ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 11, 1986
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
SITE—SPECIFIC RULEMAKING
)
R85—7
FOR CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT
)
COMPANY.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by R.
C.
Flemal):
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March
6,
1985, Central Illinois Light Company (“CILCO”)
filed
a petition for site—specific rulemaking with the Board.
Specifically, CILCO requests that
it be granted exception from
the total suspended solids
(“TSS”)
limitation of
35 Iii.
Adm.
Code 304.124(a)
and 304.104(a), which presently limit effluent
discharges from the ash pond at CILCO’s E.D.
Edwards Station
(“Station”)
to 15 milligrams per
liter
(mg/i)
of TSS
(STORET
number 00530)
as
a monthly average and
30 mg/i
as
a daily
maximum.
In place of these
limits, CILCO proposes that
it be
subject
to Best Practicable Technology
(“BPT”)
limitations
pursuant
to 40 CFR 423.12
(b)(4).
BPT specifies limits on TSS
discharges from ash ponds
to
30 mg/i
as
an average of daily
values
for
a calendar month and 100 mg/i as
a maximum
for any one
day.
Hearing was held in this matter
September
11,
1985,
at the
Peoria Public Library.
Testimony was presented by Mr.
Steven L.
Burns, Senior Water Pollution Control Engineer for CILCO, and Mr.
David Nott,
Instrument and Chemical Supervisor at the Station.
At hearing
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
reserved comment on CILCO’s proposal.
However, on
January 21,
1986,
the Agency filed
a recommendation that CILCO’s
petition be denied.
On February 19,
1986, CILCO filed comments
in response
to the Agency’s recommendation.
In its
recommendation the Agency raised issues not previously addressed
in the
record.
This action caused the Hearing Officer
in an
Order dated February 19, 1986,
to request
that the Agency and
CILCO further address these matters.
Responses
to the Hearing
Officer’s Order were filed by the Agency and by CILCO, both on
April
2,
1986.
No other comment on CILCO’s request have been
received by the Board, either
at hearing or
through filings.
The Illinois Department
of Energy and Natural Resources made
a “Negative Declaration”
of economic impact
in this matter on
December
5,
1985, noting that
the declaration
is appropriate
based
on the statutory criteria
in
Ill. Rev.
Stat.,
Ch. 92~’
par. 7404(d)(2)
(1985).
The Economic Technical Advisory
Committee concurred in this determination on December
6,
1985.
72-369
—2—
For the reason discussed below,
the Board declines
to grant
the regulatory change requested by CILCO.
CILCO’s petition will
therefore be denied.
OVERVIEW OF ARGUMENTS
CILCO contends that ash pond discharges such as
those of its
Station cannot consistently achieve the TSS limitations imposed
by Illinois regulations.
It argues
that a combination of
factors,
including high concentration of influent TSS and algal
growth within the pond,
frustrate all efforts
at attaining
compliance.
CILCO additionally believes
that BPT limitations are
achievable and are the most appropriate
from both environmental
and economic perspectives.
The Agency alternatively contends that
it
is the
limited
area and volume of the Station’s ash pond which causes
it to
fail
to consistently meet the Illinois standards.
The Agency states
that ash ponds at other facilities
in the State,
including those
which are subject to similar
influent compositions, do achieve
consistent compliance.
Although allowing that the requested
relief would be unlikely to pose any significant threat
to the
receiving stream,
the Agency concludes that CILCO has not carried
the burden of demonstrating that the
relief
is either necessary
or equitable.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
CILCO owns and operates
a steam—electric generating plant
known as
the E.D. Edwards Station located approximately five
miles south of Peoria,
Illinois,
at river mile 154.5 of the
Illinois River.
The station has three coal—fired electric
generating units
(1,
2,
&
3) with respective net capacities of
117 megawatts (“MW”),
266 MW,
and 361 MW.
Unit
1 was installed
in 1960, Unit
2
in 1968, and Unit
3
in 1972.
The three
units burn pulverized coal and produce ash as
a
by—product
of the coal combustion.
It
is estimated that 76
of
the
total
ash production
is fly ash collected by electrostatic
precipitators, 20
is bottom ash collected
in bottom ash hoppers,
and 4
is ash collected from economizers
(Ex.
18,
p.
3—15).
The
fly ash
is collected dry and stored
in silos
(R.
at 111—2).
Subsequently it may be trucked off site,
or
it may be mixed with
water
and sluiced
to the ash pond at issue
in this matter.
Both
the bottom ash and the economizer ash are collected wet and
sluiced directly to the ash pond.
All sluice water
is drawn from
the Illinois River.
The ash pond
in question is an 84—acre pond located on—
site.
In addition
to the combustion waste
ash, the pond also
receives small
amounts of coal pile runoff,
certain sump
discharges, and the discharge from a holding pond which itself
72-370
—3—
receives yard runoff
and sump discharges.
Excess water
from the
pond
is drawn off as an effluent at a standpipe structure located
on the east side of the pond and discharges through
a pipe
directly onto the Illinois River.
Effluent flows average 4.43
million gallons per day
(MGD)
and
reach
a maximum of
5.99 MGD
(Ex.
18,
P.
3—17).
The ash pond began operation
in 1960 and has been dredged
several times.
Dredged ash
is accumulated within
the confines of
the pond.
The ash pond serves
to reduce TSS
in the sluice and
runoff water
by the process of sedimentation, primarily in a
delta located along
the north and west sides of the pond.
In its
present configuration the pond
is asserted
to have
a retention
period of over
90 hours for approximately 90 percent
of the
sluice water
and
a breakthrough time of approximately
9 hours
(R.
at 19), as based on a retention time study conducted by CILCO
(Ex.
13).
Annual deposition
is approximately 50,000 cubic yards,
at which rate the pond
is projected
to be
filled by 1999
(R.
at
34).
PROBLEM
Effluent from the ash pond has not consistently met the
15
mg/i TSS monthly average limitation specified
in
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.124(a)
nor the 30 mg/l daily maximum limitation
specified
in
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 304.104(a).
Of 74 monthly
averages during
the period July,
1979,
through June,
1985,
27,
or
36
exceeded
15 mg/I
(Ex.
5).
For the same period,
16 of 303
analyses, or
5
of the total, have exceeded the
30 mg/i daily
maximum TSS concentration
(R.
at 17—18).
There
is no discernable
trend
in the number
of excursions
during the 1979—85 period
of record emphasized by CILCO
in its
presentation at hearing and submissions to the record
(Ex.
4 and
5),
in spite of the efforts undertaken by CILCO
to reduce
excursions
(see below).
However, the Agency notes that a
distinct increase
in the number of excursions
is discernable when
1974—79 data are compared with the 1979—85 data,
as shown
in
Exhibits
8
and
9
(Figures
3 and
4
of Petition).
The Agency
attributes
this increase
to a reduction
in volume and area of the
pond,
and
an attendant reduction
in settling opportunity.
CILCO
does note that there were two operational modifications at the
Station in
1979:
the plant switched to coal from a different
source, and the present pneumatic fly ash collection system was
put into operation
(R. at 87—88).
However, CILCO has
not
supplied supporting evidence to demonstrate how these operational
changes might have affected TSS
in the pond discharge nor has it
addressed the issue
of why during the earlier 1974—79 period the
ash pond appears to have functioned with minimal or no
excursions.
72.371
—4—
CILCO argues that it has attempted
to identify the cause(s)
of the more recent TSS excursions and has undertaken numerous
attempts
to correct the cause(s).
Among
the causes of excursions
CILCO cites high TSS levels
in the influent sluice water drawn
from the Illinois River
as
a major contributing factor
in almost
all cases
(R.
at 37, 59—62).
CILCO additionally contends,
and
is
supported by its consultants
(Ex.
14), that some of the influent
TSS consists of colloidal solids which cannot effectively be
removed by settling
or sedimentation
in the ash pond.
TSS concentrations have
in fact been higher
in the Illinois
River
than in the ash pond effluent
at all times when synchronous
samples were available, with Illinois River concentrations
typically exceeding those of the ash pond discharge by a factor
of approximately
5
(Ex. 10).
CILCO believes that the high TSS
levels
in the Illinois River
stem from a combination of factors,
including the large amount of barge traffic
in the river,
turbulence
from which inhibits settling of suspended materials;
the location of the Station downstream from the Peoria Lock and
Dam, which promotes local
turbulence
and which causes all of the
easily settleable particles to have been removed above the dam,
and the upstream entry of Farm and Kickapoo Creeks, both high TSS
streams
(R.
at 63).
Another regularly occurring causative factor
identified by
CILCO is the in—pond growth of algae.
CILCO argues that algae
naturally present
in the influent water propagate in the
clarified water
of the ash pond.
When discharged through the
pond outfall the algae
are detected
as suspended
solids
(R.
at
38—39).
CILCO estimates,
based
on
a study of the percent
volatiles in the effluent
(EX.
12), that approximately 30
of the
ash pond effluent TSS on the average consists of algae
(R.
at
41)
CILCO additionally examined each of the
77
(out of 303
total) daily concentrations over 15 mg/i for the period July,
1979,
through June,
1985, and
identified
the following causative
factors contributing
in part or
in total
to the recorded values
(Ex.
1):
algal blooms
in the ash pond
(8), inadequate retention
time
(14),
failure
of fly ash
to fully wet (10),
rapid ice melt
releasing entrapped ash particles (5), flooding
in the Illinois
River producing entrained colloids
in the influent sluice water
(7), boom malfunction
(13),
invalid sampling due
to contamination
of the sampling pipe
(5), river backup into the sampling pipe
(2),
high winds carrying ash particles over the outfall boom (4),
thermal i9version
in the ash pond (3), propwash from a survey
crew’s boat
(1), and various activities associated with
construction and dredging
(6).
72-372
—5—
COMPLIANCE EFFORTS AND ALTERNATIVES
Actions undertaken by CILCO to correct these causes include:
in 1979,
installation of
an outflow boom and two dredging
operations;
in 1980,
installation of an additional
boom,
modification of the outfall structure, lengthening of the ash
sluice line,
and two additional dredging operations;
in 1981,
installation of
a diversion boom to reduce floating particles and
further dredging;
in 1982,
repair
of
the boom system and
additional dredging;
in 1983, dredging;
in 1984, further
repair
and modification of the boom system and additional dredging;
in
1985, additional dredging
(Ex. 2).
In addition to
increasing
pond capacity, dredging operations, which usually have been
conducted twice each year,
have also focused on construction of
channelways
and “pond—within—pond”
structures
to increase both
retention and settling time
(R.
at 31—33).
Several boom
configurations have been utilized, with the present and
apparently most successful consisting
of three separate booms
in
combination with
a silt curtain and float collar.
CILCO contends that the various surveys and corrective
activities undertaken through mid—1985 on the ash pond and
its
outfall structure have cost approximately $486,700.00
(R. at 18),
and are still not adequate
to assure that the ash pond effluent
will consistently meet
the 15/30 mg/i standards.
CILCO further
contends that there
is little assurance that additional
remedial
actions
undertaken to the ash pond and/or its outfall
structure
will reduce
the TSS
in the effluent to comply with
the 15/30 mg/i
limits
(R.
at 59).
As alternative compliance programs, CILCO has considered
a
physiochemical treatment program, expansion of the present pond,
and partial
or complete abandonment of the ash pond
in favor of
an alternative ash disposal system.
The physiochemical treatment
process investigated consists of chemical coagulation,
flocculation,
and precipitation followed by filtration.
CILCO’s
engineering consultant,
with CILCO’s concurrence
(R.
at 59),
believes that physiochernical treatment
is the only method by
which
the frequency of TSS effluent excursions beyond the present
standards could be
further decreased
(Ex.
14).
However based
on
a
1983 consultant’s report CILCO contends that such
a system
is
unreasonably expensive.
Estimated capital expenditure
in 1985
dollars
is $4,610,000
(R.
at 20), with first year operation and
maintenance costs of $204,000; CILCO contends that the operating
cost alone
is approximately 17 percent of the entire 1985
operation and maintenance budget for all pollution control
programs at the Station
(R.
at 20).
The total expense equates to
a levelized annual cost of $550,000
(1985 dollars)
over the
twenty—five year
life span of the system
(R.
at 20).
72-373
—6—
CILCO has considered
and rejected the alternative of
development of a new or enlarged on—site ash pond.
CILCO argues
that there
is presently insufficient land available on the
grounds of the Station
(R. at 61).
Moreover,
recent construction
of a similar pond
at CILCO’s Duck Creek Generating Station
is
asserted
to have cost $11 million, exclusive of land acquisition
(R.
at 61).
Finally, CILCO believes that the present Illinois
TSS limitations could not be met with a new or enlarged pond
(R.
at 60).
CILCO has considered several alternatives to on—site
disposal of
its waste ash.
Among these
are active marketing and
sale of the waste
ash, giving away the waste ash, and landfilling
part or all of the ash.
Some sale and/or give—away of ash
presently occurs, but not
at a rate sufficient to accommodate
the
volumes of ash which are produced.
CILCO has indicated a desire
to increase this method
of ash disposal
(R.
at 36), but has not
placed on record an evaluation of possible success.
Landfilling of
the ash, assuming
a suitable site could be
found or developed,
is estimated by CILCO to cost roughly $10
to
$14 per
ton
(R.
at 62), which would
involve an annual cost
generally comparable to physiochemical treatment.
If only the
fly ash were
to be landfilled
and the bottom continued
to be
disposed
in the ash pond, CILCO believes that the effluent would
still exceed
standards due
to the high content of influent TSS
and algal growth within the pond
(R.
at 62).
FEDERAL GUIDELINES
TSS limitations for effluent from ash ponds are more
stringent under Illinois law than under federal BPT guidelines.
Specifically, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(“USEPA”)
has promulgated BPT ash pond effluent limitations,
set
forth
in 47 Fed.
Reg. 52,290
(November 19, 1982)
(codified
in 40
CFR 423.l2(b)(4)), specifying that the avera.ge daily TSS for
thirty consecutive days shall not exceed
30 mg/i and that the
maximum for any one day shall not exceed 100 mg/l;
it
is this
level of limitation that is requested by CILCO.
The BPT
guidelines were established after USEPA studied fuel types,
equipment, age and size of plants, water usage, and waste water
constituents involved
in the steam electric power
industry.
The
USEPA additionally considered
the type, performance, and cost of
control and treatment technologies available for potential use
in
this industry.
In contrast, the Illinois standards are based upon accepted
performance levels
for removing suspended solids in industrial
waste streams in general.
CILCO contends that the USEPA’s
concentration limits are much more reflective of the nature of,
conditions experienced by,
and control and treatment technologies
72.374
—7—
available
to,
the steam electric power
industry than are those
contained
in the Illinois regulations.
The Agency argues
to
the contrary.
Specifically,
the Agency
asserts that the steam electric generating industry generally is
capable of complying with
the Illinois limitations as based on
actual compliance records.
Specifically, the Agency notes
that,
in a review of its permit and compliance
files,
it found no
examples of power plant ash ponds which were incapable of
achieving consistent compliance with the applicable effluent
limits for TSS
(Agency Response
to Hearing Officer Order,
p.
4).
The Agency additionally asserts, that the “USEPA’s BPT
levels are the minimum effluent limitations which the Agency can
enforce within its NPDES permitting authority”
(Reponse
to
Hearing Officer Order,
p.
9; emphasis
in original),
and hence are
not necessarily identical
in purpose
to the Illinois standards.
The Agency further notes that the USEPA has not yet proceeded
beyond
its BPT guidelines to
the next step of promulgating Best
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (“BCT”).
Given these
circumstances, the Agency argues that CILCO bears the obligation
of demonstrating that the federal guidelines are more appropriate
than the State standard, an obligation which the Agency asserts
has not been met.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
CILCO contends that
its present ash pond discharge has no
adverse environmental impact on the receiving stream, the
Illinois River
(R.
at 64).
It points out that the reach of river
adjacent
to the plant
is a very productive fishery for
shad and
freshwater
drum,
and that many fishermen utilize the stream,
particularly congregating around the condensor discharge
structure and below the ash pond discharge
(R.
at 64).
CILCO
further contends that if
30 mg/i monthly average and 100 mg/i
daily maximum standards were
in place, the TSS discharge from the
ash pond would
still normally be below that of the river,
and
hence that the ash pond effluent would continue
to
be cleaner
than the water of the
Illinois River
(R.
at 65).
The Agency agrees that the requested relief would be
unlikely to pose any significant threat
to the receiving stream
water quality,
noting
that the discharge is
to a relatively
turbid stretch of
a major river
(Rec.
p.5).
CONCLUSIONS
The Board
finds it difficult to give weight
to CILCO’s
contention that the elevated TSS levels
in
its effluent are
attributable
in major part to elevated levels
in the influent
water.
Admittedly,
the waters of the Illinois River are often
turbid, and TSS concentrations of several hundreds of milligrams
72-375
—8—
per liter
are not uncommon.
However,
in the sluicing process
employed by CILCO this influent water
is mixed with large volumes
of ash, thereby increasing
its TSS concentration
to very much
higher levels than those of the raw influent water.
It
is at
this stage, after CILCO has received the water,
that the water
achieves its maximum concentration of TSS, and
it
is this highly
charged sluiced water which
is required
to be cleansed
to the
point of becoming
an acceptable effluent.
It
is inescapable that
even
if CILCO had available
to
it an influent which was totally
devoid
of TSS,
it would
still be required
to operate an ash pond
which would function
to
a high degree of efficiency to remove the
sluiced
ash.
Moreover,
it
is undemonstrated by CILCO that the
non—organic TSS which occur
in the effluent consist of the
same
solids which where derived from the river, as opposed to solids
which were added
as
a consequence of using
the water
to sluice
ash.
The Board believes that CILCO has failed
to adequately
address why the ash pond was capable of performing
to standard
in
the past, but
is apparently incapabale of doing
so now.
If,
indeed,
it
is the character of the influent water which
is
responsible for the present excursions,
it would seem that
similar excursions would have occurred
in the past;
there
is no
reason to believe, nor
is
it contended, that the character of the
influent water has altered
to a state which now causes higher
excursion levels.
The Agency has expressed
the belief that the fundamental
cause of the present excursions
is that the ash pond
is too full
to provide the necessary settling opportunity.
CILCO has
countered only with assertions that plant modifications and/or
increases
in the level
of TSS
in the influent water
are possible
causative factors.
While
the record does not allow the Board
to
determine which
of these perspectives
is correct, we do note that
CILCO has
failed
to counter
the arguments of the Agency.
The Board similarly believes that CILCO has failed
to
adequately address the
issue of equitable and fair treatment.
The Agency contention that the electric stream generation
industry
in Illinois can and does comply with existing TSS
standards at facilities
other than the Station has not been
refuted.
The Board believes that,
in the absence of evidence
to
the contrary, granting
of the requested relief
to CILCO could
conflict with the goals of equitable and
fair treatment.
Finally, the Board
notes that CILCO has not demonstrated
that compliance is technically infeasible.
Compliance was
clearly feasible at the Station between 1974
and 1979,
and
it is
unrefuted that other electrical generating facilities
in Illinois
are presently able
to maintain ash ponds
in compliance with
Illinois regulations.
Similarly,
CILCO has not made a
demonstration that compliance
is economically unreasonable.
72-376
—9—
Again,
other facilities have achieved
compliance, and CILCO has
not demonstrated any special conditions existent at the Station
which would allow the Board
to determine
that the Station
is
in
an economic position distinct from these facilities.
In view of the above considerations, the Board determines
that the site—specific relief requested by CILCO must be denied.
ORDER
The March
6,
1985, petition for site—specific exception to
effluent standards
for Central
Illinois Light Company
is hereby
denied.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members Jacob D.
Dumelle and Bill Forcade concurred.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the abçwe Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
//t7~
day of
~
~
,
1986, by a vote
of
~,-o
~
~.
Dorothy
M.
Gu’nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
72.377
