ILLINOI3 POLL~JTID~CO~T~DLBOA.RD

October

15,

1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROP3SMJ OF WESTERN

ILLINOIS POWER

COOPER;TIVE,

INC.,

FOR SITE—SPECIFIC

)

R85—26

AMEND~1ENTOF THE WkTER POLLUTION

R~GULkTIONS

OPINION ~ND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by R.C.

Flemal):

This matter

comes before the Board

uoon

a Petition

for

Amendment

of Regulation

filed

by Western Illinois Power

Cooperative,

Inc.

(“~I?CO”) on October

24,

1985.

~I?CO

~roposes

the addition of

the following rule

to

35 Ill.

Adm.

Code, Title

35, Part

304:

This section

a’Dplies

to an existing facility

of

Western Illinois Power Cooperative,

Inc.

at Pearl

Station, Pike County,

which discharges

at river mile

42.7.

Such discharges

shall

not be

subject

to the

effluent standards

of

35 Illinois ~dministrative

Code

304.125 until discharges

from the ash pond

and the

once through cooling water

have been combined

to

permit pH neutralization

in

the condensor

cooling

water

canal

and prior

to discharge into

the Illinois

River.

Section 304.125 s~ecifiesthat effluent discharges must have

a pH within the range of

6

to

9.

Adoption

of

the proposed rule

would

therefore provide

that the individual

discharges

to WIPCO’s

condensor

cooling water

canal would

not separately

need

to fall

within

this specified pH

range, but rather

that. only after

commingling would

the

6

to

9 limitation

be

applicable.

For

the reasons described more

fully

below,

the Board denies

the

relief requested by WIPCO because

there

is

insufficient

information presented

on

the environmental imoact

on the

receiving waters from the commingling

of WIPCO’s

ash pond

effluent and

the condensor

cooling water,

and because

the

requested relief

is

incompatible with federal

and state

law.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hearing was held on March

17, 1986,

at Jacksonville,

Illinois.

Testimony was presented by Mr. Donald

B.

Bringinan and

Mr. Richard

D.

Johannes

on behalf

of WIPCO.

WIPCO

filed

a post—hearing

brief

(“Brief”)

on April

29,

1986.

On June

3,

1996,

the Hearing Officer

issued

an Order

82—345

---

requesting

that WIPCO and the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency”)

address the relevancy

to

the instant matter

of

the findings contained

in the Board’s May

30,

1986,

Opinion and

Order

in Electric Energy,

Inc.

v.

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

POB 85—171.

The Agency filed

a resQonse brief

and recommendation

(“Rec.”)

on June

9,

1986, which,

among

other

matters, addressed

this issue.

The Agency recommends

that the

proposed amendment

be denied.

WIPCO filed

a reply brief

(“Reply”)

on July

14,

1986.

On February 25,

1987,

the Illinois Deoartment

of Energy and

Natural Resources

(“Department”)

filed

a motion requesting

that

the record

in

this matter

be re—ooened and that the document

“Western Illinois Power Coooerative,

Inc.

1985 Annual Report”

be

s~b-niLtedinto

the record.

By Order

of March

5,

1987,

the Board

granted

the motion.

On May 22,

1987,

the Department issued

a

“negative declaration”

in this matter.

The Economic and

Technical Advisory Committee concurred

in the Department’s

determination on June

22,

1987.

BACKGROUND

WIPCO

is

a not—for—profit corporation organized

to generate

and transmit electrical energy

to

its seven members, each

of

which

are also not—for—profit

corporations who distribute

electricity

to 44,000

rural consumers

in

a

22 county area

of west

central

Illinois

(R.

at

20—1).

WIPCO currently has three generating facilities

to suooly

part

of

the electrical

energy requirements

for

its members.

The

main generating facility,

the Pearl

Station plant,

is the subject

of

the instant matter1.

It

is

a coal—fired plant placed

in

operation

in

1967 with

an anticipated

life of

40 years

(R.

at

23).

It

is located along

the Illinois River one—half mile south

of Pearl, Pike County,

Illinois

(R.

at

22).

It

is

a 22—megawatt

coal—fired

steam electric facility supplemented with

a 22—

megawatt gas turbine generator.

The coal—fired

unit

is use~ on

a

regular basis

to meet base load needs

of the cooperative’s

members;

the gas turbine

is used generally to meet

system peak

load requirements

or emergencies

CR.

at

23).

Water

is drawn

into

the plant from the Illinois River,

the

primary use of which

is once—through condensor cooling water.

The once—through condensor

cooling water

is returned

to the

Illinois River by way of

a discharge canal

that was constructed

1 The other

two generating

facilities

are diesel generating

facilities

at Pittsfield

and Winchester,

Illinois,

that

are used

only to provide oeak energy and emergency energy

(R.

at

22).

82—346

---

—3—

by

vJIPCO when the plant was built

(R.

at 23—4).

The canal

is

approximately 330

feet

long,

35 feet wide,

and

12 feet

deep.

Water

in

the canal

is generally 10

feet below

the top

of the bank

of

the canal

(R.

at 23—4), thereby presumably oroducing

a water

depth of

2 feet

(Rec.

at

3).

Also

at the plant

site

is

an ash pond caoable

of containing

approximately 33 million gallons of discharge from the plant.

Discharge

to

the ash pond

consists

of bottom

ash and

fly ash

sluice water plus discharge from

a wet scrubber

(R.

at 24—5).

The

pH of

the ash pond waters

is

aooroximatelv 2.7,

due largely

to the

acidic nature

of

the wet scrubber discharge

(Brief

at

4).

Since 1976

discharge from the a~h oond

has been

directed

into

the canal, where

it mixes with the condensor

cooling water

before entering the Illinois River.

The entry ooint

of the ash

pond discharge

is approximately

75 feet from the head

of the

condensor

cooling water

canal

and 225 feet

from the mouth of the

canal

(R.

at

28).

Of

the

22 million gallons

per day

(“MGD”)

average discharge from the canal

to the river, aooroximately

23

MGD

is condensor cooling water,

1.9 MGD

is wet scrubber

discharge,

and 0.1 MGD

is fly

ash and bottom ash sluice water

(R.

at 30—1).

Pursuant

to

an NPDES oermit initially

issue3

in

1977,

WIPCD

has been able

to monitor

effluent pH

at

the juncture of the

canal

with the Illinois River,

rather

than

at

the

point where

the ash

pond discharges

into the canal.

A practical

aspect

of this

feature

of

the oermit

is that

it allows

for

the ash pond

discharge

to mix with and

be neutralized

by

the condensor cooling

water.

A further

practical asoect

is that the large volumes

of

the condensor cooling water

cause the discharge from the canal

into

the Illinois River

to have

a PH within

the 6.0

to 9.0 range

(Ex.

9 and 10) required by regulation without

the necessity of

WIPCO oroviding any treatment

to

the

ash pond discharges other

than

as provided by the mixing.

On t~ovember 27,

1979, WI?CO submitted

an

ao’Dlication

for

renewal

of

its NPDES permit, which was

to expire on June

25, 1980

(R.

at

23).

A final NPDES permit was

issued

on September

30,

1985,

the provisions

of which

do not

allow Petitioner

to continue

monitoring

pH

after

mixing

of

the ash pond

effluent and the

condensor cooling water

in the canal.

Rather,

the new permit

requires that

the

oH of the ash pond discharge

be between

6.0 and

9.0 without allowance

for mixing

(Id).

The Agency decision

to

alter

the permit

is based

on the contention

that the federal

regulations were amended

in 1982

in such

a manner

as

to no

longer

allow the

tyos the mixing which

is

the subject of the instant

matter.

This permit is currently

on appeal before the Board

in

the P03 85—164 proceeding.

82—347

---

—4—

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

It

is

the Agency’s belief that the commingling

of the ash

pond effluent and

the condensor

cooling

water

would result

in

total

suspended solids

(“TSS”)

far

in excess of the

30 mg/l

limitation contained

in

35 Ill.

kdm.

Code 304.124(a).

The Agency

states

that the highly acidic wet scrubber

waste stream has

lowered

the

oH of

the

ash pond

to aooroximately 2.7, resulting

in

an increase

in dissolved solids and

in the solubility

of metals,

and that during commingling with once—through cooling water,

the

effluent

is neutralized

and

it

is expected

that metals would

oTecioitate

in t~e cooling water

canel.

The

3oard

notes

that

there

is sufficient evidence

in the

record

to indicate

that such

precipitation

is indeed

occurring

(see

Attachment

5

to Reply;

also

see Rec.

at

4—7).

In

fact,

there

is testimony that

the

precipitate produced

by the mixing of

the ash pond effluent and

the once—through cooling water

in the canal

would

not result

in

the accumulation

of the precipitate

in the canal, but rather

the

precipitate would be discharged

into

the Illinois River

(R.

93,

122—124)

The Agency contends

and the Board agrees that the amount of

metals

involved here cannot be determined due

to the limited

samoling

‘data

compiled by

WI?CO.

Data concerning

iron,

arsenic

and mercury were obtained by sampling conducted

in

1976,

and

there were

no subsequent

samoles taken

until

1985.

The

1985

study revealed

a high reading

for

total

iron and

a low reading

for

arsenic, with

no

reading

for mercury

(Ex.

6).

The Agency

brief

states:

There

is

a total

lack

of evidence

as to

the

precipitation of

solids,

and especially metals,

in

the cooling water

discharge canal

as

a result

of the

pH adjustment.

No

testing has been done

to determine

how much dissolved

solids

are being converted

to

a

suspended state

in the canal.

There

is no estimation

as to

the effect umon

the Illinois River

of the~e

increased loadings.

(Rec.

at

7)

WIPCO contends

that the Agency cannot now claim

the lack

of

available data

in support of its recommendation

for denial

of

WIPC’O’s site soecific exception,

because

the Agency has

previously accepted

this data and did not request additional

samolirig analysis with WIPCO’s monthly or

quarterly discharge

reports from 1977

to

1980.

The Board believes that

irrespective

of past Agency action,

the

fact remains

that there

is

insufficient data

in support of WIPCO’s request.

WIPCO has also

not shown

the extent of

the prospective environmental

impact of

the proposed

rule.

No evidence was presented as

to the nature of

existing aquatic

life

in

the canal

or

the effect of

the

discharges on

the aquatic life

in the canal

or

in

the Illinois

River.

The proposition of presenting

such evidence was discussed

82—348

---

—D-

at hearing a~dWIPCO has not adequately addressed

the matter

through the presentation of

additional evidence

at hearing

or

in

either

of

its briefs.

WIPCO simply states that

the Board

should

consider

the criteria set

forth

in Section

27

of

the

Environmental Protection Act,

i.e.,

the existing physical

conditions,

the

charact.er

of the area

involved,

including the

character

of surrounding land uses,

zoning classifications,

the

nature

of the receiving body of water,

and

the technical

feasibility

and economic reasonableness

of reducing the

particular

type of oollution.

The Board believes that even

considering

these criteria the record does not support WIPCO’s

request

foi

relief,

because

information falling under

the

criteria of

the existing physical conditions,

the character

of

the area

involved,

and Lhe nature

of

the receiving

body

of water,

is incomplete.

COMPATABILITY

WITH

FEDERAL

LAW

One

of WIPCO’s major

contentions

in suooort of the relief

it

requests

is

that fed~rallaw allows

for

the pH monitoring

of low

volume waste sources’ to occur

after

those sources

are commingled

with condensor cooling water,

as long

as such mixing takes place

prior

to discharge

to waters

of the U.S.

Support

for

this

interpretation of existing,

applicable federal

law comes from

a

February

24,

1986,

United States Environmental Protection Agency

(“USEPA”)

internal letter3 written

in response

to

a request from

the State

of New York

for

clarification of whether

43 CFR 423

requires pH

limitations

to be applied

to

a low volume waste

stream prior

to combination with condensor

cooling water.

The

author

of

the letter,

a USEPA employee whose job title

is

“~ationalExpert,

Steam Electric/Water”, wrote

that:

It has always been my understanding that where low

volume wastes from

a steam electric power

plant

are

commingled with once through cooling water

prior

to

2 “Low volume waste

sources”

are defined

at

40 CFR 423.11(b)

as

including wastewaters

from wet scrubber

air pollution control

systems,

ion exchange water

treatment systems, water

treatment

evaporator

blowdown,

laboratory

and sampling streams, boiler

blowdown,

floor drains,

cooling

tower

basin cleaning wastes,

and

recirculating house service water systems.

Since

the volume of

effluent from WIPCO’s wet scrubber

to the ash pond equals

approximately 1.9 mgd out of the approximately 2.0 mgd which

flows

to

the

pond daily,

approximately 95

of

the flow

to

the

pond can

be characterized as being

from

a low volume waste

source.

The letter

is Attachment

5

to WIPCO’s Brief of April

29,

19a6.

82—349

---

—U—

discharge to waters

of the U.S.,

pH limitations

for

the commingled stream are applicable at the combined

discharge point

to waters of the U.S.

Limitations

for other pollutants,

however,

are applicable prior

to combination.

*

*

*

*

*

The Agency has always opposed

the use of dilution

as

a substitute

for

treatment.

In the case

of pH,

however

,

combination

of low volume wastes with once

through

cooling

water

(another

plant

waste)

produces

chemical

neutralization,

utilizing

ambient

intake

water chemicals

instead

of added chemicals.

However,

we will not condone situations

where ambient

water

is

pumped expressly

for the purpose

of neutralization.

On

a case—by—case basis, other

factors might

allow/require that limitations be applied

at

a point

prior

to combination.

Some

of these

include:

1.

Combination

of specific low volume wastes

with once through cooling

water which could

be anticipated

to oroduce additional

total

suspended

solids,

due

to

the resulting

neutralization,

and which would exceed the

amount allowed

for

the low volume wastes.

2.

Failure

to neutralize

and settle the low

volume waste

prior

to combination would

result

in unacceptable quantities of heavy

metals

or

other

toxic pollutants

being

released.

3.

Requirements

of 315(b)

which might

limit

the

amount of cooling water

used.

As

is

clear

from the

above excerpt, USEPA interprets

40 OFR

423

to

in theory allow

the commingling

of condensor

cooling water

and

low volume waste sources

for

the purpose

of

improving

the

pH

level

of

the latter,

so long as such commingling occurs prior

to

discharge

to waters

of

the U.S.

Thus,

a question which

is

critical

to the analysis at hand

is whether

or not

the canal

is

by definition

a water

of

the U.S.

The Board believes the answer

is

in the affirmative.

“Waters of the U.S.”

are defined

at

40 CFR 122.2

as:

a.

All waters which are currently used,

were used

in the past,

or may be susceotible

to use

in

interstate

or foreign commerce,

including all

waters which are subject to

the ebb and

a

flow

of

the tide;

82—350

---

—7—

b.

All

interstate

waters,

including

interstate

“wetlands;”

c.

All other

waters such

as intrastate

lakes,

rivers,

streams (including

intermittent

streams), mudflats,

sandflats,

“wetlands,”

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa

lakes,

or

natural ponds

the use, degradation,

or

destruction of which would affect or could

affect interstate

or

foreign commerce including

any such waters:

1.

Which

are

or

could

be used

by interstate

or

foreign

travelers

for

recreational

or

other

purposes;

2.

From

which

fish

or

shellfish

are

or

could

be

taken

and

sold

in

interstate

or

foreign

commerce;

or

3.

Which

are

usel

or

could

be used

for

industrial

purposes

by

industries

in

interstate

commerce;

d.

All

impoundments

of

waters

otherwise defined

as

waters

of

the

United

States

under

this

definition;

e.

Tributaries

of

waters

identified

in

paragraphs

(a)

through

Cd)

of

this

definition;

f.

The

territorial

sea;

and

g.

“Wetlands”

adjacent

to waters

(other than waters

that

are

themselves

wetlands)

identified

in

paragraphs

(a)

through

(f)

of

this

definition.

Waste

treatment

systems,

including

treatment

ponds

or

lagoons designed

to meet the requirements

of

CWA

(other than cooling ponds

as defined

in

40 CFR

423.11(m) which

also meet the criteria of this

definition)

are not waters of

the United States.

This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies of

water

which neither

were originally created

in waters

of the United States

(such

as disposal area

in

wetlands)

nor resulted

from the impoundment

of waters

of the United States.

See

Note

I

of this

section.)

*

*

*

*

*

82—351

---

—8—

NOTE:

At

45

FR

48620,

July

21,

1980,

the

Environmental Protection Agency suspended

until

further

notice

in §122.2,

the last sentence,

beginning “This exclusion apolies

..

.“

in

the

definition

of “Waters of

the United States.”

This

revision continues that suspension)

*

*

*

*

*

1 Editorial

Note:

The words

“This

revision”

refer

to

the document published

at

48

FR 14153,

Apr.

1,

1963.

WI?CD’s

condensor

cooling

water

canal

would

seemingly

come

under

the definition

of waters of the U.S. pursuant

to sections

122.2(a)

and

(e)

of

the definition above,

which soecify

that

tributaries

of waters

used

for

interstate

commerce

are

waters

of

the U.S.

The Illinois River

is

used extensively for

interstate

commerce,

and

the condensor

cooling water

canal

is tributary

to

the

Illinois

River.

Indeed,

given

the

enormous

breath

of

the

definition

of

the waters

of

the

U.S.,

there

are

several

other

provisions

of

the

definition,

as

for

example section

l22.2(c)(2),

which

would

also

seemingly

cause

classification

of

the

condensor

cooling

water

canal

as

a

water

of

the

U.S.

It

can

be

argued

that

the

condensor

cooling

water

canal

is

covered

by

the

exceotion

specified

for

waste

treatment

systems.

The

Board believes that

it

is

not.

WIPCO’s

canal

was

not

originally

designed

to

serve

as

a

waste

treatment

facility.

Rather,

it was designed

to convey the condensor cooling

water

back

to

its source,

the Illinois River.

In

fact, WIPCO never

designated

the

canal

as

a

waste

treatment

facility

and

never

sought

to

obtain

permits

or

take

further

action

that

would

support

the

view

of

the

canal

as

a

treatment

works.

The

Board

notes

that

even

if

the

canal

were

not

viewed

as

a

water

of

the

U.S.,

the

relief

requested

by

WIPCO

could

not

be

appropriately granted,

and

that

WIPCO

cannot

rely

uoon

the

USEPA

guidance found

in

the February 24,

1986 letter

to support

its

request

for

relief.

As quoted above,

the letter

notes certain

mitigating

factors to b~econsidered which would not allow

commingling

of

a

low

volume

waste

stream

with

once—through

cooling water,

if such action could be anticipated

to result

in

release

of

total suspended solids

in excess

of allowable

limits,

or

unacceptable

quantities

of

heavy

metals

and

other

toxic

pollutants.

WIPCO

has

not

persuasively

shown,

through

presentation of adequate monitoring data,

that water quality

standards violations will

not occur

in the canal

as

a result

of

the precipitation

of metals

and

solids after commingling.

The

mitigating

factors noted

in

the

letter would

therefore weigh

against

the allowance of

commingling

for WIPCO’s operation.

82—3 52

---

—9—

For

the reasons stated

in this Opinion,

the Board denies the

request made by WIPCO for site—specific amendment of water

pollution regulations.

ORDER

The regulatory amendment requested by petition filed by

Western Illinois Power Cooperative,

Inc.

on October

24,

1985,

is

denied.

Section

41

of

the

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

ch.

111 1/2

Par.

1041,

provides for appeal

of

final orders of

the Board

in thirty—five

(35)

days.

The Rules

of

the Supreme Court

of Illinois establish filing

requirements.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

Board Members Jacob

D.

Dumelle and J.

Theodore Meyer

concurred.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above

Order was adopted

on

the

7~c~

day

of

~

,

1937,

by

a

vote

of

~—C2

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

82—353