. It does not appear to be

unique to peaker plants, the subject of these proceedings. This type of concern about

preserving a lifestyle by preventing the encroachment of industrial or commercial

development into quiet residential areas may be better addressed through local zoning

and planning.

The Board agrees with IEPA that peaker plant noise emissions do not warrant

changing the Board’s current numeric noise standards. Of course, residents and local

governments can bring nuisance noise enforcement actions before the Board that do not

allege a violation of the numeric noise standards.

Water Pollution

The record of these proceedings does not suggest that discharges from peaker

plants pose a unique threat, or a greater threat than other State-regulated facilities,

regarding water pollution. Nor does the record reveal any gap in existing water

pollution regulations with respect to wastewater discharges to surface waters or publicly

owned treatment works, or stormwater discharges. The Board therefore makes no

recommendation for additional regulations to address potential water pollution from

peaker plants. The Board emphasizes, however, that peaker plants do raise concerns

about water use, which the Board discusses below.

Question 3: Should new or expanding peaker plants be subject to siting requirements

beyond applicable local zoning requirements?

Currently in Illinois, local governments applying local zoning ordinances make

decisions on siting simple cycle and combined cycle plants. Environmental permits are

addressed separately by IEPA. Three primary concerns with the current siting process

were identified during the hearings:

•

Energy Planning. Some participants expressed concern that these plants are

being sited without the State first determining that there is a need for the

electricity that they will generate. They called on the State to develop an

energy plan to help guide the siting of electric generating plants.

•

Environmental Impacts That May Extend Across Political Boundaries.

Some participants asserted that local government cannot effectively address

environmental impacts from simple cycle and combined cycle plants that

may extend across political boundaries, including cumulative impacts from

clusters of plants.

•

Public Participation/Cross-Jurisdictional Authority. Some participants

pointed out that officials and residents of neighboring communities cannot

effectively participate in the siting process of the local host government. For

example, one municipality can approve the siting of a combined cycle or

simple cycle plant just within its border, away from its residences but near

the residential area of a neighboring municipality. The neighboring

municipality has no meaningful voice in the process. Some participants

requested that these neighboring communities be able to effectively

participate in the siting process and that neighboring officials have a

meaningful say in the ultimate siting decision, including, for example,

ensuring compliance with county standards.

The Board addresses each of these concerns below.

Energy Planning

Peaker plants are proliferating in Northeastern Illinois because of many factors,

including deregulation, rising energy costs, increased demand for power, close

proximity to users as well as existing gas and electric transmission lines, low

construction costs, the closure of base-load electric plants, and opposition to building

new transmission lines. Mr. Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator of the

Natural Resources Defense Council, described Illinois’ current energy market as an

“Oklahoma land rush” and called for Illinois to have a “comprehensive energy planning

process, encompassing functions once carried out by the Illinois Commerce

Commission.”

Many persons expressed concern that peaker plants are being sited without the

government first determining that they are needed. For example, Mr. Jim LaBelle,

Chairman of the Lake County Board, called for the State to take a leadership role in

developing an energy plan to help guide the siting of electric generating plants. He

asserted that Illinois should have a plan that: identifies the power generation and

transmission needed to support continued economic growth in Illinois; assures that

power generated in a particular location will provide direct benefits to the surrounding

county and region; and considers alternatives such as improved transmission capacity to

reduce the need for additional generation in certain areas.

Industry representatives, on the other hand, asserted that the market should

determine when additional generating capacity is needed. They warned that imposing

stricter siting requirements in Illinois might result in power shortages, higher costs for

power, reliability problems, and delays in siting.

The question of whether the State should allow new electric generating plants to

be sited only if they are consistent with a statewide energy plan is in many ways a

question about whether the proliferation of peaker plants is an unwanted byproduct of

restructuring the electric industry.

Before restructuring, electric utilities requested approval from the Illinois

Commerce Commission (ICC) to build new generating plants at specific sites. A utility

seeking to build a new plant was required to demonstrate need for the new generating

capacity. If the utility succeeded, the ICC would grant the authority, including, if

required, powers of eminent domain.

A few years ago, Illinois embarked upon deregulation. It chose a market-based

approach for restructuring, and the General Assembly passed the Electric Service

Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997 (Illinois Electricity Choice Law) to

accomplish it. See 220 ILCS 5/16-101 through 16-130 (1998). Because of the Illinois

Electricity Choice Law, the ICC no longer has a formal role in assessing Illinois’

electricity needs or mandating additional capacity. Instead, market forces are expected

to spur innovation, attract competition, drive the appropriate supply/demand balance,

and attract new power suppliers to the State.

In addition to the introduction of market-based restructuring at the State level,

the electric utility industry also experienced increasing levels of competition on the

federal level. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Order 888 of

1995 required electric utilities to provide open access to their transmission system to

any entity interested in moving or “wheeling” electricity from one part of the national

grid to another for wholesale purposes. This opened the interstate transmission system

to wider access and made interstate electricity sales even more economically attractive.

In light of the evolving nature of deregulation nationwide, a brief review of

other states’ siting approaches is warranted. (A lengthier discussion of siting options is

set forth later in this Informational Order.) As Mr. Charles Fisher, Executive Director

of the ICC explained, some states have taken approaches to siting similar to that of

Illinois, while others have established state siting committees either as part of or

separate from state public utility commissions.

States With Restructuring Laws. Like Illinois, California, New York, and Ohio

have enacted electric restructuring laws. Unlike Illinois, these states use state siting

committees to determine where peaker plants should be sited. Texas also has enacted

an electric restructuring law. It has a system similar to the current system in Illinois:

local zoning boards control siting, and the state environmental agency controls

permitting.

States Without Restructuring Laws. Wisconsin, which has not enacted an

electric restructuring law, requires traditional certificates of convenience and necessity

for peaker plants. Kentucky, which also has not enacted an electric restructuring law,

does not require any approvals, other than state environmental permitting and local

zoning, as long as the peaker plant sells the electricity it generates wholesale on the

market.

In Illinois, merchant generators do not have to request the ICC’s siting approval

or demonstrate to the ICC that they are needed to meet energy demand. Nor is the ICC

involved in any formal energy planning for the State. When assessing any impacts of

restructuring, the Governor may wish to consider whether the State should have an

energy plan that could, among other things, guide the introduction of new generating

capacity into Illinois.

Environmental Impacts That May Extend Across Political Boundaries

Environmental impacts from peaker plants, such as from air emissions, noise

emissions, and water use, may extend across political boundaries. Multiple peaker

plants may be sited close to each other for close proximity to natural gas and electric

lines and because certain local jurisdictions may offer less stringent zoning

requirements than other jurisdictions. Concentrations of peaker plants may lead to

cumulative environmental impacts.

Earlier in this Informational Order, the Board recommended approaches to

address these concerns with respect to air and noise. The air modeling recommended

will address cross-boundary impacts and air emissions from other sources. The noise

compliance demonstration recommended will help to ensure that peaker plant noise

emissions meet Illinois noise standards in every jurisdiction. As proposed, potential

impacts from air or noise emissions, including emissions from multiple sources, would

be assessed by IEPA at the time of air permitting.

The Board also notes that Governor Ryan created the Water Resources Advisory

Committee (WRAC) to assess the use of groundwater and surface water. The WRAC’s

work includes assessing the impacts that users, including peaker plants, have on these

supplies of water and recommending action. The WRAC should address the virtual

absence of State controls or plans regarding water use. To assist the WRAC in its

work, Chairman Manning, who sits on the WRAC on behalf of the Board, forwarded a

letter to the WRAC, attaching summaries of information on water use from these

inquiry hearing proceedings and on the regulatory frameworks that other Midwestern

states have with respect to water use. In her letter, Chairman Manning calls on the

WRAC to focus its attention on “the development of a workable regulatory framework

for the conservation and fair allocation of water resources in this great State: one that

meets the needs of all concerned citizens and entities.” Various industry

representatives referred to this letter in their public comments to the Board in these

proceedings. Chairman Manning’s submittal is attached as Appendix E.

Accordingly, concerns over environmental impacts from air emissions, noise

emissions, and water use can be addressed through State or regional regulatory

mechanisms outside of a siting process. For example, the record shows that the

Board’s recommendations with respect to air and noise, if implemented, should be

protective without any need to have them addressed in a siting process. If such

regulatory mechanisms are not implemented, however, these types of concerns could be

addressed in a siting process, as they are in the New York and California processes

discussed below.

Water use is a particular concern. As noted, Illinois has no regulatory program

to manage and preserve the quantity of its many surface water and groundwater

resources. Because of its high water use for cooling purposes, a plant using a

combined cycle turbine will have a greater impact on regional water resources than a

plant with a simple cycle turbine. Simple cycle plants use about 0.07 to 2 million

gallons of water per day, while combined cycle plants use approximately 5 to 20

million gallons of water per day. As mentioned, many simple cycle plants may convert

to combined cycle plants.

Dr. Derek Winstanley is the Chief of the Illinois State Water Survey, a division

of the Office of Scientific Research and Analysis of the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources. He stated that proper use of groundwater resources is not best determined

on a “town-by-town” basis because groundwater aquifers cut across political

jurisdictions. He advocated regional planning and management of water resources,

including groundwater aquifers, river basins, and water sheds.

Dr. Winstanley’s concerns were echoed by numerous local and State

government officials and representatives, including State Senator Terry Link, Mr.

Daniel J. Kucera, an attorney with Chapman & Cutler appearing on behalf of the Lake

County Public Water District, Mr. Mike Shay, Senior Planner with Will County, and

Ms. Bonnie Thomson Carter, Lake County Board Member for the Fifth District and

Chair of the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Each of them testified that

potential environmental impacts from individual or multiple peaker plants cannot be

addressed effectively by local government. Many local zoning authorities may lack the

financial resources or technical expertise to competently assess these aspects of peaker

plant proposals.

The Board agrees that current local zoning processes alone generally do not

adequately consider environmental impacts from simple cycle and combined cycle

plants that may extend across political boundaries, including any cumulative effects

from the clustering of these plants. As noted, however, these concerns can be fully

addressed through regulatory mechanisms outside of a siting process.

Public Participation/Cross-Jurisdictional Authority

As noted, currently in Illinois, the siting of peaker plants is addressed only by

local government through local zoning or land use ordinances. Generally in Illinois,

municipalities control zoning matters within their borders. Accordingly, neither the

officials of a neighboring municipality or surrounding county, nor the citizens residing

in those jurisdictions, can effectively participate in a given municipality’s zoning

approval process to site a peaker plant.

Representatives of DuPage County, Will County, and Lake County explained

that their zoning authority is limited in this way. A number of local and State officials,

including State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw and Ms. Vivian Lund, Mayor of

Warrenville, expressed concern that residents and officials in neighboring

municipalities and surrounding counties have no meaningful say in a given

municipality’s zoning approval process for a peaker plant, despite the potential for

environmental impacts of peaker plants to cross political boundaries.

Participants requested that neighboring communities be able to effectively

participate in a municipality’s siting process and that neighboring officials have a say in

the ultimate siting decision, including, for example, ensuring compliance with county

standards.

Potential Solutions

As noted above, states across the country use different types of processes for

approving electric power generating plants. Some states, like Illinois, have a

decentralized or segmented process of approving peaker plants. Under that approach,

the siting decisions are made by local governments applying their zoning ordinances,

while environmental permits are obtained from the different state bureaus. Other states

have a centralized or coordinated process. Those states empower one state board or

commission to grant or deny all siting proposals. In California and New York,

environmental permitting is a component of the power plant siting process and the state

environmental regulators participate in that process.

Below, the Board discusses the New York and California processes for siting

electric generating plants, as well as Illinois’ process under the Act for siting pollution

control facilities.

New York and California Siting Processes. The siting processes in New York

and California were most frequently referred to in this record. New York’s siting

process applies to an electric generating facility with a capacity of 80 MW or more.

Siting decisions are made by a state board. The application for siting must include: (1)

studies of impacts on air, water, visual resources, land use, noise levels, and health, (2)

proof that the proposed facility will meet state and federal health, safety, and

environmental regulations, and (3) applications for air and water permits.

To facilitate the ability of local government and the public to evaluate the

proposed project, New York requires that the applicant provide funds for intervenors to

use in the siting process. The applicant must pay a fee of $1,000 per MW of capacity,

not to exceed $300,000, to be used as an intervenor fund. The funds are awarded to

municipal and other local parties to help pay for the expenses of expert witnesses and

consultants. Any municipality or resident within five miles of the proposed facility can

become a party to the proceeding.

The state environmental agency reviews the air and water permit applications as

part of the siting process and must provide the permits to the siting board before the

board decides whether to approve siting. The siting board reviews the siting request

based on a number of criteria, including cumulative air quality impacts and public

health and safety. Interestingly, one of the criteria requires the siting board, before it

can grant siting, to determine either: (1) construction of the facility is reasonably

consistent with the state energy plan, or (2) the electricity generated by the facility will

be sold in a competitive market. The state siting board may supercede local

requirements if it finds them unreasonably restrictive. Please refer to Appendix F for a

more detailed description of New York’s siting process.

California has given exclusive authority to a state commission to conduct a

consolidated approval process for siting all power plants that will have electric

generating capacities of 50 MW or larger. The commission’s siting responsibilities

include statewide planning analysis. The siting process allows the project applicant to

submit a single application for all necessary state and local approvals and provides

analysis of all aspects of a proposed project, including need, environmental impact,

safety, efficiency, and reliability.

While the state commission’s authority supercedes the authority of other state

and local agencies, the commission solicits their participation in the siting process to

ensure compliance with all applicable requirements, including local requirements.

Under this approach, the applicant seeks a single regulatory permit from the state

commission. The California siting process has public hearings and allows the public to

participate. It includes a state-appointed public adviser responsible for ensuring that the

public and other interested parties have full opportunities to participate in the siting

process. Please refer to Appendix G for a more detailed description of California’s

siting process.

Pollution Control Facility Siting in Illinois (SB 172). In Illinois, the Act sets

forth a process for siting pollution control facilities, including landfills. The process,

commonly known as “Senate Bill 172” or “SB 172,” was discussed many times in this

record as a potential model for siting peaker plants. SB 172 changed the Act in 1981 so

that local governments would decide whether to grant siting approval for pollution

control facilities. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998). Previously, the only way local

governments could participate in the approval of pollution control facilities within their

borders was to provide comments in IEPA’s environmental permitting process. Those

comments were not binding on IEPA.

With SB 172, the applicable local unit of government to decide siting is the

county board if the facility’s proposed location is in an unincorporated area, or the

governing body of the municipality if the proposed location is in an incorporated area.

See 415 ILCS 5/39(c) (1998). The local government must conduct public hearings to

determine whether to grant siting. The process also provides for various public notices.

Participation of neighboring officials and residents in the process is allowed. For

example, Section 39.2(d) of the Act, after prescribing how to notify these officials,

provides:

Members or representatives of the governing authority of a municipality

contiguous to the proposed site or contiguous to the municipality in

which the proposed site is located and, if the proposed site is located in a

municipality, members or representatives of the county board of a county

in which the proposed site is to be located may appear at and participate

in public hearings held pursuant to this Section.

The local siting authority must determine whether the proposed facility meets

each of nine statutory criteria. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998). Those criteria are set

forth in Appendix H. The criteria, which include both land use and environmental

considerations, apply to the siting decision in lieu of local zoning or local land use

requirements. See 415 ILCS 5/39.2(g) (1998). IEPA is not directly involved in the

local government’s hearing process. However, IEPA cannot issue a development or

construction permit for a pollution control facility unless the permit applicant submits

proof that it obtained local siting approval under SB 172. See 415 ILCS 5/39(c)

(1998). Local siting decisions are appealable to the Board. See 415 ILCS 5/40.1

(1998).

Many of the SB 172 siting criteria are specific to waste facilities. Criteria,

however, could be tailored for siting peaker plants. Because the SB 172 approach

requires the statutory criteria to apply instead of local zoning, concern was expressed in

the record that local governments would lose some control over peaker plant siting by

using the SB 172 approach. Modified SB 172 approaches were suggested. One

approach would have State-identified siting criteria serve as minimum criteria that must

be met, but which would not operate in lieu of local zoning. Another approach would

have State-identified siting criteria serve to inform local governments of siting issues,

but be voluntary. Under that approach, local governments would not have to apply the

criteria, but could look to the criteria for guidance if they chose to do so. Another

approach would involve creating regional siting authorities to make these

determinations. Several participants suggested that siting decisions should be

appealable to the Board, as they are under SB 172.

Board’s Concluding Remarks on Siting. State-run approaches to siting can

provide for broader public participation in siting and ensure that a larger perspective is

brought to bear on environmental issues and energy planning when selecting sites for

power plants. They also offer a more uniform application of siting criteria over a state

than a patchwork of individual local zoning decisions. A centralized or coordinated

type of process, however, is not without potential drawbacks. For example, this type

of siting process has caused delays in siting electric plants, including delays in

California leading to changes in an effort to speed up its process. Also, in most states

with these comprehensive siting processes, the state board can overrule local

jurisdictional authority. Accordingly, state boards typically can approve siting over the

objection of the local host government.

Any number of permutations to existing siting schemes could be fashioned for

combined cycle and simple cycle plants. For example, environmental permitting

programs might be made a component of the siting process, as in New York and

California, or they might remain separate from the siting process, as they are now in

Illinois. To enhance public participation and the ability of local governments to assess

peaker plant proposals, the State might require peaker plant developers to provide

something akin to the “intervenor” funds required in New York. Local siting decisions

might be based on State siting criteria and made appealable to a State board, as in SB

172. State siting criteria might operate in lieu of local zoning requirements, or serve as

minimum standards to which local authorities may add local requirements. Of course,

concerns raised about siting schemes, including delays, power shortages, increased

costs, reliability problems, and loss of local control, should be considered.

Determining whether local zoning is adequate or whether additional siting

requirements are necessary in Illinois depends on what concerns the siting scheme seeks

to address. As discussed, the three primary concerns raised with the current siting

process in Illinois were: (1) the lack of a State energy plan, (2) the inability of local

government to address environmental impacts that may reach across political

boundaries, and (3) the inability of neighboring residents to effectively participate in a

local government’s siting process, and the inability of neighboring jurisdictions to

ensure that their standards are being met.

If the State decides that it should step into the energy planning void left by the

restructuring of the electric industry, then a centralized State siting board might make

sense. The State might decide, on the other hand, that the void is a proper result of

restructuring and that State regulatory solutions should be implemented to address

concerns over air emissions, noise emissions, and water use. In that case, the State

might limit any change in the current siting process to require that neighboring

communities be allowed to effectively participate in a local government’s zoning

decision on a peaker plant.

As for the first concern, this Informational Order provides helpful information

to assist the Governor in his consideration of whether the State should renew its role in

energy planning after restructuring. The second concern, on potential environmental

impacts from air emissions, noise emissions, and water use, can be addressed through

State or regional regulation independent of any siting process. As noted, the Board has

demonstrates that those approaches should be protective. Regarding water use, the

Board would expect the WRAC to recommend an effective regulatory framework

sorely lacking now on that important issue. If adequate regulatory schemes are not

implemented, however, those types of environmental concerns might need to be

addressed through a siting process.

Finally, regarding the third concern, legislation might be pursued that would

allow the input of neighboring communities in siting decisions. Local government

officials and citizens almost uniformly called for State action to address this concern.

Question 4: If the Board determines that peaker plants should be more strictly regulated

or restricted, should additional regulations or restrictions apply to currently permitted

facilities or only to new facilities and expansions?

The Board’s recommended regulation concerning air quality impact analyses and

public hearings should be required for new and expanding peaker plants seeking air

construction permits. Whether BACT should apply to control emissions from minor

source peaker plants should be evaluated in a rulemaking before the Board. At that time,

the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of applying BACT to new,

expanding, and existing minor source peaker plants can be examined.

The demonstration of compliance with existing numeric noise standards should

be made by existing peaker plants and by new peaker plants and expansions. Existing

peaker plants have been subject to the Board’s numeric noise standards and therefore

should be able to demonstrate that they comply with those standards by taking the

appropriate sound measurements. Existing facilities should make those demonstrations

upon air permit renewals. The demonstrations of new and expanding facilities could

include noise modeling and should be submitted at the time of air construction permit

applications.

Finally, while the Board makes no recommendation on siting, any legislative

amendment for siting procedures should apply only to new facilities and expansions.

Question 5: How do other states regulate or restrict peaker plants?

Please refer to Appendix I for a comprehensive table on other states’ laws and

regulations that may affect peaker plants. For example, Michigan requires BACT for

all new sources of VOM emissions, which is a more stringent threshold for triggering

BACT than the federal standards. Many other states have no noise regulations, or have

very minimal noise regulations compared to the noise standards in Illinois. Unlike

Illinois, most other Midwestern states have regulatory programs for water withdrawals.

As for siting, a number of states have state boards review requests to site electric

generating plants, while others, like Illinois, leave siting decisions to local governments

applying their zoning ordinances.

CONCLUSION

Peaker plants have proliferated in Illinois in the wake of restructuring the

electric power industry. The largest influx of peaker plants is occurring in developed

and developing parts of the greater Chicago metropolitan area, often close to residential

areas. This has raised public concerns over potential environmental impacts posed by

these plants.

In response to those public concerns, Governor Ryan requested the Board to

conduct inquiry hearings on peaker plants, which the Board has done. The Governor

asked the Board to determine, based on the inquiry hearing process, whether additional

safeguards are necessary to address concerns over air pollution, noise pollution, water

pollution, and siting with respect to peaker plants.

The Board has carefully reviewed the voluminous record of this inquiry hearing

process, which includes the comments of individual citizens and citizen groups, local

and State government, and industry. Based on that record, the Board recommends that

the State take action to protect the environment by tightening current environmental

regulations concerning peaker plants.

Industry representatives asserted that environmental impacts from peaker plants

are far less than many other industries and therefore peaker plants should not be subject

to any additional requirements unless all such industries would similarly be subject to

new requirements. The Board recognizes that other industries may cause greater

environmental impacts than peaker plants. This, however, is not a reason to fail to act

on the problems presented in this record. Governor Ryan asked the Board to determine

whether additional requirements should be imposed on peaker plants, not other

industries. Moreover, the “legislature need not choose between legislating against all

evils of the same kind or not legislating at all.” Chicago National League Ball Club v.

Thompson, 108 Ill. 2d 357, 367, 483 N.E.2d 1245, 1250 (1985).

The Board recommends that IEPA initiate a rulemaking with the Board to require

permit applicants to conduct air modeling when IEPA reviews air construction permit

applications for peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s PSD

regulations. The Board also recommends that IEPA adopt a rule to require public

hearings on air construction permit applications for all peaker plants.

The Board recommends that IEPA initiate a rulemaking with the Board to require

new, expanding, and existing peaker plants designated as minor sources under the State’s

PSD regulations to use BACT for reducing NOx in their air emissions. The rulemaking

would provide a forum to more fully address the appropriateness of imposing BACT,

including its economic reasonableness and technical feasibility in these instances.

The Board recommends that IEPA require peaker plants to demonstrate that

their noise emissions do not exceed the Board’s numeric noise standards. This

demonstration should be required of existing and proposed plants at the time of air

permitting.

Finally, on the question of whether peaker plants should be subject to siting

requirements beyond local zoning, the Board does not make any specific

recommendation on siting. Instead, the Board provides the Governor with a thorough

discussion of the concerns raised and potential solutions.

The Board is honored to have served Governor Ryan and the citizens of Illinois

through this inquiry hearing process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby

certify that the above order was adopted on the 21st day of December 2000 by a vote of

7-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

APPENDIX A

RO1-10 ABBREVIATION LIST

ACT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ACT

BACT BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL

TECHNOLOGY

CO CARBON MONOXIDE

ICC ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION

IEPA ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

LAER LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION

RATE

MW MEGAWATT

NAA NONATTAINMENT AREA

NAAQS NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

NSPS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE

STANDARDS

NSR NEW SOURCE REVIEW

PM PARTICULATE MATTER

PPM PART PER MILLION

PSD PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT

USEPA UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

VOM VOLATILE ORGANIC MATERIAL

WRAC WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY

COMMITTEE

APPENDIX B

PERSONS TESTIFYING IN R01-10

Chicago Hearings

August 23, 2000

Charles Fisher, Executive Director, Illinois Commerce Commission

Thomas Skinner, Director, IEPA

Christopher Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

Robert Kaleel, Manager of Air Quality Modeling Unit, Division of Air

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section,

IEPA

Rick Cobb, Manager, Groundwater Section, Bureau of Water, IEPA

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

Dr. Brian Anderson, Director, Office of Scientific Research and Analysis,

IDNR

10.

Dr. Derek Winstanley, Chief, Illinois State Water Survey, IDNR

August 24, 2000

Gerald Erjavec, Business Development, Indeck Energy Services, Inc.

Greg Wassilkowsky, Manager, Business Development, Indeck Energy Services,

Inc.

Arlene Juracek, Vice President, Regulatory and Legislative Services, ComEd

Steve Nauman, Vice President, Transmission Services, ComEd

Deirdre Hirner, Executive Director, IERG

6. Richard Bulley, Executive Director of Mid-America Interconnected Network

7. Freddi Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel, Midwest

Independent Power Suppliers

Michael Kearney, Manager, Economic Development, Ameren Corp.

Richard Trzupek, Manager, Air Quality, Huff & Huff

Suburban Hearings

Naperville

September 7, 2000

Mayor George Pradel, Naperville

State Senator Chris Lauzen

State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw

Mayor Vivian Lund, Warrenville

Paul Hass, Zoning Manager, DuPage County Department of Development

Environmental Concerns

Richard Ryan, President and Chairman, Standard Power and Light, Oak Brook

Diana Turnball, Consultant to variety of citzen groups, private foundations and

businesses who have been in opposition to some of the peaker plants

Carol Dorge, Attorney representing Lake County Conservation Alliance

Connie Schmidt, Representative of River Prairie Group

10.

Mark Goff, Resident, Warrenville

11.

Cathy Capezio, Resident, Aurora

12.

Terry Voitik, Resident, DuPage County, and Founder of Citizens Against

Power Plants in Residential Areas (CAPPRA)

13.

Maurice Gravenhorst, Member, CAPPRA

14.

Lucy Debarbaro, Member, CAPPRA

15.

Terry Voitik on behalf of Steve Arrigo, CAPPRA

16.

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

17. Beverly Dejovine, Representative, Citizens Advocating Responsible

Environments (CARE), Bartlett

18. Cathy Johnson, Vice Chair, Rural and City Preservation Association (R&CPA)

19.

Chris Gobel, Member, CAPPRA

20.

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

21.

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

22.

Chris Gobel, Member, CAPPRA

Joliet

September 14, 2000

Dr. Thomas Overbye, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and

Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Alan Jirik, Director, Environmental Affairs, Corn Products International, Inc.

Carol Stark, Director, Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, Lockport

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

Keith Harley, Chicago Legal Clinic

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

Michael Shay, Senior Planner Responsible for Long-Range Planning, Will

County

Grayslake

September 21, 2000

State Senator Terry Link

State Representative Susan Garrett

Tom Lynch, Trustee, Libertyville Township

Betty Rae Kaiser, Trustee, Village of Wadsworth

Daniel J. Kucera, Chapman & Cutler, appearing on behalf of the Lake County

Public Water District

Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Lake County Board

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

Bonnie Carter, Commissioner, Lake County Board

Greg Elam, CEO, American Energy

10.

Larry Eaton, Attorney, on behalf of the Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Prairie

Holdings Corporation, and Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association

11.

Toni Larsen, Resident, Zion

12.

Chris Geiselhart, Chairperson, Concerned Citizens of Lake County

13.

Diane Turnball, Representing Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Concerned Citizens

of Lake County, CARE from McHenry County, Bartlett CARE, and Southwest

Michigan Perservation Association

14.

Lisa Snider, Resident, Wadsworth

15.

Verena Owen, Co-Chair, Zion Against Peaker Plants

16.

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

17.

Carolyn Muse, Resident, Zion

18.

John Matijevich

19.

Dennis Wilson, Resident, Island Lake

20.

Terry Jacobs, Resident, Libertyville

21.

Jim Booth, Resident, Newport Township in Lake County

22.

William McCarthy, Resident, Libertyville

23.

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

24.

Barbara Amendola, Resident, Zion

25.

Mark Sargis, Attorney, working with citizens who have been concerned about

peaker issues

26.

Cindy Skrukrud, Resident, Olin Mills, McHenry County

27.

Paul Geiselhart, Resident, Libertyville

28.

Dr. William Holaman, President, Illinois Citizen Action

29.

Evan Craig, Volunteer Chair, Woods and Wet Lands Group of the Sierra Club

Roger Finnell, Engineer, Division of Aeronautics, Bureau of Airport

Engineering, IDOT

John Smith, Representative of Illinois Section of American Waterworks

Association

Brent Gregory, Representative of National Association of Water Companies,

Illinois Chapter

James R. Monk, President, Illinois Energy Association

Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, Natural Resources Defense

Council

Brian Urbaszewski, Director, Environmental Health Programs, American Lung

Association

Elliot “Bud” Nesvig

Carol Dorge, Attorney representing Lake County Conservation Alliance

October 6, 2000

Susan Zingle, Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

Scott Phillips, Attorney, IEPA

3. Kathleen Bassi, Attorney, IEPA

Chris Romaine, Manager, Utility Unit, Permit Section, Division of Air

Pollution Control, Bureau of Air, IEPA

5. Greg Zak, Noise Advisor, IEPA

Todd Marvel, Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and RCRA

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit, Bureau of Water Permits Section,

IEPA

APPENDIX C

R01-10 EXHIBIT LIST

Exhibit Number Description of Document

Illinois Commerce Commission Prefiled testimony of Charles

Fisher

Exhibit 1 (8/23/00)

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Prefiled testimony of Agency

(Agency) Group Exhibit 1 (8/23/00) witnesses (Thomas Skinner,

Christopher Romaine,

Robert

Kaleel, Greg Zak, Stephen

Nightingale, Richard Cobb,

and

Todd Marvel)

Agency Group Exhibit 2 (8/23/00) Set of 20 documents,

beginning with

“Simple Cycle Gas Turbine

Application Diagram,” and

including two oversized

maps

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Prefiled testimony of Brian

(DNR) Exhibit 1 (8/23/00) Anderson

DNR Exhibit 2 (8/23/00) Prefiled testimony of Dr.

Derek

Winstanley

Indeck Energy Services, Inc. Prefiled testimony of Gerald

Erjavec

(Indeck) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Indeck Exhibit 2 (8/24/00) Copy of PowerPoint

presentation

and Supporting

Documentation

Commonwealth Edison Exhibit 1 Prefiled testimony of Arlene

Juracek

(8/24/00) and Steven Naumann

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group Prefiled testimony of Dierdre

Hirner

(IERG) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Mid-America Interconnected Network, Inc. Prefiled testimony of

Richard Bulley

(MAIN) Exhibit 1 (8/24/00)

Midwest Independent Power Suppliers Prefiled testimony of Freddi

Coordination Group Exhibit 1 (8/24/00) Greenberg

Ameren Corporation Exhibit 1 (8/24/00) Prefiled testimony of

Michael

Kearney

Huff & Huff Environmental Consultants Prefiled testimony of

Richard

Exhibit 1 (8/24/00) Trzupek, with attachments

Citizens Against Power Plants in Residential CAPPRA Mission Statement

Areas (CAPPRA) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00) and photographs

CAPPRA Exhibit 2 (9/7/00) Steven Berning, et al. v. The

City

of Aurora, et al., 00-CH-

0361,

Second Amended Complaint

for

Declaratory Judgment

pending in

DuPage County Circuit

Court

CAPPRA Exhibit 3 (9/7/00) Testimony of Michael

Warfel

CAPPRA Exhibit 4 (9/7/00) Testimony of Steve Arrigo

DuPage County Board Exhibit 1 (9/7/00) Versar Report

DuPage County Board Exhibit 2 (9/7/00) Map - DuPage County

Municipalities and

Unincorporated

Areas

DuPage County Board Exhibit 3 (9/7/00) Testimony of Paul J. Hoss,

Zoning

Manager for DuPage County

Department of Development

and

Environmental Concerns

Standard Light and Power Exhibit 1 (9/7/00) Addendum No. 2 to

Application for

Prevention of Significant

Deterioration Construction

Permit

for Standard Energy

Ventures, LLC

Electrical Generation

Facility

BartlettCARE (Citizens Advocating Testimony of Beverly

DeJovine

Responsible Environments) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00)

Susan Zingle (Zingle) Exhibit 1 (9/7/00) “Peaker” Electrical

Generating

Plants Press Coverage –

2000

Zingle Exhibit 2 (9/7/00) Testimony of Lake County

Conservation Alliance

Zingle Exhibit 3 (9/14/00) Testimony of Lake County

Conservation Alliance with

attachments

Zingle Exhibit 4 (9/21/00) Video Tape

Zingle Exhibit 5 (10/6/00) “Typical Daily Load Curve”

Reliant Energy

Zingle Exhibit 6 (10/6/00) “The Status of U.S.

Electricity

Deregulation”

Zingle Exhibit 7 (10/6/00) Arthur Andersen’s “Impact

Zingle Exhibit 8 (10/6/00) “Effects of the Proposed

Indeck

Facility on Property Values,

Land

Use and Tax Revenue”

Zingle Exhibit 9 (10/6/00) August 15, 2000 letter from

Lake

County State’s Attorney,

Michael J.

Waller, to Kenneth L.

Larson

Zingle Exhibit 10 (10/6/00) News Articles, beginning

with

“Ordinance Would Place

Provisos

on Peaker Plants”

Zingle Exhibit 11 (10/6/00) “Business Overview –

Electrical

Generating Companies”

Sierra Club Exhibit 1 (9/7/00) Testimony of Connie Sue

Schmidt

Dr. Thomas Overbye Exhibit 1 (9/14/00) “Need for New Peaker

Generation

in Illinois” power point

presentation

Corn Products Exhibit 1 (9/14/00) Testimony of Alan L. Jirik

Carol Stark (Stark) Exhibit 1 (9/14/00) Testimony of Carol Stark

Stark Exhibit 2 (9/14/00) Newspaper Article

Chicago Legal Clinic Exhibit 1 (9/14/00) Petition to USEPA

requesting

revocation of the Nitrogen

Oxides

(NOx) waiver

Chicago Legal Clinic Exhibit 2 (9/14/00) Testimony of Keith Harley

Link Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Statement of State Senator

Terry

Link

Lynch Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Comments of Tom Lynch,

Libertyville Township

Trustee

Kaiser Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Village of Wadsworth

Resolution

R130 and letter of December

21,

1999

Kucera Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Comments on behalf of the

Lake

County Public Water District

Lake County Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of Jim LaBelle,

Chairman Lake County

Board

Lake County Exhibit 2 (9/21/00) Testimony of Sandy Cole,

Lake

County Board Member

Lake County Exhibit 3 (9/21/00) Testimony of Bonnie

Thomson

Carter, Lake County Board

Member

Lake County Exhibit 4 (9/21/00) Testimony of Gregory E.

Elam,

CEO of American Energy

Solutions, including power

point

presentation and Federal

Energy

Regulatory Commission

article

Lake County Exhibit 5 (9/21/00) Lake County 2000 –

Legislative

Program

Eaton Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of Larry Eaton on

Concerned Citizens of Lake County (CCLC) Testimony of Chris

Geiselhart,

Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Chairperson

CCLC Exhibit 2 (9/21/00) Comments of Richard

Domanik

during an April 25, 2000

hearing in

Libertyville, with attached

articles

Nesvig Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Testimony of E.M. Nesvig

Nesvig Exhibit 2 (9/21/00) “Electric Power Monthly”

(July 2000 edition)

Nesvig Exhibit 3 (10/5/00) Written testimony of E.M.

Nesvig

Nesvig Exhibit 4 (10/5/00) Hard copy of Air Permit

Public

Hearing Presentation

(September 28, 2000) by

Elwood Energy II and

Elwood Energy III

Nesvig Exhibit 5 (10/5/00) “U.S. Electricity Imports

and

Exports 1995–1999”

McCarthy Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Correspondence of William

McCarthy, PhD, regarding

proposed Libertyville plant

McCarthy Exhibit 2 (9/21/00) Guidance for Power Plant

Siting and

Best Available Control

Technology

McCarthy Exhibit 3 (9/21/00) “Catalytica” publication

regarding

“Xonon Technology”

Sargis Exhibit 1 (9/21/00) Written comments of Mark

Sargis (dated September 7,

2000)

Illinois Department of Transportation October 5, 2000 letter from

James

Exhibit 1 (10/5/00) V. Bildilli to Chairman

Claire A.

Manning

Gregory Exhibit 1 (10/5/00) Written testimony of Brent

Gregory

Monk Exhibit 1 (10/5/00) Written testimony of James

Monk

Monk Exhibit 2 (10/5/00) “System Peak Load and

Capacity –

Historical 1990-2000 &

Projected

2001-2003

American Lung Association Exhibit 1 (10/5/00) Joint Comments of the

American

Lung Association of

Metropolitan

Chicago and the Illinois

Environmental Council

Dorge Exhibit 1 (10/5/00) Written comments of Lake

County

Conservation Alliance, with

attachments

Dorge Exhibit 2 (10/5/00) “Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines – Permits Issued

Dorge Exhibit 3 (10/5/00) “Peaker” Natural Gas Fired

Turbines Permits Issued –

PSD

Dorge Exhibit 4 (10/5/00) Group of four exhibits,

beginning

with “Lake County

Conservation

Alliance written comments in

Carlton air permitting

proceeding"

APPENDIX D

R01-10 PUBLIC COMMENTS

1 Reliant Energy Power Generation, Inc. submitted by Cindy

Conte, Manager, State Affairs

2 Debbie Halvorson, Sentator, 40th District

3 Ron Molinaro

4 m Peter J. Cioni, Director of Community Development

5 Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals submitted by Bob

Mosteller, Deputy Director

6 Larry R. Eaton

7 Susan Zingle

8 Response to Questions of Charles E. Fisher

9 Agency Response to Questions

10 John A. Smith, Illinois State Water Survey

11 “The Status of U.S. Electricity Deregulation” submitted by Susan

Zingle, LCCA Executive Director

17 Rollin and Sara Shaw

18 Paul and Cyndy Niles

23 Julie and Curt Moon

29 Lawrence H. Robertson

30 Harold and Barbara Snyder

31 Curt W. Peters

32 Walter Quanstrom

33 Byron and Kristin Henn

Sheri and Keith Fitzgerald

James and Kelly Reuland

William A. Thompson and Karen R. Thompson

Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Krajecki

Dorothy Gum

Norman L. Curry, Fox

Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Berg

Phyllis Pierson, Sugar

Margaret Kathleen McCrimmon

A. Gum, Big Rock, Illinois

Wray V. McKenzie, Jr.

Marilyn Lasecki and Edmund Lasecki, Jr.

Patricia McBroom and Roger McBroom

Cheryl Romano and Thomas Romano

Patrick and Linda Barnes

Carla S. Miller

John and Carrie Loehmann

Helen LeBeau

James E. McCrimmon

Lynette and Dave Weidin

Jane Erdman

Frederick C. Runge

Julie A. Anderson, Elburn Illinois

(unable to read name) Elburn, Illinois

Ben Halls

Kathryn M. Hellwig,

Anita Sennett,

Gregory G. Goss and Jo A. Goss

William and Cheryl Oeser

100

Debra E. Raymond, Big Rock

Rose Marie Diedesch and Bill C. Diedesch

107

Udo A. Heinze on Behalf of Ameren Corporation

108

Jeannine Kannegiesser, Center for Neighborhood Technology

109

Patricia Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, Natural Resources

Defense Council, Washington, D.C.

110

Illinois Municipal Electric Agency submitted by Ronald D. Earl,

General Manager & CEO

111

Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives submitted by Earl W.

Struck, President/CEO

Peter and Dawn Roberts

115

Cathy Jo Magee

116

C. Beau and Sue Carlson

117

Richard A. and Mary C. LaFleur

William F. Fline, Sr.

Elaine and Harold Morris

Patricia and Joseph Heimonen

Barry and Leah A. Morsch

Mark and Lisa Spangler

158

Allen and Jeanette Krodel

159

Robert and Sharon Phillips

Midwest Generatin of EME, LLC submitted by Cynthia A. Faur

164

Commonwealth Edison company submitted by Christopher W.

Zibart

165

Joint Testimony of the American Lung Association of

Metropolitan Chicago (ALAMC) and the Illinois

Environmental Council (IEC) submitted by Brian

Urbaszewaki, Director of Environmental Health Programs,

American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago

166

Final Comments of Carol L. Dorge, Attorney on Behalf of the Lake

County Conservation Alliance (LCCA)

167

Illinois Energy Association submitted by James R. Monk, President

168

Illinois EPA Additional Comments submitted by Scott 0. Phillips,

Deputy Counsel

169

Sierra Club Woods & Wetlands Group submitted by Evan L. Craig

170

PG & E National Energy Group submitted by

Stephen Brick, Director, External Relations and

Evnironmental Affairs

171

Midwest Independent Power

Suppliers Coordination Group submitted by Freddi L.

Greenberg, Executive Director and General Counsel

172

Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter

173

Indeck Energy Services, Inc. submitted by

Gerald M. Erjavec, Manager, Business Development

174

Marvin and Eunice Gapinske

175

Ronald and Mary Jane Davis

176

Clifford and Gloria Sisko

177

Donald and Linda Czachor

178

Clara Arm Babel

179

Julie and Karl Kettelkamp

180

Audrey and David Boston

181

Suzanne Pyle

182

Terry and Sherilyn Sorensen

Mr. and Mrs. Bradley Scott

186

Ersel C. Schuster, McHenry County Board, District 6

187

Illinois Environmental Regulatory Group submitted by Katherine

D. Hodge

188

Dr. Donna M. Lawlor and Lynn Hoeth

189

Concerned Citizens of Lake County & Liberty Prairie Conservancy

submitted by Dianne Turnball

190

Jim LaBelle, Chairman, Sandy Cole and Bonnie Thomson Carter,

Members of the County Board, Lake County, Illinois submitted by

Lois Scott and Burton Scott

Appendix E

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Brent Manning,

Director

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

524

Second Street

Springfield,

Illinois 62701-1787

Dear Director Skinner and Director Manning:

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

25,

On behalf of the Pollution Control Board,

I am happy to present the

following information for the review of the Water Resources

Advisory

Committee.

While the Vonnahme-Park letter of October

2000

to the

Committee seeks commentary in three assignment areas, these

need for substantive changes in law or

regulation governing the

usage of water in the State

of Illinois.

the June

2000 press release announcing the establishment of this

committee, Governor Ryan explained:

“I want this new

committee to take a close

look at our water resources and specifically examine the impact of industry,

agriculture and population

Illinois’

groundwater and surface water supplies.

It’s important for us to look into the

effects of our usage of our limited

natural

resources.”

More specifically,

the Governor set forth the committee’s task as

follows:

to focus on our

water resources and its usage,

including the effects of

peaker plants

on groundwater and surface water supplies.

all of you know,

at the same time Governor Ryan created this

committee, he asked

the Pollution Control Board to hold

a series of Inquiry

Hearings

concerning the potential environmental impact of proposed new natural

gas-fired peaker plants.

Given the proliferation of these new facilities and the

expressed public concerns,

he asked

the Board to specifically address the issue

whether further regulations or legislation is necessary to adequately protect the

environment.

Pursuant

to that request, the Board held seven

days of public hearing

September 21, Grayslake; and

5-6,

the Board heard testimony

from over 80

individuals

representing

a broad variety of interests:

state and

local government officials;

legislators;

industry

representatives,

and concerned citizens.

I have enclosed a list of those

persons who

testified.

The

complete transcript of testimony for each hearing is available on

the

Board’s Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us.

While water usage was

NOT the focus of these Board hearings, the

issue of water usage

was nonetheless an expressed concern of many who

testified.

Since it

is the function of this

committee to address

those concerns,

the Board has prepared a summary of all

testimony

relevant to the issue of water usage.

For review by this committee,

I have attached that

summary.

Especially important,

I believe,

is the testimony

of local government officials who

seek greater regional or

state regulation of the

State’s precious supply of water.

For review of this committee,

I have

also asked Board staff to research the regulatory

framework of several other Midwestern

states (Iowa, Indiana,

use of water in each state.

Interestingly, Illinois

alone in the

virtual absence of state controls or plans regarding the use of water.

Based upon

the enclosed information, I believe

it is time

to focus the committee’s

attention on the development of a workable regulatory framework for the conservation and fair

allocation of water resources in this great State:

one that meets the

needs of all

concerned

entities and citizens.

I hope the enclosed information aids us

in that important task.

I look

forward to seeing you both at the next meeting of

the Governor’s Water Resources Advisory

Water Resources Advisory Committee

PERSONS TESTIFYING AT

BOARD PEAKER HEARINGS

Illinois Commerce Commission

Thomas

Skinner, Director,

JEPA

Christopher Romaine, Manager,

Control, Bureau of Air, JEPA

Robert Kaleel,

Manager of Air Quality Modeling Unit,

Division of Air Pollution

Control,

Bureau of Air,

TEPA

Greg Zak, Noise Advisor,

IEPA

Steve Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit,

Bureau of Water Permits Section, IEPA

Assistant Manager of Field Operations Section and

RCRA

Coordinator! USEPA Lialson/IEPA

Brian Anderson,

Director, Office of Scientific Research and Analysis,

Business Development,

Indeck Energy Services, Inc.

Greg Wassilkowsky,

Mauager, Business

Developnient,

Indeck Energy Services,

Inc.

Arlene Juracek, Vice President,

Regulatory and Legislative Services,

CornEd

Steve Nauman, Vice President, Transmission Services,

Executive Director of Mid-America Interconnected Network

Freddi Greenberg,

Executive Director and

General Counsel, Midwest Independent

Power Suppliers

Michael

Kearney, Manager,

Economic Development, Ameren Corp.

Richard Trzupek, Manager, Air Quality,

Huff & Huff

Suburban

Hearings

Naperville

State Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw

Mayor Vivian Lund,

Warrenville

Paul Hass, Zoning Manager, DuPage County Department of Development

Environmental Concerns

Richard Ryan, President

and Chairman,

Standard Power and Light, Oak Brook

Diana

Turnball, Consultant to variety of citzen groups, private foundations and

Attorney representing

Lake County Conservation Alliance

Connie Schmidt,

Representative of River Prairie Group

Terry Voitik, Resident, DuPage County,

and Founder of Citizens

Lucy Debarharo, Member,

CAPPRA

15.

Terry Voitik

on behalf of Steve Arrigo,

Lake County Conservation Alliance

17.

Beverly

Dejovine,

Representative, Citizens

Advocating Responsible Environments

Rural and City Preservation Association (R&CPA)

19.

Chris Gobel, Member, CAPPRA

Sandy Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

Joliet

Thomas Overbye, Associate Professor,

Department of Electrical and Computer

Engineering, University

Environmental Affairs,

Corn

Products

International, Inc.

Carol Stark, Director, Citizens Against

Ruining the

Environment, Lockport

Susan Zingle,

Executive Director,

Lake County Conservation Alliance

Keith Harley, Chicago Legal Clinic

Elliot

“Bud”

Nesvig

Michael

Shay,

Senior Plamier Responsible for Long-Range Planning,

Will Counly

Gravslake

SeDtember 21,

2000

State Senator Terry Link

State Representative Susan Garrett

Tom Lynch, Trustee, Libertyville Township

Betty Rae Kaiser, Trustee,

on behalf of the Lake County Public

Water District

Jim LaBelle,

Chairman, Lake County Board

Sandy

Cole, Commissioner, Lake County Board

the I .iherty Prairie Conservancy,

Prairie

Holdings

Corporation, and Prairie Crossing

Homeowners Association

11.

Toni Larsen, Resident,

Zion

12.

Chris Geiselhart, Chairperson,

Turnball, Representing Liberty Prairie Conservancy, Concerned

Citizens of Lake

County, CARE from McHenry County,

Bartlett CARE,

and Southwest Michigan

Perservation Association

14.

Lisa Snider, Resident, Wadsworth

15.

Verena Owen,

Co-Chair, Zion Against Peaker Plants

Dennis Wilson, Resident,

Island Lake

20.

Terry Jacobs, Resident,

Newport Township in Lake County

22.

William McCarthy,

Resident, Libertyville

23.

Susan Zingle,

Executive Director, Lake County Conservation Alliance

25.

Mark Sargis, Attorney, working with citizens who have been concerned about

Skrukrud, Resident, Olin

Mills, McHenry County

27.

Paul Geiselhart, Resident,

President, Illinois Citizen Action

29.

Evan

Craig, Volunteer Chair,

Roger Finnell, Engineer. Division of Aeronautics,

Bureau of Airport Engineering,

IDOT

John Smith,

Representative of Illinois Section

of American Waterworks Association

Brent Gregory, Representative of National Association of Water Companies,

Patricio Silva, Midwest Activities Coordinator, Natural Resources Defense

Council

Brian Urbaszewski,

Director, Environmental Health Programs, American Lung

Attorney representing

Lake County Conservation Alliance

Lake County Conservation Alliance

Scott Phillips,

Attorney, IEPA

Kathleen Bassi, Attorney, IEPA

Chris Romaine, Manager, Utility

Unit, Permit Section,

Division of Air Pollution

Coordinator/USEPA Liaison/IEPA

Steve

Nightingale, Manager, Industrial Unit,

Bureau of Water Permits

Section, IEPA

Testimony and Comments Regarding

Use of Water by Peaker Plants

—

given to IPCB in

context of Peaker Plant Hearings

CHICAGO HEARINGS

Commonwealth

Edison

—

Prefiled Testimony of Arlene A. Juracek and Steven

Naumann

Water

impacts,

including

with regard

to any potential contamination and water

supply,

are also

carefully

assessed during the planning

and development of any

peaker plant.

Stringent state requirements regulate the discharge of

contaminants

while local authorities often directly oversee

issues of water

supply.

addition, the impact of peaker plants and other facilities on water

resources and usage will

be closely examined by Governor Ryan’s newly

appointed Water Resources Advisory

Indenendent

Coordination Groun

Prefiled Testimony of

Freddi Greenberg

While water usage

will vary depending upon the specifics

of the plant

involved,

the

simple cycle technology currently used

for peaker facilities typically places a

small demand on water resources.

For example, the owner of onepea.ker plant

located

in Kane County advises

that the plant consumes

no more than

2.5

million gallons of water in a year.

In comparison,

the average golfcourse in

the Great Lakes region consume~sj almost 31,000,000

gallons of water in a

MWIPS recommends that the

Pollution Control Board defer

its consideration of the impact of peaker plants

water resources so as

to consider the report the impact of peaker plants

on water

supply which will

be issued

by Governor Ryan’s Water Resources Advisory

Committee.

Indeck Ener~vServices. Inc.

Gerald M. Eriavec

Prefiled Testimony

To counter

this effect, various

methods are

of chillers;

however,

these

require power to operate

and are sometimes counter productive.

Another

method

is called evaporative

cooling,

in which the air stream

is passed

over

water and the air is cooled

through evaporation,

much like perspiration cools the

temperature and humidity, an evaporative cooleron

Even though these hearings are directed at peaking plants,

to come up, so a brief discussion of them is in

adds a steam cycle to the

process but

directing

the hot exhaust gas

from the combustion turbine through a boiler,

which generates steam to turn a steam turbine.

Because more energy from the

fuel

is recovered and used

to produce electricity, combined cycle plants can be

as much as

more energy efficient tha~n

“simple

cycle” peakers; however,

they

are not suited to peaking use because they cannot be brought

line

quickly enough to function as peakers.

Combined cycle plants also have

increased water needs

compared

to peakers.

The first use of water, in the steam

system,

is minimal, about 25

gallons per minute in a system that has been

coupled to 300 MW of combustion turbines

create a 200 MW

steam

cycle.

Water can also be used to

cool the steam after it passes through

the steam

turbine.

If water is the sole medium, up

to 2,500 gpm can be consumed, which

advances have been made in

cooling technologies so

that this use can

be greatly reduced or eliminated if the

situation calls for it.

Water consumption impacts

were also compared

against other enterprises and

found,

in most cases, to be at the low end of the impacts.

Testimony at Hearing

Water consumption can vary by

humidity and temperature.

So very little water will

be your maximum consumption.

Typical

for, say, a 300 megawatt unit would be about an average

of 40 gallons

per

minute.

It can range from about zero to 80, depending upon

the

temperature and the humidity.

One of the things that’s a concern about this type of plant here is the water use,

and I would like to bring that up.

The water use, there’s two places.

steam system going around this way.

You have to

—

you get some trace contamination going

in there.

So you have to occasionally

on this plant, this is based

on putting a heat

recovery unit

the back of a 300 megawatt plant,

would probably

be about 25

gallons per minute, which is not a lot.

You can use about 2500

GPM, which can trend

toward, depending upon

where

you are, significant numbers.

Now,

the

good

news is that there are

other ways to attack this problem.

They’ve made

significant advances

in dry-cooling systems,

which would not

require

this water at all.

There are some hybrid

systems that cut down on the

amount of water use.

Water use,

as ~Inoted before,

when operating a typical 300 megawattpeaker

plant with an evaporative cooler uses

a maximum of 80 gallons per minute,

average of about

50.

Technology,

the evaporative cooler generally is only

used

above 60 degrees.

What is

gallons per minute? Well,

lawns at the same time.

If you walk down the street and you saw

homes watering their lawns, you probably

wouldn’t think anything of it.

an annual basis, approximately the consumption of about 30 homes, 30

average

homes.

Other water impacts that need to be considered are wastewater and

Water consumption, a million gallons per year.

Compare your 300 megawatt

peaking plant to

a 50-home subdivision,

a typical high school,

or a retirement

home, a 200-bed

medical center, or a 400-room hotel,

way down at the

low

end, I think my laser pointer

is dying here, of water consumption.

IDNR

Testimony of Brian

Anderson. Director.

Office of Scientific Research and

Analysis

In Illinois, except for withdrawals of water from Lake Michigan, thereis

extremely

limited regulatory authorities associated with water withdrawals from

our other surface waters

and from groundwater.

It’s, therefore,

appropriate

to deal with water quantity

Water Resources Advisory Committee, however, we do acknowledge the

relationship between

these issues

and I have asked Dr. Derek Winstanley,

Chief

of the Illinois Water Survey, to provide a concise summary of some of the water

quantity

issues relating to peaker power plants.

Illinois State Water Survey,

IDNR

—

Testimony of

Dr.

Derek

Winstanley, Chief of the

illinois State

Water

Survey

One focal point that I do wish to make is that the discussion of peaker power

plants and the impacts

on groundwater resources should be placed within the

context of all other water demands including those

for

combined cycle plants

well as Illinois’

growing water needs for domestic, municipal,

agricultural and

other industrial uses.

need to look at total demands

from groundwater

resources as a basis for sound water resource management.

The water demands

from the

peaker power plants vary

widely depending upon

I would like to give you some examples of the quantities of water that may be

associated with operations of peaker power plants

by putting

that in context of

some other water uses.

First of all, peaker power plants,

and I am going

focus on just a simple cycle power plant

when I refer to the peaker power

plants,

these are

typically small producing a few tenths

a few hundred,

perhaps a thousand

megawatts of electricity.

typical period of operation is from perhaps

20 to 90

days per

year.

The range of water use there is

million gallons per day.

Translating

that into an annual use that gives

us a range of from about 1.4 to

to baseload power plants,

which is combined cycle, these are

obviously

much larger, typically generate

maybe 500 to several thousand megawatts of

electricity and

are intended to operate more or less continuously

throughout the

year.

They consume water within the range of about

to 20 million gallons

per

day.

Translating that to an

annual

water use, that gives us

a range from about

1,500 million gallons per year to 6,000 million gallons per year.

So in context,

the peaker power plants

consume about a fraction of

1 percent to

about 3

percent of the water used by typical baseload combined cycle plants.

Another

example of water use, municipal

water use, and I give you data

Champaign, Urbana, has a population of

about 120,000 people,

and they need that water supply regularly 365 days

per

year.

Champaign, Urbana,

currently consumes about 20 million gallons per

day

of groundwater,

which translates into

an annual use of about 7,300 million

gallons

per year.

So to put

the water use by peaker plant in context of a municipal

same amount of water as between about 25 and

3,000 people, depending upon

the nature

of the peaker.

One concept that is important in examining not

only

peaker power plants but

all

groundwater

use is the

concept of sustainable

yields.

And in my written

testimony,

I refer to that as potential yield.

Sustainable yield

is a fairly diffuse

concept but generally,

it tends to mean the yield of water that can

sustained

over the long term so that it

can be used not

only by

the current population but

also

by future

generations

and a yield that will have no

a complex scientific exercise that involves

consideration of variables such

as rainfall, recharge rates, geology and

impacts.

Impacts not

only on existing wells, but

on peaker systems and on stream flows.

The point here is that for most aquifers

in Illinois, we do

not have a very highly

accurate

estimate of sustainable yield.

We need

much better scientific data and

modeling capabilities

to be able to estimate sustainable yields.

Another important point is that aquifers themselves are not

very sensitive to the

end uses of water.

That

is an aquifer doesn’t really differentiate

whether a

million gallons of water

is going to be

used for drinking water or for peaking

power plants or for golf courses but the public

often does differentiate among

those end uses and,

I think,

trying

incorporate the public values and

preferences into

the equation on water resource management

is an important

consideration

as well as

the actual amount of water used.

Water quality has been mentioned by people from Environmental Protection

Agency giving previous testimony.

There

are natural occurrences of various

chemicals in the groundwaters throughout Illinois.

These lead to mineral

concentrations

that

can effect not only the

operation of

the peaker plants, but

also the discharges

from the peaker plants.

So the water quality also needs to be

considered.

In conclusion,

I would like to make two points, one focusing exclusively

groundwater, the

other combining groundwater with surface water.

Focusing on groundwater,

it’s important to recognize that in the use of

groundwater resources,

all

uses of groundwater, not just peakers, that we need

to consider the scale of the natural

resource, that is the aquifer.

Groundwater

typically is found in discrete squifers

that transcends political

jurisdictions.

They cut across municipalities,

counties and even states.

Plumbing

management by individual communities will

not solve problems in the

long term, we need to take an aquifer-wide perspective.

Beyond just

groundwater, I think that we need much more consideration of

the conjunctive

use of surface and groundwater.

There can be many efficiencies gained in

water

supplying usage~by

considering conjunctive uses of surface and groundwater.

So my bottom line is that I think Illinois

would benefit from moving towards

ziiuch more comprehensive regional water resource planning and management.

This will bring together communities and cut

across jurisdictions

and we’d

—

much more appropriate to the scale of the natural resources,

that is

the aquifers

in the case of the groundwater supplies and river basins and water sheds for

surface waters.

Let me

give you one example I

think

an excellent model of what

is going on

in one part of Illinois and that

is in central Illinois.

We have a major aquifer,

the

Mahomet

aquifer, that extends from the Illinois

River across to Indiana,

15 county area have bonded together to form what is

called

the

Mahomet

aquifer consortium and

they’re collectively concerned about the

future of their own water resources, want

to better characterize those resources

and opportunities

as a basis for self-management to the water resources.

So,

think, on

the one hand we may need new

laws, regulations,

but I think we also

need to encourage

local communities to attempt to

solve their own problems.

IEPA

—

Prefiled Testimony of Richard

P. Cobb.

Mana2er of

the

Groundwater

Section of

Bureau of Water

However,

the few Illinois court decisions since the enactment

ofthe

Water Use

Act have interpreted that

“reasonable use”

for groundwater does not restrict the

use of groundwater except from malicious or wasteful purposes of the user.

Concurrent with the requirement for these hearings,

Governor Ryan, by

Executive Order, established a WaterResources Advisory Committee.

on our water resources and its usage,

including the effects

of peaker plants

on groundwater and surface water

supplies.

The committee will also examine the various economic

and social

issues

water use in Illinois and present

recommendations for action to the

Governor by December 2000.

I plan on

attending this committee’s first meeting on August 31, 2000.

IEPA

—

Prefiled Testimony of Christonher Romaine. Manager of the Utility Unit in the

Permit Section of Division of Air

A key factor

in the design of a peaker plant is the

capability to maximize the

power output of the plant to be able to meet peak electric power demand.

This

leads to a number of variations

scientific fact that the power output of a gas turbine varies

based

the density

of the air being used in the turbine.

The denser the

air, the more air that can be

pushed through the turbine and the higher

the power output.

This means that in

the absence of any adjustments,

the output of a given gas turbine will

significantly less on a 90°Fday in July,

when peak power is most likely to be

needed, than on a 20°Fday in January.

To correct for this phenomenon, the

modem

simple cycle turbines used

in peaking plants are routinely equipped

with

devices to cool the air going

to cool the air in a turbine before

heating it,

cooling the air

allows more air to be handled by

the air compressor,

thereby allowing more fuel

to be burned and increasing

the power output of the turbine.

Gas

turbines can be equipped with several different types

of air cooling systems

that vary in the effectiveness with which they can cool the inlet air to boost a

gas turbine’s power output.

the simplest system, water is injected

directly

into the incoming air to cool the air by

evaporative cooling.

Clean

demineralized water must be used

to prevent excess build up of scale or erosion

of the blades

in the air compressor of power turbine.

In more advanced

systems,

water may also be injected

at a point in the air compressor

itself.

The

inlet air may also be

cooled by indirect systems in which the air passes

be used in an open cooling tower

where evaporation of water

is used to dissipate the

heat generated by

mechanical

refrigeration unit.

Alternatively, a dry cooling system may be used

in which the heat generated by a refrigeration

unit

is dissipated to the

atmosphere by dry cooling towers or radiators.

The more complex the cooling

system,

the greater the amount of energy that is consumed

in its pumps and

compressors, which accounts for some of the increase in power output.

Another

approach to boost power output of a gas

turbine is

to inject clean water

of steam into the burners or

to inject steam after the burners.

All these

measures increase the gas flow through the power turbine and thus increase

its

power output.

Because fuel

must be burned to evaporate the water (either in the

turbine

itself or in a separate boiler to make steam),

these measures to increase

power output are accompanied by a

loss of fuel efficiency by a gas turbine.

NAPERVILLE

HEARING

Connie Schmidt, Representative of River Prairie Group

DuPage County

is so close to Chicago,

one would

think

it is very urban.

myselfhave a well and septic on

my property and I am incorporated.

I live

within

the

city limits of Warrenville.

is not totally unusual

—

and all

neighbors do

because we don’t have

city

water in our neighborhood.

So the

groundwater use as

well as what happens to it after

it’s been used, I think,

is a

realistic concern in our

area.

Mark

Goff.

Resident,

Warrenville

So obviously well water

is a concern.

Lake

Coun~Conservation Alliance

—

Testimony

of Susan

Zin2le. Executive Director

A lot of people have

talked about water supply.

Some of the peakers do use

as much as a combined

cycle plant

We’re

looking at Zion is going to use over 200 gallons (sic) a day.

That’s

much as

the entire city of Zion in itself.

McHenry and parts of Wisconsin draw

that

same

aquifer.

How can Woodstock and Zion even be aware of each

other’s plants

let

alone determine which of the

two plants is built ifeither.

Water supply is not a local issue

Rural and City Preservation Association (.R&CPA~.Cathy Johnson, Vice Chair

The water issue,

which

a major

one in Mdllenry County,

is barely even

considered in the new standards.

A new peaker plant

has to only respond to

how the water

uses affects the area one-quarter of a mile around the plant.

This is ridiculous.

This standard isn’t there

to protect us.

JOLIET HEARING

Corn Products Internal.

Inc., Alan Jirik.

Director. Environmental Affairs

With regards to cooling

water consumption, our plant

currently takes water

from the Sanitary and Ship Canal.

The water is used for non-contact cooling

purposed for

the corn wet milling operating and then returned to the canal

clever and

environmentally friendly approach, we plan to use the existing

cooling water flow

to supply cooling water io the new cogeneration operation.

accomplish

this by routing an additional

loop from our existing cooling

water line to serve the cooling needs

of the

cogen.

After servicing the cogen,

the

water will return to

our existing line and be discharged the same as

our current water withdrawal and

will

not result in any new water discharges,

any

new intake or outfall structures,

cause any other disruptions to water bodies, water tables, groundwater, aquifers

or burden the community drinking water supply.

Citizens A2ainst

Ruining the Environment. Lockport.

Carol Stark,

Director

and

Exchan2e

with

Board Member Kezelis

We. also have information that states the aquifers

located on this

site

are joined

together.

This is the first of our concerns.

The fact that the aquifers, our water

supply, could be

affected by this peaker using

thousands of gallons a day is not

what the source of your

public water supply is

in Lockport?

Ms.

Stark: We

Board Member Kezelis:

and then there are some people that are on

wells, but yes, it’s

the

aquifer.

We have never tied into Lake Michigan water.

Will

County,

Michael

Shay. Senior Planner Responsible for Lon2-Ran2e Plannin2

and

Exchange with

Chairman Manning.

Board

Members Flemal.

Girard.

Kezelis and

McFawri

The largest

thing that we found that concerned

66 million gallons a day.

That’s how much we

have

—

it’s currently recharging

that we could use for water supply.

contacted several

facilities and went on

several industry

websites and they said

five

12 million gallons a day per

facility for a combined cycle facility and

roughly a million gallons

a day for a simple

cycle facility.

So we contacted

some of them that actually started operation in Will County,

including the one that you

tour,

they’re actually planning

—

or they

were planning for an expansion

and this comes

to a key point that I’d like to discuss today.

There was

discussion earlier

about separating simple and combined cycle plants.

not think you can separate

those two facilities.

Simple cycle facilities are

designed and physically

organized to be converted to

combined cycle facilities down the road and that plans that we received as we

reviewed

these petitions explicitly and clearly state that;

that they are designed

to be converted or added

Onto at a later date.

issues separated at all.

So they

we get

into more discussions

with them and they say 16 million

gallons a day for one of the

facilities which we visited, which means that four

such facilities of which there are already

that many could eat up the entire

reserve water capacity

for Will County.

We are not likely to get more lake

water.

River water is another issue altogether regarding quality

of our

water.

So when you add

that to the fact that we are the fastest growing

—

numerically

growing county in Illinois and also the

fastest in the

sunbelt, we see a problem

for a collision between growth and these facilities for that resource.

are also concerned

when we continue to do

our research, we said, that’s a

lot of water to

draw from one facility.

aquifer obviously and they pull

it up at such a rate that it creates

drawdown.

It creates a reverse cone or a cone of water supply and

the

radius

that for a facility of the magnitude that we were discussing

is six

miles

drawdown, 300 feel drawdown at the point of

the well and still 35 to 50 feet

and thousands of wells;

residential, industrial or

group wells.

We’re

concerned about well failure because we continue to place

these facilities over time and if they’re

the suggestions that you

and the planners for Will

County propose

to your board, what

is the current status?

-Mr.

Shay:

Well,

we have a first set of regulations in place.

re currently

discussing the second set of-- we’re researching and discussing the second set.

If I had to provide

a guess, which bureaucrats despise doing,

but I will

nonetheless, I would suspect that they will prohibit the use of aquifer water for

electric generation.

Board Member McFawn:

Is the only

industry that you’re concerned about the

drawdown well or

is that general a concern?

Mr.

Shay:

It’s the only industry we know of that draws that amount that

quickly.

We can’t find another that draws

from the aquifer at that rate,

but

we’re

unaware of one that draws at that rate.

Let me illustrate

this real

quickly.

When you’re talking about

16 million gallons

a day, that means that three of those facilities could put a pipe on

the end of the

Fox River in St.

Charles and the river would end while

figures in terms of the drawdown

effect and how much water is actually being used

by these facilities?

Mr.

Shay:

We got from the-- well,

of the aquifers and reserve capacity from the Illinois Water Survey.

They

regularly publish those statistics and we

acquired them from them

and then we

acquired numbers on

the use actually directly

from the

industry itself.

The

engineers who built the Elwood plant, we

our land use and zoning

committee and planning and zoning committee visited those facilities.

In those

discussions,

we asked them

about water use and they gave us very frank

answers

on that.

The number that they gave us came out to

16 million gallons a

day and

we confirmed with them that that was

accurate assessment.

So we’re

fairly confident of those numbers.

Board Member Kezeiis:

Elwood facility; single

is currently a single cycle plant

that the

two

additional

the Elwood two and Elwood

three will

also be

simple cycle.

All three of those phases,

though, are

designed to be

converted to combined

cycle

should they wish to do

so.

Board Member Kezelis:

the

16 million gallons per day

Mr.

Shay:

Would be if they became a combined cycle.

They are not currently.

They do

have a well,

but

it’s comparably small.

***

Board Member Girard:

Mr. Shay, if Will

County passes an ordinance that

prohibits

the use of aquifer water or electrical generating

facilities, would that

also apply to a facility that tried to site itself

inside a municipality in Will

concerned about jurisdiction hopping, but it

would also cover a number of the

intersections of pipelines and transmission

facilities.

Board Member

Flemal:

One of the things that this board

may see it necessary

ultimately in our decision here is

to address the

issue of how much local

and how much regional

or state level oversight there ought to be in the siting

these facilities.

We’ve heard quite a range of perspectives from

it should be entirely in the

hands of the locals with the

facility to what I think I heard you say

that there

should be

a strong top-down oversight on

the plants.

First off,

have I characterized where you’re coming from correctly?

Mr.

Shay:

Okay.

I would like a strong state or national presence

And issues that affect cross-jurisdictional

an aquifer doesn’t make

a jurisdictional

boundary.

It could go

across several counties

and several

municipalities,

et cetera.

Well, local authorities,

because we are competing for

economical development efforts and because of the

nature

the politics

between them,

are often played against each other by the private industry

Board Member Kezelis:

that

are

commission to address water use for the state.

Nonetheless, your reference to

the water use a few moments ago, I

needed clarification of.

You

indicated that approximately

million

gallons per day would be used

by a

combined peaker facility

and

that the drawdown for such a facility would impact

correct, according to the

information we have

from the

Illinois Water Survey

Board Member

Kezelis:

So you received that information from

it off their website.

Testimony of State

Senator Terry Link

Since the effect of peaker power plants, air quality,

water supply, natural gas

supply, noise,

taxes, are

felt regionally, not just locally, I believe we must take

a regional approach in

regulating the pearkers.

Testimony of State Representative

Susan

Garrett

Our aquifer

is on

the verge of being mined.

are

concerned for our long-

term water supply.

We need to resolve this.

Testimony of Sally Ball on

behalf of State Representative Lauren Beth

Gash

Our friends and neighbors are understandably worried about the

impact of so-

called peaker plants

on air quality and water supplies.

Appearin2

behalf of the

Lake

County Public Water District, Daniel J. Kucera.

Chapman

& Cutler and Exchange

with Board Member Kezelis

Now,

the term peaker plants is a misnomer because it

implies an

oversimplification.

The types of electric generating facilities being proposed

throughout the

state, and which are raising environmental

concerns for many

people,

are both base-load plants and peak-demand plants.

The environmental

impact issues raised by such plants,

including water use, differ only in

simple cycle and combined cycle.

Accordingly,

demand for water and resulting environmental impact of that

demand can vary according to the type of plant.

Clearly, a combined cycle

plant, which uses steam to generate a portion of its

electricity, can be expected

to use more water than a small simple-cycle plant, which

uses water only for

cooling.

witness for the Illinois

State Water Survey in these proceedings, Mr.

Winstanley,

has testified that simple-cycle peaker plants can

use up

to 2 million

gallons of water per day.

And combined-cycle plants can

limited exception, there is no permitting process or

regulatory oversight over the uses of water by peaker plants.

Witnesses for

IEPA in these proceedings have acknowledged that IEPA currently

has no

jurisdictional responsibility over peaker plant water use.

A public water supply

providing Lake Michigan water to a peaker plant would

have to have a sufficient allocation from the Department of Natural Resources

enable it

to supply

peaker plant demand.

The Illinois Water Use Act of 1983,

525

ILCS

45/

et seq.,

Act does provide that a

land owner who proposes a new well expected to withdraw over 100,000

gallons per

day must

notify the local

soil and water conservation district.

The

district is then to notify other units of local government whose water systems

may be impacted.

And the

district is to review the impact and make findings.

However,

the statute

provides no enforcement mechanism.

Moreover, this provision does not even apply to the region governed by

diversion and allocation of Lake Michigan water under 615

ILCS 50/1

et seq.

The Water Use Act states that the

rule of reasonable use does apply to ground

water withdrawals,

but it does not provide supporting, permitting

or regulation.

As to the

need for permitting and regulator oversight,

I would first address

Lake Michigan water.

Lake Michigan is

a valuable and limited domestic water

supply resource.

It is valuable because

in northern Illinois lake water

perceived to be superior to

ground water.

Aquifers in the region commonly contain high levels of iron, manganese and

other constituents which raise esthetic issues and which can require costly

treatment facilities

Deep wells often contain high

radium or alpha-particle

contents.

Further, in portions of northern Illinois, water levels in the aquifers have

diminished and some

deep wells

have been mined into salt water.

Obviously, there is a great demand for

lake water to provide the domestic

water supply

for as many communities as possible.

However,

Lake Michigan

water is a

limited resource because of legal limits

how much water Illinois

may withdraw.

Accordingly,

the use of Lake Michigan water

by peaker plants

for cooling,

steam production

or even as backup to ground water for these uses

should be limited

or even prohibited.

to ground water,

because peaker plants

can

be heavy users of ground water,

upwards of several million gallons per

day, there should be regulatory

oversight over such uses.

In particular, the potential effects upon aquifers and

ground water domestic water supplies should

be evaluated

as part

of the

permitting and regulatory

in his testimony in this proceeding.

It is also

important to point out

that the ground water

is a limited resource

certain portions of the state.

For example,

in parts

of central Illinois ground

water

is extremely limited, even for domestic water supplies and, of course,

aquifers

in northern Illinois

have been subject to diminishment.

Finally, other surface water,

needless to say where a peaker plan may withdraw

water from a stream or

inland lake,

the impact of such withdrawal also could

be evaluated.

For example,

it could reduce the resource value of the water

body for domestic water supply, aquatic life or recreation.

There are now some additional

water issues that I would like to bring to your

attention,

one of them

is decommissioning.

For example, if a plant

is terminated,

who will

be responsible for resulting

excess capacity in the local public water supply?

the source of supply for the

local water utility or for

individual residential wells?

Where

is the accountability when these plants are

closed

down?

It would seem appropriate

to enact a decommissioning procedure to

protect

water sources and the public when these plants are removed from service.

the very least, there should

be a procedure for a state administered trust

account, which peaker

plants would be required to fund, to assure remediation

and restoration

funds will be available if plant

owners

abandon plants without

protecting water resources.

Another possibility is a requirement that a surety bond or letter of credit

water

issue is competition.

Public water supplies can be expected to remain

a highly regulated industry

to continue to assure safe drinking water for

the public.

Unlike other utility functions,

infrastructure per customer far exceeds the comparable investment for

other utilities.

This investment in water infrastructure will only continue to

increase

under the Sale

Drinking Water Act amendments

as new requirements

are

proposed.

Redundant water systems do

not make sense.

It is

important, therefore, that electric generating plants not be permitted to

engage

in helping

finance new public

water supplies which may compete

with existing

public water supplies.

Such predatory competition could deny

customer the benefits of economies of scale.

Another issue we believe is siting.

Presently siting of electric generating plants

is considered to be a local issue.

However, there may be siting concerns of a

broader interest,

as related to water use.

Recent proposals indicate multiple

peaker plants in close proximity

to each other.

What is the impact of multiple

draw-downs on an aquifer at a particular

location?

Another concern

relates to

soil conditions at a proposed

site.

How vulnerable

are site conditions

to a contamination spill? Could a shallow

aquifer be

adversely

impacted? Presently,

there is no regulatory oversight of these siting

issues.

Finally, cross-connection.

When an electric

generation facility is partially

served by a public water supply

and partially served by

the facility’s own

wells, there must be assurance that no cross-connections will exist.

For

example, the

public water supply may provide water for domestic use and fire

protection, while the facility uses its own wells for process water.

However,

the public water supply might also provide backup

in the event the wells are out

of service.

Local

governments may not necessarily have the staff with skills

to constantly

monitor for cross-connections in generating

plants.

Indeed, it

is not clear that

they ever would have access

policing for cross-connections and protecting the public water supply?

The District understands

that the Governor’s water advisory committee may be

considering

waLer

issues related to peaker plants.

We are not aware

whcther

that committee is soliciting public comment.

Therefore,

we believe it

important that the Pollution Control Board in its report to the

Governor include

in the testimony and comments

submitted in

this proceeding.

In conclusion,

we suggest that the Illinois legislature should adopt a permitting

of regulatory oversight requirement for process water used

all electric

generating facilities,

including both base-load and peaker plants

***

Board Member Kezelis:

just have a question.

Can you

for

the record

tell

what your rate of capacity is and roughly

Our peak day capacity is 6 million gallons per

day.

I think

iii

actuality the customers

average between 3

and 4 million gallons a day.

Lake

County Board. Jim LaBelle,

Chairman

The process should

not only consider air quality but

also other environmental

factors such

as water consumption impacts

on aquifers or Lake Michigan water

allocations.

addition

to the JEPA considering the polluting impact of multiple plants,

the

Department of Natural Resources and the ICC

need to consider

the impact on

ground water resources, natural gas availability

and pricing impact ifnumerous

peakers operate at the

same time.

The high volume

of ground water usage can lessen the supply

County

Board.

Sandy Cole, Commissioner

Tn addition

to air quality, peaker power plants may affect the region’s water

supply as they need to draw significant amounts of water from Lake Michigan

or local aquifers.

Lake

County Board. Bonnie

Carter,

Commissioner

The village of Island Lake

asked

for the small community

the far western edge of Lake County was

not a peaker plant.

The plant was proposed to provide base-load power year

round with

ground water usage of 4 to

8 million gallons

daily.

Local officials, myself included, and

concerned citizens began investigating the

issues surrounding the type of power plant involved.

Many

issues such

as air

quality, noise and lighting were raised.

Water usage

was by

far the most

overwhelming environmental concern.

While gathering information, I became

well acquainted

with the work of the Illinois State Water Survey, a division of

the Department of Natural

Resources and an affiliate of the

University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign.

According to data assembled

the ISWS,

the volume

of water required to supply the proposed plant for a year would have been far

greater than what

was required for the village’s entire

population.

I further learned that neither the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency, nor

limiting ground water

withdrawal.

The proposal

for the Island Lake plant

was eventually

withdrawn

and most of the subsequent plant proposals

in Lake County are forpeakers,

not

base-load.

This, I feel,

is a direct result of the hightened awareness of the water

withdrawal

issue and how precious a resource water is.

still significant enough to

warrant scrutiny.

In February

1999 I drove

Springfield with my two constituents who had

originally brought this

issue to my attention.

met with IEPA Director Tom

Skinner, officials

from Storm

Water Management,

Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, the IEPA Bureau of Water, the IEPA

Bureau of Air and two state legislators.

We expressed our deep concerns with

the permitting process of a 90-day review on construction applications, the lack

of regulatory authority over ground water withdrawal and the lack of public

hearings.

We also discussed air quality impacts along with the noise and

lighting.

We all felt

that the JEPA directors

and supervisors

that sat among us were

frustrated with having to review permit applications without being able to take

the

regional

impacts of these plants into consideration.

They agreed that a

regional

element should be included in the review.

We were

surprised and

shocked to learn that each division did not review the applications together.

One

division follows

the application

approval

process after the other division has

completed its work.

They may never have been aware

of the

combined impact

on adjoining property owners or cumulative environmental impacts.

In other

words,

they didn’t talk to each other.

After we left Springfield that day,

some minor changes did

take place.

The 90-

day review process was reversed back to

180 days.

Public hearings started to

take place on applications and the IEPA Director Skinner never

forgot us

Lake County.

As you may see,

are still dealing with this issue today and we are still very

be heard today and that,

as a result,

you

recommend improvements, not

only

to the process, but to help reduce the

negative impact power plants could have depending on where

they are sited.

As with many of the

issues surrounding peaker plants,

is important to

recognize that ground water

is a regional issue.

It is also important to recognize

while one peaker plant may not threaten a region’s water supply, multiple

peakers may.

Aquifers do not end at municipal

or political boundaries.

impacts the supply of further villages,

commercial wells and deep

community

wells which draw from the same aquifer.

the case of the

Island Lake proposal,

adjacent villages would have realized

significant financial impacts.

Nowhere in the permit application process

submitted by the applicant were those impacts

acknowledged or addressed.

One

neighboring village, the

village of Wauconda,

would have incurred expenses

close to

$1 million

to reset the pumping well head in two municipal

village, not the power company,

during the application review.

Surely,

this demonstrates why a regional

application approach must be in place,

must be put

into practice.

Determining the

amount of water available for peaker use as well

all other

users is a significant undertaking for any local community.

Dr. Derek

Winstanley of the

ISWS in his written testimony to this Board wrote of

the

expense of collecting ground water data.

Conducting a study to determine the

sustainable level of water usage for Lake County

is estimated to be a multi-

million dollar project.

To expect local communities to

shoulder this burden is

unreasonable.

Yet without regional

data,

a single community cannot make

informed decision on water supply.

At the August

18th,

1999

meeting of the Lake County Public Works and

Transportation Committee,

Illinois State Water survey Director Dr. Derek

Winstanley reported that around the year 2030, Lake County will maximize

its

water use.

Today, we are at the maximum sustainable level of the northeastern

Illinois deep bedrock.

We cannot continue to

and we are at the point where

supply and demand

are beginning

to conflict.

Another large source of water for the Lake County area

is Lake Michigan.

Here again,

the County’s usage impacts

the supply of other counties and states.

The

supreme court fixes allocations.

Peaker plants will either draw ground water, which will have an impact on

neighboring wells,

or draw on Lake Michigan

water that has already been fully

be understood and addressed.

The

quality

of water will

also be impacted by extensive withdrawal.

Research

has shown that when too much water

and the quality of the

existing water may be threatened.

Eventually, animal and

plant life will be threatened.

Since the technology exists to convert peaker

plants to combines plants at

any time, peakers should not

be considered as

minor use, but rather as a major use with

to whether they are peaker or base-load.

Applications for peakers should question the

intention toward possible

future

conversion to a base-load.

Allowing one industry that provides a

very few number ofjobs to have

unlimited use of our water supply impacts

the economic growth in communities

where

other industries also require water.

Officials in Lake realize that

it is not

only peaker plants that threaten our water

supply.

Development of any kind,

whether residential,

commercial or industrial

will place an additional burden on limited resources.

County officials further

realize that electricity may be one of the resources in short

supply.

However,

our analysis of the realities

of peaker power plants and the marketing of power

not convince us that peaker plants

located in Lake County will alleviate a

power shortage in Lake county.

We feel we are being asked

to give up one

precious natural

resource with no guarantee that the sacrifice will realize a

benefit for the county’s citizens.

The Water Use

Act of 1983 and the Water Authorities Act do

not give counties

the

authority to regulate ground water withdrawal.

A plan that regulates major

aquifer draw-downs

is needed.

The Lake

County Board recommended

legislation to do just that.

It is believed that there is support from state agencies

to clarify regulatory

authority for ground water withdrawal.

state needs to determine what the reasonable use is.

I finally realize

that the

IPCB does

not have the authority to regulate ground water withdrawal.

I have

the

pleasure of being a member of the Water Resources Advisory committee

that

was recently

initiated by Governor Ryan.

committee and our recommendations

will be made to the Governor in

December.

I feel

imperative to point out that we need to share our

expertise with all governing state agencies

in order to be better equipped to

make decisions involving, the power industry.

It is too complex an issue for one

agency

to comprehensively see

all

facets.

I believe that the Pollution Control

Board,

the ICC,

the IEPA,

the ISWS also all need to support each other and

work together.

We need a regional cooperative group

with regulatory authority

when reviewing applications.

The Lake County Board has made a decision last year to be proactive and not

reactive.

Our actions support that position.

I ask you to support this board

and

the people of Lake County by

doing the same.

Place a moratorium on all

pending and new

applications for power or peaker

plants until such time as

all

agencies have collaboratively worked together reducing and/or eliminating- the

negative impact to

our quality of life.

Thank you, Chairman Manning and the

IPC

Board.

Toni Larsen. Resident,

Zion

I believe all facilities within Lake County need to

be evaluated regionally to assess the cumulative effect.

industrial, although most of the neighboring properties are

what goes in their backyard.

These communities get their water from wells.

One of the proposed peaker

plants

plans

on drilling an industrial well.

This

plant

can use up to 2 million

gallons

of water a day.

I believe that needs to be more study on ground water

supply issues.

Concerned

Citizens of Lake County.

Chris Geiselhart, Chairperson

There is a potential drawdown of hundreds of thousands of gallons of water

from Lake Michigan,

which already exceeded water usage for the mining of

deep well aquifers as sources of water for these facilities.

Zion

A2ainst

Peaker Plants, Verena Owen.

Co-Chair

Environmental impact studies for peaker plants are required by other states, for

instance, Wisconsin,

Indiana and Ohio.

The

environmental impact studies

should contain at a minimum hydrology and water quality, water usage,

waste

water, water run-off and potentially polluted run-off containment,

air quality,

biology, loss of habitat,

loss of agricultural land,

land use and community

character, archaeology, socioeconomic impact, visual

traffic, noise and public health and safety.

Jim Booth.

Resident.

Newport Township in Lake County

Upon investigation, I learned that the city of Zion, who

purchases their water

from the Lake County Public Water District had exceeded its 822.345 million

gallons

of Lake Michigan water by

22 million gallons.

They purchased 844

million gallons from the Lake County Water District

in the period

May

1999

through April of 2000.

Zion, of course,

consideringi

the peaker power plant, which would use a

maximum peak of 2.124

million gallons of water per day when they are

operating their five turbines.

365

And that would run 230,000

gallons per day.

Unless Zion files and is

awarded

increased allocation of Lake Michigan water,

they cannot serve

business nor can they serve the proposed peaker plant.

The state of Illinois

is in debt to Canada for exceeding their Lake Michigan

water allocation.

This debt is to be repaid by 2019.

I assume you are familiar

with that.

For 20 years,

Illinois took more than their allotted amount

of water

out of Lake Michigan, and now they have to pay it back.

The bottom line is

that there

is less water to be divided among the municipalities,

177 or so, that

use Lake Michigan water.

But the peaker power plant has an alternative which I do

not have.

They can

drill wells and tap into

the Ironton Galesville Sandstone Aquifer.

Circular

182 from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Water Survey

by Adrian A.

Zuchowski addressed the water

level trends and

pumpings into

the deep bedrock aquifers in the Chicago region

in the period

1991 through

195.

On page

15 he wrote that Schiect in 1976 estimated that the practical

sustained

yield of the deep bedrock aquifers regardless of the scheme of well development

cannot exceed

million gallons a day.

The practical sustained yield of the deep aquifers

is defmed as the maximum

amount of water that can

be withdrawn without eventually dewatering the most

productive water yielding formation, that is the Ironton Galesville Sandstone

Aquifer.

In a fax dated August 15th of this year,

Mr. Scott Meyer of the Illinois

State

Water Survey faxed me and said I recently

estimated deep bedrock withdrawals

in that area,

referring to Zion, at about

million gallons a day

That is 6

million gallons above

the practical sustained yield.

The point is this.

One peaker power plant drawing 230,000 gallons

per day

from the Ironton Galesville Sandstone may not

seem overly significant.

But

reported that there is some

peaker power plants proposed in the state of

Illinois.

How many will be drawing water from the Ironton Galesville

Sandstone aquifer in the eight-county

area?

Now,

the

survey that I referred to,

the circular

182 involved water being taken

from the following eight counties: Cook, DuPage,

Grundy, Kane, Kendall,

Lake. McHenry and Will.

Now,

five plants the size of the proposed Zion plant

would draw 1,150,000 gallons of water per day from that aquifer.

For

months plants

would draw 4,600,000 gallons per day average, but at peak

would draw 42

million gallons in one day.

Now,

this is

out of an aquifer that

can only sustain 65 million gallons and is

currently being drawn at 71

million

gallons.

The former state senator and minority leader Everitt McKinley Dickson once

said after attending his

first budget meeting, a billion dollars here and a

billion

dollars there, and pretty

peaker power plants and

their great appetite for water.

I ask you to consider

the following questions.

Should quality Lake Michigan

water by used for peaker power plants

should that be reserved for human

consumption?

Should there be a limit on

the quantity of water mined from the

Ironton Galesville Sandstone

Aquifer considering eight

counties depend upon

this water source,

Cook, DuPage,

Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, mclienry

And remember, this Ironton Galesville Sandstone Aquifer begins in Minnesota,

runs

through Wisconsin, northern Illinois, central Illinois,

William McCarthy, Resident. Libertyville

As far

as water use is concerned, these plants

do use a lot of water.

Peaker Plants are inefficient.

They only covert 28 percent of the power that

they burn into electrical energy.

Combined-cycle plants convert 56

get a lot more bang for your buck with a combined-

cycle plant.

The problem

is combined-cycle plants use more than 2 million gallons

of water

a day.

Peaker plants use maybe

has been mentioned before, Illinois

is under water use restrictions

because they don’t want Lake Michigan being drained for all different

kinds

uses.

And

probably some of you read National Geographic and

you are aware

of the Arrow

Sea disaster in the Soviet Union.

The Arrow Sea

was completely

drained within a period of 20

years by overirrigation.

size of Lake Michigan.

So they drained

I think it was

100

billion trilliongallons

of water.

is practically gone.

If you could just look

the Internet, you will

see.

Cindy Skrukrud. Resident,

Olin Mills.

Mcllenrv County

First, relating to

the State’s commitment to

water conservation, ground

water

withdrawals,

McHenry County

is one of the many counties in Illinois totally

dependent on ground water for our drinking water.

Combined-cycle plants

with

their massive need for water pose a real competitive threat

to these water

supplies.

This is an issue we need to address.

SPRINGFIELD HEARINGS

Illinois

Section of American Water-works Association

—

Testimony

of John Smith

and

Exchange with Chairman Mannin2 and

Board Members Girard

and McFawm

Number three:

Should new or expanding peaker plants

be subject to siting

requirements beyond applicable

local zoning requirements?

ISAWWA believes

that peaker plant

siting requirements should encourage the

siting of these plants

near a sanitary water treatment plant, ifpractical,

so as to utilize the discharge

from the sanitary

water treatment plant known as gray water or cooling water.”

only wish to comment on the use of water resources by

these facilities.

Number one, the

State of Illinois must manage, protect and enhance

the

development of the water resources of the

state as a natural and public resource.

Number

two,

water resources have an essential

and pervasive

role

in the social

and economic well-being of the people of Illinois and is of vital importance to

the general

health, safety

and economic welfare.

Number

three,

water

resources of the state

must be used

for beneficial

and legitimate purposes.

degradation of water resources must be prevented.

ISAWWA is

not opposed to the use of water resources by peaker plants.

are only

asking for

the responsible use of water resources by these facilities and

all major new water consumers.

believe the regulation or permitting of

large water resource withdrawals should be the responsibility of regional

agencies, such

as municipalities,

counties or water boards, and that a state

agency should have oversight of these regional agencies.

We believe that the basis for the

decision on how much water can be safely used

from a designated water resource be based

on the existing knowledge and

scientific studies of that resource,

and, if knowledge of that resource

is lacking,

then additional

research into the adequacy of this source should be done before

allowing major withdrawals.

The decision to allow the development of existing

or new water resources must

be based

sound

science, not politics.

believe that funding must be adequate for the state agency to perform these

studies.

In conclusion, Illinois Section AWWA is not opposed to peaker facilities.

are calling for the rules and regulations of water resources

be based

scientific studies of our

valuable water resources

and that an unbiased

state

agency

be charged with oversight of regional water use.

Adequate funding for

the state

agency must allow for the scientific

study of our state water resources,,.

and the State must have a plan for the efficient management of water resources.

Chairman Manning:

Thank you for being here

today.

I do have just one

question.

Are you aware of any projects right now that are ongoing between a

peaker plant

developer and a sanitary treatment

facility

in the state we could

So what you’re advocating

is that we have a state water

resources board that allocates

these large

withdrawals? Is that what you’re

saying:

Mr.

Smith:

What we are saying is that we believe a state agency such as

the

Illinois

State

Water Survey should have some oversight over the regional

agencies that normally would have some control

has at least some knowledge of the water

resource and how much of that resource

can be used

safely without impacting

other consumers

or their industries.

However,

ifthe local agency has

—

unreasonably tries to restrict the use of these water resources,

then a state

agency could have oversight of the local agency.

Board Member McFawn:

Is your

association involved at

all with any

studies of

water resources,

be they groundwater or

surface water, and

their adequacy or

evenjust their quantity?

illinois Section of AWWA

is involved with the

Mahomet Aquifer Consortium,

which has

—

trying to secure federal funding

to do further studies of

the Mahomet aquifer located in the central part of

Illinois.

This consortium and the action that we are

doing to try

to study

this

reservoir has already

generated interest from other states in that they have

inquired how we

have put together the consortium and

how we are going about

to try and initiate these studies.

Our

friends and neighbors are understandably worried about the impact of so-

called peaker plants

on air quality and water supplies.

National Association

of Water Companies.

Testimony of Brent Gre2ory,

Representative of Illinois Chauter and Exchan2e with Board Members

Melas

and

McFawn

The

ability

to provide water of sufficient quality and quantity to sustain

commercial,

industrial and

residential growth goes hand-in-hand with the

availability of electrical power.

Water

suppliers rely on

adequate available

electricity, and generating plants rely

NAWC

development of new electrical generating capacity

as needed for the

economic advancement of Illinois.

We do

not believe

that peaker plants pose a unique threat to the environment

compared to other types of state-regulated facilities.

We believe that existing

environmental regulations

are

adequate to address air and water quality concerns

from peaker plants.

We emphasize the need for

water use decisions to be based on

sound scientific

assessment of local and regional water resources.

Where existing knowledge

needed to permit or deny water withdrawals.

State

funding must be adequate

support these efforts.

The right of existing public water supplies

to condition

withdrawing at theircurrent installed capacities should be grandfathered

state should consider competent third-party

assessments presented by

those seeking to utilize the water resource.

We believe

that permitting of new peaker plants

and siting requirements should

encourage conservation measures such as recycling of cooling water and use of

other discharges for cooling when possible,

such as

those from sanitary

treatment plants.

In summary, NAWC believes that the ability to expand power and water

resources is important to the economic growth

of Illinois.

Board Member Melas:

Do you have any comments about the quantity of the

—

or the adequacy of particularly groundwater supplies?

Mr.

Gregory:

Well, we recognize that in certain areas of the state in particular,

there may be some quantity concerns.

We’re

traditionally known as

a water-

rich state,

and yet due to concentrations of industry and populations and other

circumstances,

there are areas where,

particularly in long-term outlook,

water

quantity

is a concern.

That’s why we concur that there is a need for sound

comprehensive management

of the state’s water

resources with regard to

quantity.

Board Member McFawn:

You mentioned you thought that the quantity

believe it

was

the

assessment of it should be

done by an independent third party?

Could you explain that a little bit

legislative or regulatory control set

up over the use of Illinois water resources,

it needs to be based on

sound

scientific assessment of

the resource, which we believe that the

has the appropriate technical resources

to conduct those.

However,

ifthere would arise a dispute

over the use

or the

application for the

use of water or withdrawal of water

and there

is better science to be presented

by a petitioner for the use of that water,

that should be allowed.

Board Member McFawn:

We are talking about just quantification, not quality?

Mr. Gregory:

That

is really

in the context of quantity.

Mr. Gregory:

If somebody wants to withdraw water from an aquifer or from a

watershed and is

able to hire a qualified consultant to demonstrate the

reasonableness of that petition, then that should be considered.

Natural Resources Defense

Council

—

Testimony of Patricio Silva and Exchange

with

Board Member McFawn

Mr. Silva:

The water withdrawals were in part because there was some

concern about adverse

impact from the water withdrawals on

the Hudson River

for several fish species in that section of the Hudson River.

impacts for nesting birds,

said that NRDC was concerned about water

used

in single-cycle

units.

I’ve always thought that the

single-cycles didn’t

cause that concern and

A great many single-cycle

combustion turbine projects that we’ve

seen

not just the few that we’ve looked at in Illinois, but

in elsewhere

across the country

rely

on once-through cooling.

Water is used once for

evaporative cooling at the inlet duct and then essentially discarded.

the single-cycle turbines,

we’ve seen anywhere from 80, some projects have 1,000 megawatts, so the

water demand is going to be quite dramatic.

Some of the combined-cycle units

we’ve seen actually rely

on dry cooling where there is essentially

a process that

involves a closed loop and onetime withdrawal of water.

the technology’s more efficient,

Exhibit from Reliant Energy

a large amount of water.

Unlike many older plants,

Reliant Energy Aurora does not use steam to generate electricity and its demand

The primary use of water will

to cool

the air flowing into

the

units and to control emissions.

The

only

other uses of water will

be for the purposes of employee sanitation and

an average of only 300 gallons

per minute (gpm) during the

aquifer well (Cambrian Ordovician650) which is at

least one mile away

from any known deep

aquifer wells in the area.

on an annual basis, the maximum

consumption from this well

is less

than 1

of’ the city’s water use.

Public Comment

Ron Molinaro

Thirdly, there is the amount of water used.

These plants can consume

Zion City Council meeting a

gentleman who

owns a local confectionery company spoke of the possibility of

the expansion of his business.

When checking

into the accessibility of

additional

water he discovered that the

city

of Zion exceeded its allocated

amount for 1999

22 million gallons.

If we were to allow these plants

constructed in Zion, will there be enough water allocated for the expansion of

existing business or

the construction of new

to be answered before

we allow any power plants

to be constructed in this

Comment

Zingle

Attachments to Public

Comment

#7 submitted by Susan Zingle

—

three letters

from the Illinois State Water Survey.

Attachments

 to Public Comment #7 Submitted by Susan Zingle

~LL~NOIS

illinois

State Water

Survey

Main Oflice

•

2204 GrUlith

Drive

Chompcig”r. LàI820-7495•

Tel f217,)333-2210~

Far (217,) 333o540

Peoria Office. P.O. Oox

D~p~TUL.~4D

~SrouncI.Wwer

Section

December 4,

1998

Mr.

Robert Wargaski

Lake-Mel-lenry Environmental Cooperative

Mr.

1998, concerning the development of two

million gallons per day (rngd) ground-water supplies from the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer system

for the purpose

steamgeneration in electrical

power

generating facilities.

One site (designated

herein

as the Island Lake Project) will be located in

other site (designated

herein as theLibertyville Project)

will be located in the

NE¼

of Section

12,

T44N., R.1OE., Lake County.

The distance between these sites is approximately 9 miles.

You have

asked

the Water Survey to comment

the potential impacts these ground-water withdrawals may have

on surrounding waterwells finished within the same aquifer system.

You also inquired about ground-

water

law

and regulation.

The following are responses to the specific questions you

posed to~Lhe

Water

Survey concerning this matter:

“The

proposed

Island Lake and

Libertyr.’ille sites are

wIthin

JO milesof each other.

Each would draw

,7LiLl

LolL

clay.

on the aqu(fer and thesurrounding

community

wells.

Which com?nw-iity wells would

be affected by the interface drawdown.”

Withdrawal

of ground water from a well

may cause

water levels in nearby wells-tapping-the-source

aquifer

to decline.

This water-level decline is

referred

to

as interference drawdown or, more simply, as

interference.

Interference drawdowrt decreases with increasing distance in

all directions

from apumping

well, defining an inverted

conical water-level

surface around thewell.

The size and shape of the cone of depression created by

areal extent and hydraulic properties of the aquifer,the pumping rate, and the duration of pumping

at the

well.

When interference drawdown causes the waterlevel in a well to

decline-belowthe-pump-intake-(-ki

which case the pump breaks suction)or below a

level at whichthe pump

can

lift the desired volume of

waterto thesurface,

remedial measures such as loweringthe pump setting or sizing a highercapacity

pump may be necessary to restore a normal

supply.’

The risk posed by apumping ~vellon

theability

of a

nearby

well to deliver its normal supply is, therefore, a function both

of the amount of interference and of

various construction features of the affected well

chiefly. the pump setting.

dynamic head rating of the

pump, and

well efficiency.

For

the Island Lake and LibertyviUe Projects,

nearby existing wells finished

within the Cambrian-

Ordovician-Age aquifersystem, pre-dating the Lake

Michigan

water

allocations to the area ofquestion,

may

not be severely impacted by

the proposed well

field

because those wells were engineered

and

I”

‘.~,d

‘j,,

r.~)-c1~~,l

J,’,p~’i

Mr. Robert E. WargaskilPage 2/December 4, 998

constructed when regional water levels were considerablylower

than at present.

Prior to

Lake Michigan

water allocations, pump intakes

in waterwells were set at lower depths and had greater waterlifting

capacities

because of lower ground-water

levels

caused

by regional

pumpage.

However, wells fi~ishcd

the deep sandstones within the last fewyears could see more severeimpacts because they were

consiructed after the regional “recovery”of water levels within the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer

system.

The impact of the withdrawal of

mgd from two sites on ground-waterlevels with

the

Cambrian-

Ordovician-Age aquifer system wasdetermined through theuse of ananalyticaLmathematicat model

using regional values for the hydraulic properties ofthis aquifer system. The use ofthis model required

that significant assumptions

 bemade to simplify thenatural variability often encountered-in-aquifer

systems.

 Assumptions includehomogeneous and isotropic aquiferhydraulic

prep-erties~(asopposed to

properties that may

vary vertically and horizontally in three dimensions), no ground-water recharge,

infinite

aquifer extent (as opposed to geologic and hydraulic features

which

may

limit the size of the

aquifer), and a continuous pumping schedule (as opposed to a time-variantpumpingrate).

The hydraulic properties and pumping scenarios were assumed to be identical at the Island Lake

and

Libertyville Projects sites.

As you requested,

 each

proposed well field

pumped simultaneously in

our

model simulation.

the

assumed

well field

would consist

of eight wells (finished in the St. Peter and Ironton-GalcsvilleSandstone

aquifers) supplying5

rngd

(about434 gallons

per minute

each) on a continuous

 basis for20 years. Given theseparameters, the

model provided the graphic output shown in accompanying Pignre

Under the pumping and hydraulic conditions described in

 the above scenario, mutual interference effects

between the well

 fields

may cause water level declines of as much as 280 feet.

Interference effects

decline to approximately

150 feet at

12 miles.

This analytical model

also suggests

that as much as 520

feet of drawdown would be observed in the

centers of each well field.

This

would lower the potentiometric head of the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age

aquifer

in the study area into the

St. Peter sandstone.

Dewatering of any

artesian aquifer can lead to the

reduction

in pumping capacity.

For aproperly designed well field, the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer

should be nble

yield

the desired quantity of water on asuscairtablebasts.

Given

the

possibility

that the aquifer properties,

number of pumping wells,

well spacing, pumping

rates,

pumping

 periods, and total pumpage ofthe proposed wells may be different then

whet

was

assumed

for

this report, we recommend a more detailed analysis be made of th-enumber of existing wells and their

distance

from

the

proposedhigh-capacity well fields.

In addition, static water levels, pumping

water

levels,

and pump intake settings of

 nearby water wells

could

be analyzed to determine if, and which.

domestic, industrial, or municipal water wells would be potentially impacted.

Pumping waterfrom

this aquifer

in the Island Lake and Libertyville areas has wider ranging effects than

simply being a local phenomenon.

Consideration should

be given to theeffects

the practical sustained

yield of the

 entireaquifer system including

the effects of pumping on

ground water within the State of

Wisconsin.

The aquifer system is currently being pumped at. or slightly above, its estimated practical

sustainable yield of

mgd per day.

Further development is

likely to contribute to

the mining of ground-

water in northeastern Illinois.

more sophisticated ground-water model of northeastern Illinois, one that

Mr.

Robert E. WargaskilPage 3/December 4,

1998

can

incorporate regional variations

 in aquifer properties (unlike

the

simplistic analytie~

-model

 used

to calculatedrawdowns for this letter), would be averyimportant planningtool for state

and local

governmental

leaders

 tohave available to

theta

in their efforts tomange-thisnattwaLresource

recommend that athree-dimensional numerical ground-watermodel be used to betterpredict what

long-term impacts theproposed ground-waterdevelopment

would

have on

the

Cambrian-Ordovician-Age

aquifer

in northeastern

Illinois.

TheIllinois State Water

Survey has previously modeled

this

aquifer

system (Prickett 1971, Visocky 1982, Burch

will need extensiveupdating. A three-dimensionalnumerical ground-water model could

incorporate natural variations

in aquifer

properties, thickness, and withdrawals fromexisting high-

capacity

wells.

Such a model would also allow studying the aquifer in a more regional context.

To reiterate, estimates of water-level decline contained

this letter were determined from a-strictly

theoretical consideration of aquifer hydraulics, making use of regional aquifer property data.

accurate estimates would be possible given better aquifer property dataand recharge

rate.s

collected

through properly

conducted “on-site” aquifer tests.

It is possible that the predictions in this letter will

not

prove

to be accurate.

We, therefore, recommend that further study be made of this particular issue.

The

Illinois State

Water Survey

has theexpertise to provide these services to the resid-ents-of-Lake and

McHenry Counties; however, such

involved research would require a contractual agreement

(administered through

the University of illinois) between interested parties and the WaterSurvey.

As to your question relating to whichmunicipal water wells would be affected by

the theoretical well

lields. the total

number at wells tmpacted anti corresportdtng economic repercussions are impossible

quantify at

this time

without further in-depth study.

‘Does Illinois

have

any

regulations

the limit: of water that

ca,~-bc-drawn-from-thc-aq~frr?

other

States have limits and

any

specific laws that

limit growid-water-withdrawals. The Rule of

Reasonable Use allows “property owners to unlimited and non-permitted use of the

water

beneath their

land

as longas the

use

‘reasonable’

and injury to a neighboring well does not arise but of malice” as

stated byBowman (1991).

We suggest

 that youcontact Mr.

Gary

Clark of

the Office of Water

Resources, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, at (217) 785-3334

for further information on this

matter.

Mr.

Clark is

oneof the State’s leading experts on ground-water law,

and we are confident he will

be able to address

any ground-water law

questions that you pose to

 him. Foryour information,

have

enclosed

copy of an Illinois Department

of Transportation 1985 report to the Illinois

Groundwater Association

Illinois

Groundwater Law: The Rule of Reasonable Use.

Mr. Clark is the

author of this document.

We are also enclosing a

copy of Illinois

State Water Survey Report of

Investigation

114

Ground-Water Quantity

L.aws

and Management,

for additional

discussions of Illinois

ground-water

laws and the law practiced

in several other midwestern states.

“What

i.c the cha.~zgcin the level of the

deep

sandstone aquifer

since

conm,,ZL,niiies swirch~d

from

aqu~/’er

wells

LstkeMichigan

water.”

For your information

on this

particular subject, we have enclosed Illinois State

\VnterSurvey Circular

182

Water-Level and Pumpage in

the

Deep Bedrock Aquifers

the

C’hicago Region, 1991-1995.

This

Mr. Robert

E. Wargaski/Page 4/December4,

1998

publication

an excellent resource for the analysis of water level

trends in the Cambrian-Ordoviciari-

Age aquifersystem.

Figure 9

on page 30

of this document shows changes in the potentiometric surface

thedeep bedrock aquifers

 between 1991 and

1995.

In Lake County, therewere areas

 that observed

aim

increase

water levels (potentiometric head) of over 250 feet.

Wauconda Municipal Well 4, located

Section

24,

T.44N., R.9E., Lake County, experienced a rise

ground-water levels of 45

feet between

1991

and

1995.

With

the growing population

trend in Lake and McHeniy County,

what (ilnitations

would

you suggest

be incorporated to protect the aquifer and keep it healthyforfuture gezrerations.”

The Illinois State Water Survey is a strictly

objective scientific organization.

We do not make, nor do

enforce,

rules and regulations. However,

development of water-related laws

of the issues addressed in this

letter, we have

the knowledge and expertise to offer the citizens

and their governmental

 representatives

to make

informeddecisions about how

to develop their natural

resources.

However,

additional research will

needed before we can

more accurately address yotir manyconcerns.

Foryour

information, Ihave enclosed

all

prior letter correspondence that deal

with power generation in

Lakeand

McHcnry County

arca~.-

can

be of

~imy

further assistance, p1ea~efeel free

Cr.

(217) 333-6800

\~9O0O65~,,,,J

iLLIN0~S

Enclosures as

-‘5

~QO~

R1OE

RilE

RQE

L L

Illinois State Water Survey

Main Ottice

2204 G4fi~h

Drive ‘Cbompcigri. 0.6

820-7495’

Tel(217,) 333-2210- tOx (217) 333.o5~C

Peoria

I~,

(217,)

-0777

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America

East

in response to your request

concsrning

the development of a

2.5- million gallon per day

(mgd) ground-water supply

from the Carnbrian-Ordovician-Age

aquifer system for the purpose of

steam generation

in an electrical power generating facility,

We understand that theproposed power

plant wilt be located

theSW’/s of Section

9,T.44N,, R.9E., Lake

County.

You have asked the

Illinois State Water Survey to comment on

the potential

impact

this ground-water withdrawal

may

‘nave on surrounding water wells finished within the overlying unconsoiidatedraad~andgravel

deposits andSilurian-Age dolomite

bedrock aquifer.

should be

noted

that the Water Survey

has

previously provided estimates of theoretical water level drawdowns in the Cambrian-Ordovician-

Age aquifer system

given several different waterwithdrawal

scenarios.

These previous letter reports

to your company were dated September 3 and October

by a theoretical well

field

on wells finished within the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age

aquifer.

Withdrawal of ground water from a well

will cause water levels

to as interference drawdown or, more simply,

as interference.

Interference drawdown decreases with

well, defining an inverted

conical water-level surface around the well known

as the cone

depression.

The size and shape of the cone of depression

the areal extent and hydraulic properties of the aquifer, the pumping rate, and the duration of

pumping at the ~vcli.

When interference drawdown causes the water level

in a ~vellto

decline below

the pump intake (in which c~sethe pump breaks Suction)

or below a level

at which the pomp can lift

the desired volume of waterto the surface,

remedial measures such as lowering of the pump setting

or sizing a higher capacity pump may be necessary to restore

 normal supply. The risk posed by

 to deliver its normal supply

 is, therefore,

a function

both

of the amount of interference and of various

construction features of the affectedwell

SCItiUC,

your question, the key variable when determining whether a well(s)

withdrawing

ground water will

adversely impact a nearby

Pr,,::ed ,n~r,’,~Cicd

on’s-i’

Mr.

Kenneth

C. HoppsfPagc 2lDecember 2,

1998

bc~weenthe source aquifers. In

this

case, you have asked

to address the potential impacts on

wells finished

itt

the unconsolidated sand and gravel deposits above bedrock and

wefls

 completed in

the

Silurian-Age dolomite when the deeper lying Cambrian-Ordovician-Age sandstone aquifers arc

pumped.

For

your reference,

we have enclosed an excerpt

from Illinois

State Water Survey Circular

182, titled

Water-Level Trends and Pwnpagc in (he Deep Bedrock ~4quifcrs in the chicago

Region, 1991-1995

(Visocky et al.,

1985,

page 6 and 7, figure

 2), which shows the

stracigraphy,

water-yielding properties

the rocks, and

the

characterof the ground water in northeastern Illinoi.c.

In this

part of Illinois, the Ordovician-Age

Maquoketa shale separates the unconsolidated

materials

and Silurian-Age dolomite from the deeper lying Cambrian-Ordovician-Age

(St. Peter and Ironcon-

Gatesvi I Ic sandstones) aquifers.

The

Maquokeca shale is approximately

105

feet

thick

the area of interest.

Under natural

conditions,

the

Maquokeca acts as an effective

hydraulic barrier between the upper (sand and gravel

and dolomite)

andlower (Cambrian-Ordovician-Age sandstones) aquifer systems.

Consequently,

changes

in ground-water levels in the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age are relatively independent of those

the shallower aquifer systems.

Given this, pumping the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer system

should not affect water levels in

the shallower sand and gravel and-dolomite aquifers.

It should be

noted

that this assumes

that a well finished in the Cambrian-Ordoviciart-A.ge sandstones must be

the Ordovician-Age St Peter sandstone

and

above

are “cased off”.

An “open” bore hole hydraulically connecting the Silurian-Age dolomite

and

dcepcr-lyir.g

sandstone formations would render the above coaclusions false.

Water levels itt the

shallower aquifers probably wilt

be impacted by

water withdrawals from the Cambrian-Ordovician-

Age sandstone

aquifers if

the

geologicmaterials above the St. Peter sandstone were not sealed off by

well casing

Ifwe

can

be of any further assistance, please feel free

to call or write.

Sincerely.

Andrew 0. Buck, P.O.

Assistant Hydrogeologist

0 I S

Illinois State Water Survey

Mom

Oltice ‘2204 Gti(fiIh

olo52.o~c7

N.ATUR.

Ground-Wale; SecTion.

TCI

LS Power, LLC

Dear

Mr.

Smogorze~vski:

This letter is in response to your request concerning the development of a 10.8 million gallon per day

(mgd) ground-water supply from

the

Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer system for the purpose of

steam generation

an electrical power generating facility.

understand

 that you are considering

two sites

T.44N., R.9E., McHcnry County and partially

the

NWV4

Section

9, T.44N,, R,9E., Lake County.

located

the

NY2 of the SEY3 of Section 32, T.21N., R.8E.,

Lee

County. You have asked

these ground-water withdrawals may have on

surrounding

water wells

finished

within the same aquifer system given this

theoretical impact that a 7,500

gallon per

minute (gprn) ~velL

 may have

on ground-water

leveLs within

the Cambrian-Ordovician-Age. aquifer

with increasing distance in

all

 directions from a

pumping well, defining an

inverted conical water-level surface around the

depression.

The

size arid shape

ofthe cone ofdepression created by a pumping

well

will-depend

the

areal extent and hydraulic properties of the aquifer, the pumping rate, and the duration

pumping

he well.

When interference drawdown causes the water level

in a well

to decline below

the pump

intake (in which case

the pump breaks suction) or below a

the surface, remedial

measures such as lowering of the

pump

setting

am, sizing a higher capacity pump

therefore, a function both

of the

amount

of interference and of various construction features of

oump setting, dynamic head radng of the pump,

and

well

efficiency.

For the Mci-Ienry Project, nearby existing

wells finished within

 the Cambrian-Ordoviciarm-Agc

because those wells were engineered and constructed

when regional water

levels

were considerably lower

Stan Smogorze’.vskifPage 2/October

1998

allocations, pump intakes in water welts

were set at

lower depths and

had greater water lifting

capacities

because of lower ground-water

the deep sandstones within

the last few years could see

more severe impacts because they

were

constructed

after the regional

“recovery” of water levels within

the

Cambrian-Ordovician-Age

aquifer system.

This

 situation

does

not apply

to the Lee Project

because water levels in that

area

have not been regionally lowered.

The impact of the withdrawal of 7,500 gpm

Age aquifer system were

determined

through theuse of an analytical mathematical model

significant assumptions be made

to simplify

the natural variability often encountered in aquifer

systems.

Assumptions

include homogeneous and isotropic

aquifer hydraulic properties (as opposed

to properties

that

may very vertically, horizontally,

 and with direction), infinite

aquifer extent

(as

opposed to geologic and hydraulic

features

which

may limit the size of the

aquifer),

and a continuous

pumping schedule (as opposed to a time-variant pumping rate).

Because

the hydraulicproperties and pumping scenarios were assumed to be

Lee Projects, the distance-drawdown estimates

shown below apply

both

sites.

you requested, the proposed well field

was assumed

to consist of only one

well

(finished in the St.

Peter and J.rotmton-Galesville Sandstone aquifers) supplying

10.8

mgd (7,500 gpm) on a continuous

basis for

one

year.

Given these parameters,

the model provided the following distance-drawdown

relationships (also see the enclosed distance-drawdown plot and map):

-veer

 mile

 350 feet or less

225

feet or less

5 miles

 90 feet or less

Although

these impacts are considerable.

the available drawdown

 deep sandstone wells is

probably adequate for the desired

amount

of ground-water yield,

assuming a properly designed well

field.

The number of wells

 impacted

 and corresponding economic repercussions are

Given

aquifer properties,

pumping

rates, pumping periods, and total pumpage of

more detailed analysis be made of the number of weLls and

their

distance from

the

proposed high-capacity

pump intake settings of nearby

water wells

could

be analyzed to determine

domestic, industrial, or

municipal

water ~vclIswould

be potentially impacted.

a sophisticated numerical ground-water model to

better predicc

 ~hat

long-term

impacts

the proposed ground-water development would

have

the Cambrian-Ordovicittn-Age

model could incorporate natural

variations

in aquifer

properties,

thickness, and withdrawals from existing high-capacity wells.

 tool for local

this natural resource.

Another issue

any use of water from

the

Cambrian-Ordovician-Age aquifer system-

is water

quality.

There are reports of radioactive isotopes associated with

these waters

which can be a faccor

its use.

reiterate,

estimates of water-level decline contained in

this letter were determined from a strictly

theoretical consideration of aquifer hydraulics, making

use of regional

aquifer property data.

accurate estimates would

be possible given

better aquifer property datacollected through properly

conducted “On-site”

well tests.

is possible that the predictions in this letter will

not prove to be

accurate.

We, therefore, recommend that further study

the expertise to provide these services to LS

Power and

the citizens of Lake,

McHenry and Lee Counties:

however, such

involved research would

require a contractual agreement

(administered

through

the

University of Illinois) between your firm

and

the Water Survey.

To further your knowledge

of thewater resources of

the deep sandstones

aquifers of Illinois,

have

enclosed Cooperative Report

10,

titled

Geology. Hydrology, and

Water Quality of 1/ze cambrian

and

Ordovician Syste,ns in Non/tern Illinois

and Illinois State Water Survey

Circular 182, titled

Warer-Ler’el

Trends

and Pw-npage in

I/ac Deep Bedrock.Aquifers in

the Clrica~jRegion, 1991-

.1995.

can

be ofanyfurthcr assistance, please feel free to call

Phone: (217) 333-6800

400

600

800

1000

1200

Regional drawdown in the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer

Dist:

in the Cambrian-Ordovician

SUMMARY OF WATER QUANTITY LAWS FROM

Environmental Protection

Division

Summary:

Permit is

required for any person who diverts,

stores or withdraws

than 25,000 gallons of water per

day

(surface or groundwater);

Permits are generally

issued

for

years but, depending on geological conditions, can

be for

lesser period of

time;

Permit program insures consistency

in decisions on allocations;

Allocations

based

upon

concept of “beneficial use” the

key points

of which are (1) water resources

are to be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent; (2)

waste and unreasonable uses are

prevented: (3)

water conservation

is expected;

(4) established average minimum

instream flows are protected: Administrative process resolves water use conflicts;

Provisions in place for public involvement

in issuing water allocation permits and in

generally establishing water use policies.

Natural Resources; Waters Office

Summary:

Permit

is required for all users withdrawing (surface and groundwater)

million gallons per year

(Exceptions include:

domestic uses serving

less than 25 persons, certain agricultural drainage systems,

test

pumping of a groundwater source,

and reuse of water already authorized by permit,

Permits granted for no

water resources to ensure an adequate supply to meet

long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural,

fish and wildlife,

recreational,

power navigation,

and quality control purposes;

Water Appropriation

Permit Program exists to balance competing management objectives that include

both

development

and protection of Minnesota’s water resources;

Permitted users required

Reported information used to evaluate impacts

OHIO

Revised Code Sections

Regulatory Entity: Department of Natural Resources;

Division of Water

Summary: Permits are

required for those making

a new

or increased consumptive use

of water greater than an average of 2

million gallons per

day

over a 30-day period;

Registration is required

for

any facility

or combination of facilities with the capacity to

withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water (surface or ground)

daily; Chief of DNR

Division of Water

has authority to designate

“ground water stress areas”

and to require

water withdrawal registration

these areas for users of water less than the

normal

100,000 gallon threshold;

reporting requirements:

to gather

data to assist in resolving

future water use conflicts;

Chief also has responsibility to maintain Water Resources

Inventory

which must include information to assist in determining

the reasonableness of

to determine water conflicts,

legislature has

set forth nine specific factors (applicable to both

surface and

groundwater) which define reasonableness; Consumptive use is defined

as a use of

water resources, other than a diversion, that results

and incorporation of water into a product or

Regulatory Entity: Department of Natural Resources (DNR);

reporting requirement for owners of significant

water withdraw

facilities (withdrawal of 1,000,000 gallons

authority to require,

by rule, a

permit for most water withdrawals from navigable waters, but authority has not

yet

been exercised;

NRC

is required to develop and maintain inventories,

gather and

assess all information needed to properly define water resource availability;

NRC can

establish,

by rule, minimum stream

flows; Where groundwater threat, DNR may

designate a “restricted use area.”

Permit

then required for withdrawal of more than

100,000 gallons per day beyond use at time

of restricted use designation;

In granting or

refusing a permit,

the DNR considers the concept

of beneficial use.

MISSOURI

Statute:

Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter

256

Regulatory

Entity: Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

Summary:

Major

water users must register

of withdrawing or diverting

100.000 gallons or more per day

from any

water source; Failure to register may

result in DNR request that Attorney

General file action to stop all

withdrawal or diversion;

Purpose of registration program

to insure the development of information required for the analysis of certain future

water resource management needs.

WISCONSIN

Statute: Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 281; DNR Rules, Chapter

NR 142

Wisconsin law provides for

(2) registration and annual reporting (with fees) of major

withdrawals

(over 100,000 gallons per

day in 30-day period);

(3) permit approval process (with

administrative hearing process) for construction,

development and operation of

wells

where capacity and

rate of withdrawal of groundwater from

all wells on one

property

in excess of 100,000 gallons a day;

Specifics ofPermit Approval Process:

90-day

approval process.

Approval withheld or restricted if withdrawal will adversely effect

reduce

availability of public utility water supply

doesn’t meet grounds for

approval which are:

(a) No adverse effect

public water rights in navigable waters;

(b~

No conflict with

any applicable plan for future uses of waters of state

water

quantity resources plan;

practices have been incorporated;

(d) No significant adverse impact on

environment and

ecosystem of the

Great Lakes

basin or the upper Mississippi River basin;

(e) Plan for withdrawal consistent

with the

protection of public health,

safety and welfare and not detrimental to public

interest;

(f)

No significant detrimental effect

the quantity and quality of the waters

of the state;

(Even more factors apply if the proposed withdrawal will result in an

“interbasin

diversion).

Regulations define water loss and consumptive

use;

Also,

permit is

required for any diversion of water from any

lake or stream for diversions of 2,000,000

gallons per day in any

30-day period;

If DNR receives

application for a withdrawal

from

basin

in a new water loss averaging 5,000,000,

gallons per

day in any 30-day period, DNR notifies governor

of other Great Lakes

States,

requesting their input.

The rules incorporate methods for citizens to initiate

DNR investigations

of alleged violations.

APPENDIX F

NEW YORK SITING PROCESS

In the State of New York, applications to construct and operate an electric generating

facility with a capacity of 80 MW or more are ruled upon by the New York State Board on

Electric Generation Siting and the Environment (NYS Siting Board) after various filings and

hearings. The NYS Siting Board is comprised of chairmen and commissioners of various state

agencies. The NYS Siting Board also includes two members of the public, appointed by the

Governor of New York for each project, who reside near the proposed site.

The New York siting process requires the applicant to file a preliminary scoping

statement for the proposed project, describing the following: the proposed facility and its

environmental setting; potential environmental impacts from construction and operation;

proposed mitigation of potential environmental impacts; and reasonable alternatives to the

proposed facility. During this pre-application phase, a hearing examiner may mediate

disagreements on the scope and method of any environmental impact studies needed in the

application.

The application itself must contain the following: a description of the facility and the

site including all applicable environmental characteristics; studies of impacts on air, water,

visual resources, land use, noise levels, health, and other matters; proof that the proposed

facility will meet state and federal health, safety, and environmental regulations; applications

for air and water permits; and a complete report of the applicant’s public involvement program

activities and how it encouraged citizens to participate.

The applicant must publish notice that it filed the preliminary scoping statement and the

application, and serve copies of those documents on interested state agencies, members of the

legislature, municipalities, local libraries, and other interested persons and organizations.

During the siting process, the applicant must carry out a meaningful public involvement

program. The applicant is expected to hold public meetings, offer presentations to individual

groups and organizations, and establish a presence in the community (

e.g.

, establishing a local

office, toll-free telephone number, Internet Web site, or a community advisory group).

To facilitate the ability of local government and the public to evaluate the proposed

project, New York requires that the applicant provide funds for intervenors to use in the siting

process. When the applicant submits the application, it must include a fee of $1,000 per MW

of capacity, not to exceed $300,000, to be used as an intervenor fund. The funds are awarded

to municipal and other local parties to help pay for the expenses of expert witnesses and

consultants. At least 50% of the fund is designated for the use of municipalities. The

applicant receives any intervenor funds remaining at the end of the case.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) reviews

applications for air and water permits submitted as part of the siting process application. The

DEC must provide the permits to the NYS Siting Board before that board decides whether to

approve siting by granting the applicant a Certificate of Environmental Compatability and

Public Need. To grant a Certificate, the NYS Siting Board must determine:

•

Either:

Construction of the facility is reasonably consistent with the most recent state energy

plan (the final 1994 plan assesses the state’s current energy supplies, infrastructure, and

policies, and forecasts energy needs and supplies through 2012), or

The electricity generated by the facility will be sold into the competitive market;

•

The nature of the probable environmental impacts, including an evaluation of

cumulative air quality impacts;

•

The facility minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given environmental and other

pertinent considerations;

•

The facility is compatible with public health and safety;

•

The facility will not discharge or emit any pollutants in violation of existing

requirements and standards;

•

The facility will control the disposal of solid and hazardous wastes;

•

The facility is designed to operate in compliance with state and local legal provisions,

other than those local legal provisions that the NYS Siting Board finds unreasonably

restrictive; and

•

The construction and operation of the facility is in the public interest.

Various state agencies involved in the environment, public health, or energy are

normally active parties in the New York siting process. Any municipality or resident within a

five-mile radius of a proposed facility can become a party to the proceeding. Any organization

or resident outside of the five-mile radius may request party status. Party status enables the

person or entity to submit testimony, cross-examine witnesses, and file legal briefs. The NYS

Siting Board’s goal is to decide whether to grant siting within 14 months after it receives the

application.

APPENDIX G

CALIFORNIA SITING PROCESS

California has empowered the California Energy Commission (CEC) to conduct a

consolidated approval process for siting all power plants that will have electric generating

capacities of 50 MW or larger. The CEC’s siting responsibilities include statewide planning

analysis. The siting process allows the project applicant to submit a single application for all

necessary state and local approvals and provides analysis of all aspects of a proposed project,

including need, environmental impact, safety, efficiency, and reliability.

The CEC has exclusive authority to approve the construction and operation of these

plants. While the CEC’s authority supercedes the authority of other state and local agencies,

the CEC solicits their participation in the siting process to ensure compliance with all

applicable requirements, including local requirements. Under this approach, the applicant

seeks a single regulatory permit from the CEC.

The California siting process, which has public hearings and allows the public to

participate, has two main phases. The first phase is expected to take nine months to one year

to complete. It typically involves a conceptual review of the project, determining the need for

a proposed plant, site suitability and acceptability, and alternatives to the proposed project.

The second phase is expected to take 12 to 18 months to complete. It involves consideration of

the specific site, technology, and equipment. In the second phase, the design, construction,

operation, and closure of the power plant is reviewed against applicable laws, rules, and

ordinances. The second phase is used to identify negative environmental effects and ways to

mitigate them. The CEC also determines, or reconfirms, the need for the facility.

The California siting process includes a public adviser, nominated by the CEC and

appointed by the Governor of California to a three-year term. The public adviser is

responsible for ensuring that the public and other interested parties have full opportunities to

participate in the siting process. The public adviser does not act as the public’s legal counsel

before the CEC but instead advises the public on how to effectively participate in the

proceedings.

California has experienced delays with its siting process, resulting in changes to the

program. The CEC amended its procedures to allow any proponent of a natural-gas fired

merchant power plant to proceed to the second phase without applying for an exemption from

the first phase. Apparently the California legislature created a “fast track” siting process of six

months for new electric generating facilities presenting no significant adverse environmental

impacts. It also appears that, under that legislation, a simple cycle peaker plant can receive a

three-year operating permit in less than four months if it presents no significant adverse

environmental impacts and is equipped with certain stringent emission control technology. A

permit condition, however, requires the facility, within three years, to either convert to a

combined cycle operation or cease operating.

APPENDIX H

ILLINOIS SB 172 SITING CRITERIA

The Environmental Protection Act’s pollution control facility siting criteria are as

follows:

the facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is

intended to serve;

ii.

the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the

public health, safety and welfare will be protected;

iii.

the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character

of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the

surrounding property;

iv.

(A) for a facility other than a sanitary landfill or waste disposal site, the

facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year floodplain or the

site is flood-proofed; (B) for a facility that is a sanitary landfill or waste

disposal site, the facility is located outside the 100-year floodplain, or if

the facility is a facility described in subsection (b)(3) of Section 22.19a,

the site is flood-proofed;

the plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger

to the surrounding area from fire, spills, or other operational accidents;

vi.

the traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize

the impact on existing traffic flows;

vii.

if the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste,

an emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes

notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of

an accidental release;

viii.

if the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has

adopted a solid waste management plan consistent with the planning

requirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste

Planning and Recycling Act, the facility is consistent with that plan; and

ix.

if the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any

applicable requirements specified by the Board for such areas have been

met. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a) (1998).

APPENDIX I

Area

LAWS and

REGULATIONS

DESCRIPTION

ARIZONA

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Efforts

(5/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

The ACC issued an order that requires electricity providers to derive 1.1

% of their total product from renewable energy sources by 2007.

Implementation will begin with 0.4 % from renewables by January 1,

2001. 50 % of their renewable power must be derived from solar-

generating facilities.

CALIFORNIA

Siting

“

Guidance for Power Plant

Siting and Best Available

Control Technology

,”

July 22, 1999

http://www.arb.ca.gov/powerpl/p

owerpl.htm

In July 1999, the CA Air Resources Board approved guidelines for

major power plant permits. The guidelines are intended to ensure that

air districts require power plants to use the cleanest emissions control

technology currently available. Districts will also be expected to require

newer, cleaner control technology as it becomes available. This

document doesn’t establish any new laws or rules but provides

guidance on applying existing state & federal rules and authority to

peaker/merchant power plants.

•

SITING:

California Energy Commission (CEC) and local Air

Districts have control over siting power plants >50 MW. Electric

generating facilities >50 MW are required to receive certification

from the Energy Facilities Siting and Environmental Protection

Division. Certifications are open to the public.

In the siting phase, the design, construction, operation, and closure

of the power plant is closely examined in relation to applicable laws,

ordinances, rules, and standards. Adverse environmental effects

are identified and mitigation measures established. The need for

the facility is determined, or reconfirmed, if preceded by a Notice of

Intent. The siting process ensures that the proposed power plants

are safe, reliable, environmentally sound, and comply with all

applicable requirements. The Siting Division also oversees

construction and operation.

Air

•

AIR DISTRICTS:

Local Air Districts provide analysis and

recommendations to the CEC on proposed projects to determine

compliance with air pollution control regulations. The Local Air

Districts utilize a permitting process to control emissions from non-

vehicular sources (stationary sources) that is incorporated into the

CEC’s power plant siting process. The CEC’s power plant siting

regulations specifically provide for the district’s participation in the

process. Each district’s regulations may vary depending on the air

quality conditions in the district and the district’s policies and

strategies for attaining or maintaining compliance with the federal

and State ambient air quality standards. The district’s analysis and

recommendations are provided to the CEC in a document known

as a Determination of Compliance (DOC).

State Laws & Regulations

Peaker Plants

Air

•

BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES:

Major sources

are required by permit to use “California BACT”, which is equivalent

to the more stringent federal lowest achievable emission rate

(LAER) in most California air districts.

•

EMISSIONS OFFSETS:

Air pollution control and air quality

management district (district) new source review (NSR) rules and

regulations employ both best available control technology (BACT)

and emission offset requirements to reduce the impact on air

quality from new or modified stationary sources. If emission

increases are above certain specified levels, district NSR rules

require the application of BACT. If the emission increases after the

installation of BACT are still above specified levels, then emission

offsets may be required.

•

AIR IMPACT ANALYSIS:

California Health & Safety Code requires

Air Districts to evaluate air quality impacts in addition to the Federal

CAA requirements on Prevention of Significant Deterioration. This

ensures new permits will not be issued for emission units (sources)

that will prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of

any applicable air quality standard.

•

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT:

Power plant applicants are asked

to submit a Health Risk Assessment under the California

Environmental Quality Act and the Health & Safety Code. A health

risk assessment addresses three categories of health impacts from

all pathways of exposure, if appropriate: acute health effects from

inhalation only, chronic non-cancer health effects, and cancer risks

from multiple exposure paths.

•

ADDITIONAL PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS:

Permits

address startup/shutdown emissions, continuous air monitoring,

sulfur content of fuel, and ammonia slip from air pollution controls.

Water

Water Recycling Act of 1991

http://leginfo.ca.gov

•

Established grants and loans for water reclamation projects and

encouraged water reuse among suppliers.

•

Applies only to public entities that produce or supply water and to

entities responsible for groundwater replenishment.

CONNECTICUT

Energy

Portfolio

An Act Concerning Electric

Restructuring

(RB 5005)

(4/98)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

The bill requires renewable energy funding, a 5.5 % renewable

portfolio standard, and environmental protections.

Noise

State Policy Regarding

Noise

(CT General Statutes Ch. 442,

Sec. 22a-67 to 22a-76)

http://www.cslib.org////statutes/tit

le22a/t22a-p5.htm

•

Noise regulations address impulse noises and a model ordinance.

FLORIDA

Siting

Electrical Power Plant Siting

Act, 1973

(Florida Statute Section

403.501-.518)

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/P

rograms/progER-pps.htm

•

FL has an

Siting Coordination Office

that is responsible for siting

of:

Electrical Power Plants

Electrical Transmission Lines

Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines

High Speed Rails

Hazardous Waste Facilities

•

Electrical Power Plant Siting Act applies only to steam or solar

electric generation > 75MW. This would include combined-cycle

plants but not simple-cycle combustion turbines.

•

Final approval body for the permits is not the Siting Board, but the

Department of Environmental Protection.

•

Fees are charged to the applicant.

•

BACT for NOx is 9 ppm based on dry low NOx combustion

technology.

Ten Year Site Plan

Requirements (TYSP)

(Part of the electrical power

plant siting process)

•

The Public Service Commission (PSC) oversees the submission of

plans by the utilities that describe current generation capacity and

anticipated need for more capacity. The TYSPs also provide

generic information on future sites for power plants to

accommodate the anticipated need. This information includes land

use data, environmental factors, and similar topics which allows

other state and local agencies to comment on the Plans to the

PSC. Based on this information and its own conclusions, the PSC

will determine the suitability of the plan.

Need Determination

(Part of the electrical power

plant siting process, s.

403.519, F.S.)

•

Need Determination is a formal process and is conducted by the

Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC reviews the need for

the generation capacity that would be produced by the proposed

facility in relation to the needs of the region, and to the state as a

whole. The PSC also looks at whether the facility would be the

most cost-effective means of obtaining the capacity.

Environmental Impact

Statement

(Statute section 62-1.211(1),

F.A.C.)

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/siting/L

aw_Rule/apform-pps-a.htm

•

Site certification application forms for power plants resemble an

Environmental Impact Statement. Site Certifications are issued by

the Governor and Cabinet. Prior to issuance of a Site Certification,

the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Department of

Community Affairs (DCA), Public Service Commission (PSC),

Water Management Districts (WMD), and other affected agencies

are required to assess the potential effects upon the environment,

ecology and society by the proposed plant in order to insure that

the construction and operation of the plant will be consistent with

applicable environmental standards.

GEORGIA

Water

Water Withdrawal Permits

http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/abo

utepd_files/branches_files/wrb.htm

•

GA has a Water Withdrawal Permit Program.

•

Develops short-term and long-term water management policies and

strategies to address environmental problems induced by

unsustainable use of Georgia's water resources.

Air

Air Permit Modeling

http://167.193.59.200/metdata/

•

GA maintains a Web site with geographical meteorological data for

air permit modeling based on 5 years of data.

HAWAII

Noise

Noise Pollution

(Hawaii

Revised Statutes Chapter

342F)

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs

current/Vol06/hrs342f/HRS_342F

.htm

•

Hawaii’s noise regulations incorporate both a permit program and

enforcement provisions.

ILLINOIS

Air

Air Pollution

(35 IL Admin Code, Subtitle B)

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/title35/

35conten.htm

•

State rules follow federal requirements.

Energy Portfolio

Renewable Energy

Initiatives

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

09/00 - Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley announced that the City

of Chicago and 47 other local government bodies plan to buy

electric power as a group, requiring that 20% of the purchase (80

MW) come from renewable energy. The City has issued a request

for proposals to the 13 licensed power providers in Illinois. This is

the first opportunity that government agencies have had to

purchase power competitively since Illinois passed its restructuring

law.

•

10/99: Commonwealth Edison plans to allocate $250 million to a

special fund to support environmental initiatives and energy-

efficiency programs throughout the State.

Noise

(35 Illinois Admin.

Code 900 – 952)

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/title35/

35conten.htm

•

According to Greg Zak of the IEPA, Illinois is more active than any

other state in regulating noise. However, some states may have

cities that regulate noise through local ordinances.

INDIANA

Air

•

Requires BACT for all new projects emitting >25 tons per year

VOM.

Siting

•

Requires public utilities to obtain a

certificate of necessity

prior to

constructing electric generating facilities. (The Indiana Utility

Regulatory Commission considers Independent Power Producers

to be public utilities.)

Water

Water Rights & Resources

(Indiana Code, 14-25)

http://www.ai.org/dnr/index.html

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/co

de/title14/ar25/ch4.html

•

Registration and annual reporting requirement for owners of

significant water withdrawal facilities (> 1,000,000 gallons/day of

surface water, groundwater, or combination).

•

Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has statutory authority to

require, by rule, a permit for most water withdrawals from navigable

waters, but authority has not yet been exercised.

•

NRC is required to develop and maintain inventories, gather and

assess all information needed to properly define water resource

availability.

•

NRC can establish, by rule, minimum stream flows.

•

Where groundwater is threatened, Department of Natural

Resources (DNR) may designate a “restricted use area.” Permit is

then required for withdrawal of >100,000 gal/day beyond use at

time of restricted use designation. In granting or refusing a permit,

the DNR considers the concept of beneficial use.

IOWA

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

(3/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

The DNR has proposed including a Renewable Portfolio Standard

in restructuring legislation. The proposal would require renewable

energy sources, such as wind, to be 4% in 2005 and increase to

10% by 2015.

•

Each peaker application is reviewed for acid rain potential and, in

some cases, new sources must purchase credits from USEPA.

Water

Water Allocation and Use;

Flood Plain Control

(Code of Iowa, 455B.261-290)

(1999)

http://www.state.ia.us/dnr/organiz

a/epd/wtrsuply/alloca.htm

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/cgi-

bin/IACODE/Code1999SUPPLE

MENT.pl

•

Permit is required for any person who diverts, stores or withdraws

>25,000 gal of water/day (surface or groundwater). Permits are

generally issued for 10 years but, depending on geological

conditions, can be for lesser period of time.

•

Permit program insures consistency in decisions on allocations.

Allocations are based upon concept of “beneficial use,” the key

points of which are:

1. water resources are to be put to beneficial use to the fullest

extent;

2. water and unreasonable uses are prevented;

3. water conservation is expected;

4. established average minimum instream flows are protected.

•

Administrative process resolves water use conflicts.

•

Provisions are in place for public involvement in issuing water

allocation permits and in generally establishing water use policies.

KENTUCKY

Air

•

State rules follow federal air requirements.

Noise

Kentucky State Noise

Control Act

(Kentucky Revised Statutes:

KRS 220.30-100 to 220.30-

190)

http://162.114.4.13/KRS/224-

30/CHAPTER.HTM

•

Regulations address a model ordinance.

MAINE

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

(5/97)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Maine's restructuring legislation contains the nation's most

aggressive renewables portfolio, requiring 30% of generation to be

from renewable energy sources (including hydroelectric).

MASSACHUSETTS

•

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

Legislation

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Massachusetts restructuring legislation includes a renewable

portfolio requirement and established a renewable energy fund,

funded via a system benefits charge. Funds will also be used to

create initiatives to increase the supply of and demand for

renewable energy.

MICHIGAN

Air

Emissions Limitations and

Prohibitions – New Sources

of VOC Emissions

(R336.1702)

http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pub/a

qd/rules/part7.pdf

•

Requires BACT for all new sources of VOCs.

MINNESOTA

Siting

Power Plant Siting Act

(MN Admin Code 116C.51-

69.)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/stats/116C/

•

Power Plant Siting Act applies to facilities greater than 50 MW.

•

The siting authority is the State Environmental Quality Board whose

purpose is to locate facilities compatible with environmental

preservation and efficient use of resources. The Board is to choose

locations that minimize adverse human and environmental impact

while insuring continuing electric power system reliability and that

electric energy needs are met.

•

The Board develops an inventory of study areas to guide the site

selection process. The inventory is developed in a public planning

process where all interested persons can participate in developing

the criteria and standards to be used by the Board.

•

A utility (public or private) must apply to the Board for designation

of a specific site for a specific size and type of facility. The

application shall contain at least two proposed sites. The Board

has 12-18 months to issue a decision. When the board designates

a site, it issues a

certificate of site compatibility

to the utility with any

appropriate conditions. No large electric power generating plant

can be constructed except on a site designated by the Board.

•

In designating a site, the Board considers:

effects on land, water and air resources;

effects of water and air discharges and electric fields resulting

from such facilities on public health and welfare, vegetation,

animals, materials and aesthetic values, including base line

studies, predictive modeling, and monitoring of the water and air

mass at proposed and operating sites and routes;

new or improved methods for minimizing adverse impacts of

water and air discharges and other matters pertaining to the

effects of power plants on the water and air environment;

sites proposed for future development and expansion and their

relationship to the land, water, air and human resources of the

state;

effects of new electric power generation and transmission

technologies and systems related to power plants designed to

minimize adverse environmental effects;

potential for beneficial uses of waste energy from proposed

large electric power generating plants;

direct and indirect economic impact of proposed sites and

routes including, but not limited to, productive agricultural land

lost or impaired;

adverse direct and indirect environmental effects which cannot

be avoided;

alternatives to the applicant's proposed site

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources should

the proposed site or route be approved; and

where appropriate, consideration of problems raised by other

state and federal agencies and local entities.

•

The Board must hold a public hearing in the county where the

proposed facility is to be located.

Water

Water Supply Management

(MN Statutes:

Ch. 103G)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/stats/103G

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water

s/programs/water_mgt_section/ap

propriations/permits.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/water

s/programs/water_mgt_section/ap

propriations/progdesc.html

•

Permit is required for all users withdrawing (surface and

groundwater) more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons

per year. (Exceptions include: domestic uses serving less than 25

person, certain agricultural drainage systems, test pumping of a

groundwater source, and reuse of water already authorized by

permit, e.g., water purchased from a municipal water system.)

•

Permits are granted for no longer than 5 years.

•

Policy is to manage water resources to ensure an adequate supply

to meet long-range seasonal requirements for domestic,

agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power navigation, and

quality control purposes.

•

Water Appropriation Permit Program exists to balance competing

management objectives that include both development and

protection of MN’s water resources.

•

Permitted users are required to submit annual reports of water use.

Reported information is used to evaluate impacts and to aid in

resolving conflicts.

Noise

Noise Pollution Control

(MN

Rules Chapter 7030)

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.u

s/arule/7030/

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/progr

ams/pubs/noise.pdf

•

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is empowered to

enforce the state of Minnesota noise rules.

MISSOURI

Air

•

State air rules follow federal requirements.

•

Major source threshold is 100 tons per year.

Water

Geology, Water Resources

and Geodetic Survey

(

Missouri Revised Statutes,

Chapter 256)

http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/dgls/

wrp/waterusestatutes.htm

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/stat

utes/c200-299/2560400.htm

•

Major water users must register with Department of Natural

Resources (DNR). A major water user is defined as an entity that

is capable of withdrawing or diverting 100,000 gal or more per day

from any water source.

•

Failure to register may result in DNR request that Attorney General

file action to stop all withdrawal or diversion. Purpose of

registration program is to insure the development of information

required for the analysis of certain future water resource

management needs.

NEVADA

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility

Restructuring, AB 366

(6/99)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/tab5rev.html#CT

•

AB 366 provides that the PUC establish portfolio standards for

renewable energy. The standard will phase-in a requirement

(beginning with 0.2 % by January 2001 and adding 0.2 % of a

percent biannually) that 1% of energy consumed be from

renewable energy resources.

NEW JERSEY

Water

Water Supply Management

Act

(NJAC 7:19-1)

•

Water resources management is required for >100,000 gallons per

day.

Noise

Noise Control Rules

(NJAC 7:29)

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforc

ement/pcp/olem-noise.htm

•

The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has

developed a Model Noise Ordinance that can be adopted by local

municipalities.

•

NJDEP does not have a noise control program and does not

investigate noise complaints. Noise control is handled locally.

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

The restructuring legislation in NJ requires spending $230 million

for home weatherization, renewable energy and other programs,

and increases spending on new energy conservation programs.

Also, electric generation companies must disclose a set of

environmental characteristics, including power plant fuels and

emissions.

NEW YORK

Siting

Siting and Approval

(Article X of Public Service

Law)

http://www.dps.state.ny.us/articl

ex.htm

•

The NY Public Service Commission (NY State Board on Electric

Generation Siting and the Environment ) is in charge of siting and

approval of all new power plants.

•

Article X of the Public Service Law sets forth a unified and

expedited review process for applications for power plants > 80

MW.

•

Proceedings are open to the public

•

Siting Board may preempt local zoning.

•

Siting may take up to 18 months.

•

Siting Board must determine:

either:

(a) construction of the facility is reasonably consistent with the

most recent

State Energy Plan

, or

(b) the electricity generated by the facility will be sold into the

competitive market;

the nature of the probable environmental impacts (including an

evaluation of cumulative air quality impacts);

the facility minimizes adverse environmental impacts, given

environmental and other pertinent considerations;

the facility is compatible with public health and safety;

the facility will not discharge or emit any pollutants in violation of

existing requirements and standards;

the facility will control the disposal of solid and hazardous

wastes;

the facility is designed to operate in compliance with state and

local legal provisions, other than those local legal provisions that

the Siting Board finds unreasonably restrictive; and

the construction and operation of the facility is in the public

interest.

Intervenor Fund for Siting

Review

(Article X, Section 164)

Power plant applicants are required to pay $1,000 per MW of

capacity up to $300,000 to establish an Intervenor Fund.

Funds are used to defray expenses associated with the siting

review.

Proposed Amendment to

Article X

(New York State Bill A09039)

The bill would authorize the Commissioner of Environmental

Conservation to issue environmental permits necessary to the siting

of an electric generation facility if the Siting Board is unable to do so

and would make some technical changes to the siting law.

The bill would also require the Energy Planning Board to do a

reliability study of the state’s transmission and distribution systems.

New York State Energy Plan

1994

(New York State Energy

Office)

•

The Final 1994 State Energy Plan calls for significant reductions in

State energy taxes and endorses greater competition in utility

purchases of electricity in order to lower electric rates in the state.

The plan reaffirms the state's long-term energy, economic and

environmental goals and its commitment to energy efficiency, but

places increased emphasis on the use of energy policy as a means

to promote sustained economic development. The plan assesses

New York's current energy supplies, infrastructure and policies, and

forecasts energy needs and supplies through the year 2012. Based

on those findings, the plan sets policy goals and objectives and

recommends 180 specific actions. The plan was prepared by the

staffs of the State Energy Office and the State Departments of

Environmental Conservation and Public Service in response to

1992 legislation that formalized Governor Mario Cuomo's model for

integrated energy planning. The State Energy Planning Board,

which approved the plan on October 31,1994 is made up of the

commissioners of those three agencies. State energy law requires

that any state action related to energy be reasonably consistent

with the plan's findings and recommendations.

Water

Water Supply Permits

(Chapter 6, New York Codes,

Rules and Regulations. Part

601: 6 NYCRR 601)

•

Required for suppliers of potable water with 5 or more service

connections.

•

Applicants must demonstrate:

1. Plans are justified by public necessity.

2. Plans take proper consideration of other sources of supply

which are or may become available.

3. Plans provide for proper and safe construction of all work

connected therewith.

4. Plans provide for proper sanitary control of the watershed and

proper protection of the supply.

5. Plans provide for an adequate water supply.

6. Plans are just and equitable to the other municipal corporations

and civil divisions of the state affected thereby and to the

inhabitants thereof, particular consideration being given to the

present and future necessities for sources of water supply.

7. Plans make fair and equitable provisions for the determination

and payment of any and all damages to persons and property,

both direct and indirect, which result from the acquisition of said

lands or the execution of said plans.

8. Plans, in accordance with local water resources needs and

conditions, include a description of an adequate near term and

long range water conservation program.

•

Entities holding Water Supply Permits must report average and

peak usage to the NY Department of Environmental Conservation

annually. If customer demand grows (i.e., new peaker plant begins

withdrawing from the water supply), supplier must re-demonstrate

the above to the state if the demand exceeds amount authorized in

the Water Supply Permit.

Water Well Program

(Environmental Conservation

Law 15-1525)

•

Pre-notification must be filled with the state prior to drilling

specifying desired yield.

•

No restrictions are specified on the amount of water withdrawal.

However, under NY Civil Law, property owners have water rights.

If a well causes drawdowns that impact an off-site property owner’s

water use, then they can sue.

Water Withdrawal

Registration

(6 NYCRR, Chapter X,

Subchapter A, Article 1)

•

Applies to withdrawals from Great Lakes:

•

Great Lakes (6 NYCRR 675):

withdrawals >100,000 gpd averaged over 30-day period

OR -

lake water loss > 2,000,000 gpd averaged over 30-day

period

•

No restrictions are specified on the amount of water withdrawal, just

that withdrawals must be registered. Registration fee is $100 /

year.

Long Island Water

Withdrawal Restrictions

•

Water withdrawals from wells are restricted by quantity on Long

Island since over pumpage of groundwater on Long Island can

cause infiltration of saltwater into the aquifer.

Electric Utility Restructuring

•

Funds to support energy conservation and renewable energy are

made available to energy suppliers from the New York State

Energy Research and Development Authority. Funds were created

through the New York Public Service Commission order

establishing a system benefits charge on electricity sales.

OHIO

Siting

OH Admin. Code 4906:

Ohio

Power Siting Board

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/oac/

•

The Ohio Power Siting Board within the Public Utilities Commission

is the approval authority for all major utilities > 50 MWe.

•

Meetings of the Board where action is taken or deliberations

conducted are open to the public.

•

Applicants for new facilities must consider at least 1 alternate site.

•

Applications are required to address:

Justification of Need:

Description of generation and associated facility

alternatives

Type, number of units, and estimated net demonstrated

capability, heat rate, annual capacity factor, and hours of

annual generation

Land area requirement

Fuel quantity and quality

Types of pollutant emissions

Water requirement, source of water, treatment, quantity of

any discharge and names of receiving streams

Siting issues:

Location

major features

the topographic, geologic, and hydrologic suitability for

each alternate site

Water:

natural and man-affected water budgets

existing maps of aquifers which may be directly affected

Emissions control & safety equipment

Local ambient air quality of proposed sites

Locations of major and anticipated sources of air pollution

Plans for future additions and the maximum generating capacity

anticipated for the site.

Financial data

Environmental data

Social and ecological data:

Noise

Health & Safety

Impact of water use

Economics, land use, and community development

Cultural impact

Agricultural district impact

•

After the Board certifies applications for new facilities, public

hearings are held in the local vicinity of the proposed facility.

•

The Board collects application fees.

Air

NOx – Reasonably Available

Control Technology

(OAC 3745-14)

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/oac/

•

According to IEPA, certain minor sources must use BAT (Best

Available Technology), OAC 3745-14-3.

•

Major sources are required to use BACT per federal regulations:

15 ppm NOx for natural gas turbines, 42 ppm NOx for oil burning.

•

For NOx sources >100 tpy, Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) is required in certain counties. RACT for

combustion turbines is 75 PPMVD for those firing gaseous fuels

and 110 PPMVD for those firing distillate oil or diesel fuel.

Water

Application for Permit for

major increase in withdrawal

of waters of the State

(Ohio Revised Code 1501.30

& 33)

Registration of facilities

capable of withdrawing

>100,00 gal/day;

Groundwater Stress Areas

(Ohio Revised Code 1521.16)

Determination of reasonable

use of water

(Ohio Revised Code 1521.17)

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublish

ing.com/revisedcode/

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/w

ater/waterinv/waterinv.html

•

Permits are required for those making a new or increased

consumptive use of water than an average of 2 millions gallons per

day over a 30-day period.

•

Registration is required for any facility or combination of facilities

with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water

(surface or ground) daily. Annual reporting is required of those who

must register. The purpose of registration and reporting is to gather

data to assist in resolving future water use conflicts.

•

Chief of DNR Division of water has authority to designate “ground

water stress areas” and to require water withdrawal registration in

these areas for users of water less than the normal 100,000 gallon

threshold.

•

Chief also has responsibility to maintain water Resources Inventory

that must include information to assist in determining the

reasonableness of water use.

•

While “reasonable use” is used by courts to determine water

conflicts, legislature has set forth nine specific factors (applicable to

both surface and groundwater) which define reasonableness.

•

“Consumptive use” is defined as a use of water resources other

than a diversion that results in a loss of that water to the basin from

which it is withdrawn and includes, but is not limited to, evaporation,

evapotranspiration, and incorporation of water into a product or

agricultural crop.

Energy

Portfoli

Electric Utility Restructuring

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Restructuring legislation includes a provision for a $110 million

revolving load fund for residential and small commercial energy

efficiency and renewable energy projects. Also, electricity

marketers must disclose environmental information to consumers.

OREGON

Noise

Noise Control Classification

of Violations

(Oregon Admin. Rules 340-

012-0052)

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/

OARS_300/OAR_340/340_012.h

tml

•

Regulations address a model ordinance.

PENNSYLVANIA

Air

Stationary Sources of NOx &

VOCs

(Pennsylvania Code Ch.

129.91)

http://pacode.com/secure/data/025

/chapter129/chap129toc.html

•

PA charges emissions fees: $42/ton (1999).

•

PA requires RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) for

all major sources of VOC, NOx.

Energy Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

(9/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

A $21 million Green Energy Fund was created by the Public Utilities

Commission (PUC) to be used for investment in green energy

projects such as wind, solar, and biomass. The fund, which

currently has $5 million, is expected to grow to more than $20

million over the next six years. The fund was created as part of a

negotiated settlement between the PUC and PPL in the utility's

restructuring case two years ago. Businesses and nonprofit

organizations that wish to invest in green energy within PPL's

territory may apply for the funds.

TEXAS

Water

Use of Reclaimed Water

(Texas Admin Code Title 30

Part 1 Chapter 210)

(1997)

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/

rules/index.html

•

Establishes general requirements, quality criteria, design, and

operational requirements for the beneficial use of reclaimed water

that may be substituted for potable water and/or raw water.

•

Due to limited supply and high demand, reclaimed water can be

much less expensive than using municipal drinking water or treating

groundwater. The rule is intended to conserve surface and ground

water and to help ensure an adequate supply of water resources for

present and future needs.

•

Use of reclaimed water is voluntary.

•

Locating reuse facilities near the municipal wastewater treatment

plant helps to minimize infrastructure costs in constructing a

distribution line.

•

Reclaimed water is provided to the user on a demand-only basis.

•

Approved uses include cooling tower make up water under §210.32

(2)(F).

Water Use Permits

(Texas Water Code, §11.121)

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/stat

utes/wa/wa001100toc.html

•

Texas industries must obtain water rights to use surface water or

protected groundwater. Such authorization may be with or without a

term, on an annual or seasonal basis, or on a temporary or

emergency basis.

Siting

•

Does not have a siting commission for power plant projects.

•

Texas requires

certificates of convenience and necessity

for power

plant projects initiated by utilities, but not for projects initiated by

independent power producers.

Energy

Portfolio

Electric Utility Restructuring

(9/00)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/elec

tricity/chg_str/pbp.html

•

Texas' renewables portfolio standard requires that the State's

utilities install or contract to buy power from 2,000 MW of

renewable generating capacity by January 1, 2009.

WISCONSIN

Siting

State Energy Policy

(Wisconsin Statute: 1.12)

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-

bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=11157

1&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=ch.

%20196

Power Plant Siting

(WI Admin Code Ch. PSC 111,

112)

Environmental Analysis

(WI Admin Code Ch. PSC 4)

http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-

bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=95483

&infobase=codex.nfo&jump=top

•

Wisconsin’s State Energy Policy includes policy on:

considering the maximum conservation of energy resources as

an important factor when making any major decision that would

significantly affect energy usage

reducing the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in

the state

renewable energy resources

protection of natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats,

lakes, woodlands, open spaces and groundwater resources.

•

Ch. PSC 111, 112 require the Public Service Commission (PSC) to

develop a Strategic Energy Assessment (SEA) for power plants.

The SEA involves an assessment of electric demand and supply,

and information from electricity suppliers on economic, pollutant,

and energy conservation data.

•

Ch. PSC 111,112 require

Certificates of Public Convenience and

Necessity

for electric generating facilities. According to the Illinois

Commerce Commission, this requirement applies to facilities > 100

MW. Applications for certificates include:

at least 2 sites: preferred & alternate

number of units, type, size, fuel

hours of operation

generating capacity

pollutant emissions

need for facility in terms of demand

alternative sources of electric supply including energy

conservation & efficiency

Natural resources affected

Ecological resources affected

Community information

•

According to IEPA, siting is required for facilities >12,000 kW.

•

Ch. PSC 4 establishes procedures to provide the PSC with

adequate information on the short- and long-term environmental

effects of its actions as required by the WI Environmental

Protection Act, ch. 274, section 1, laws of 1971 and s. 1.11 of the

Wisconsin Statutes. PSC 4 requires the PSC to prepare an

Environmental Assessment (EA) to assist the PSC in determining

environmental impact of proposed facilities. Combustion turbines

are included as types of projects requiring an EA. The PSC can

approve or deny siting based on the EA or Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). The EA is made available to the public, and

hearings are held.

Water

Water Resources

(Wisconsin Statues, Chapter

28, Subchapter II)

Water Quality and Quantity;

General Regulations

(Wisconsin Statues, Chapter

28, Subchapter III)

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/S

tatutes.html

DNR Rules, Chapter NR 142

•

Wisconsin law provides for:

1. development of statewide water quantity resources plan

2. registration and annual reporting (with fees) of major

withdrawals (>100,000 gal/day in 30-day period)

3. permit approval process (with administrative hearing process)

for construction, development and operation of wells where

capacity and rate of withdrawal of groundwater from all wells on

one property is in excess of 100,000 gal/day. Approval is

withheld or restricted if withdrawal will adversely effect or

reduce availability of public water supply or doesn’t meet

grounds for approval which are:

No adverse effect on public water rights in navigable waters

no conflict with any applicable plan for future uses of waters

of state or water quantity resources plan

Reasonable conservation practices have been incorporated

no significant adverse impact on environment and

ecosystem of the Great Lakes basin or the upper

Mississippi River basin

plan for withdrawal consistent with the protection of public

health, safety and welfare and not detrimental to public

interest

no significant detrimental effect on the quantity and quality

of the waters of the state (even more factors apply if the

proposed withdrawal will result in an “interbasin diversion”)

4. permit approval process for diversion of water from any lake or

stream >2,000,000 gal/day in any 30-day period. If DNR

receives application for a withdrawal from the Great lakes basin

that will result in a new water loss averaging 5,000,000 gal/day

in any 30-day period, DNR notifies governors of other Great

Lakes States, requesting their input.

•

Regulations define “water loss” and “consumptive use.”

•

Rules incorporate methods for citizens to initiate DNR

investigations of alleged violations.

Note:

This list is not meant to be all-inclusive.