ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 9,
1986
ELECTRIC ENERGY,
INC.
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—171
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before
the Board upon a petition for
variance filed October
31,
1985 by Electric Energy,
Inc.
(Electric) from the
2 mg/i
total iron and 6—9 pH effluent
limitations located
at
35
Ill. Adm. Code 304.124 and 304.125,
respectively,
for
its discharge
at outfall 010 until December
31,
1986 or until
new facilities
are completed and operating.
Hearing was waived and none was held.
The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(Agency) filed
its recommendation to deny on
February
13,
1986.
On February 19, Electric filed a response
containing some new information.
In response
to
a March
14, 1986
Board Order,
Electric filed
a supporting affidavit for the new
material
in
its response, which
the Board construes as an amended
petition.
The Agency filed an amended recommendation on April
9,
1986.
The Agency recommended denial
based on its conclusion
that
the requested plan was not consistent with Federal
law.
A permit
appeal proceeding
(PCB 85—14)
involving like
issues
at Electric~s
Joppa,
Illinois plant was stayed until February 6, 1986 by Board
Order
dated October 10,
1985.
Electric operates
a
six unit coal fired
steam electric
generating station, at Joppa, Massac County,
Illinois with
a
total
capacity of 1086 megawatts
(gross).
It discharges
to the
Ohio River pursuant
to NPDES Permit No.
IL 0004171.
The station
supplies bulk electricity
to many customers.
Electric employs
about
325 people at this Station.
At the plant wastewater from several low volume sources are
collected in a settling lagoon.
The sources include coal reclaim
sump pit and dumper drains,
floor drains from the crusher houses,
north water
treat plant and the main plant,
and the bottom ash
hopper overflow.
In its variance petition, Electric classified
another wastewater
source, coal pile runoff,
as
a low volume
waste source
(Pet
at
2).
For reasons discussed later,
this was
in error.
69.380
2
Settling lagoon effluent
is then discharged at outfall
010
to the condenser cooling water
intake bay.
The cooling water
bay,
or
intake channel,
is located between the condenser cooling
water
intake structure and the north bank of
the Ohio River.
The
cooling water bay connects the intake structure to the Ohio River
so that sufficient water may be withdrawn from the river
to
condense the expended steam from the steam turbines.
The heated
water
is then returned through a separate discharge channel to
the Ohio River
at outfall
006—007, downstream of the intake
channel.
Electric requests
a variance for outfall
010 where
the
settling lagoon effluent is discharged
to the cooling water
bay.
Electric lists
the pH range
for the settling
lagoon
discharge
(010)
as 3.22
to 8.28 during the period September 1983
to September 1985 with
an average
of
4.75.
Total iron monthly
average measurements between February and September 1985 are as
follows
(Pet.
at
4,
Ag.
Rec.
At 3):
February 1985
4.3 mg/i
March
1985
1.6 mg/i
April
1985
0.7 mg/i
May 1985
1.72 mg/I
June
1985
1.78 mg/i
July 1985
0.6
rng/l
August 1985
1.06 mg/l
September 1985
0.7 mg/l
The data show violations of the pH effluent limitation.
While
the Agency asserts
that only one violation
of
the iron limitation
occurred
in eight months and that relief
is unnecessary
(Ag. Rec
at
4), the Board disagrees with
this assertion.
One violation
in
eight out of the twelve months coupled with
the sparcity of iron
effluent data could support
a request
for variance from the iron
limitation,
especially for
a short variance period.
In
its
response, Electric furnished the Board
with past
metals concentrations at lagoon outfall 010 and others (Response,
see Attachments).
Some monthly average iron concentrations at
outfall 010 are listed
as
1.97,
1.88,
4.40 and 1.2 mg/i for
November
1976, October 1979, April
1980 and October
1980,
respectively (Electric letter 1—14—81 and graphs).
The data
is
not overly helpful because of the infrequency of measurement and
the lack of flow and production data.
If such data had been
included,
the Board
could then determine whether
such values were
representative of the time and whether they could be compared
to
present values.
Before discussing Electric’s proposal and other
alternatives
for compliance,
two issues need
to be addressed.
The answers
will decide what pollution control plan(s)
should be
followed
to
69.381
3
comply with the pH and iron limitations.
The two issues are as
follows:
1)
Is
a cooling water intake bay
a water
of the state;
and
2)
Pursuant to 40 CFR 423.l2(b)(l2) and 423.12(b)(l),
whether
the 010 lagoon discharge, which includes acidic
coal pile runoff,
should
be treated before mixture with
once through cooling water.
Water
of the State
The Board has previously indicated to the present parties
in
the companion permit appeal, PCB 85—14,
that “if
a re—routing of
the settling lagoon discharge from the cooling water bay
to the
condenser inlet structure
is designed
to create
a totally
enclosed system,
the Board would agree
that the discharge
to
a
water of the state
issue would
be eliminated.”
PCB
85—14,
September
20,
1985 Order.
The Order
in that case did not have
to squarely address the issue
of whether the cooling water bay
is
a water
of
the state.
The Board does
so today.
The Clean Water Act
(CWA)
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
and the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
1111/2, par.
1001
et
seq.)
and
the regulations
thereunder provide
a framework to control water pollution.
Discharges of pollutants
are prohibited unless permitted pursuant
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
(33 U.S.C.
1342).
This system
is applicable to the State of
Illinois through Sections
11 and
12
of
the Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1985,
ch.
1111/2,
pars.
lOll,
1012).
Through this regulatory
framework
a system of water quality and effluent standards was
established pursuant
to CWA Sections 303 and 301, respectively
(33 U.S.C 1313,
1311).
The effluent standards are
limitations on
sources which are imposed so that
a stream may achieve the water
quality standards
(WQS), which
are the goals
for
a certain
stream.
The goals, or WQS, were set
to protect the use desired
of
a stream.
The water pollution regulatory framework
is applicable
to
all waters of the state.
The Act defines waters
as
“all
accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural,
arid
artificial, public and private,
or parts therof, which are wholly
or partially within,
flow through,
or border upon this State.”
(Act, par.
1003 (oo)).
The definition of waters at 35 Iii. Mm.
Code 301.440 echoes
the Act definition but excludes
treatment
works and sewers, which are regulated elsewhere.
The sewer
exception
is inapplicable
to the cooling water
bay.
One could
assert that the bay
is a treatment works, which
is defined at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 301.415:
69.382
4
Treatment
Works:
Individually
or
collectively
those
constructions
or
devices
(except
sewers,
and except constructions
or devices used for the
pretreatment
of
wastewater
prior
to
its
introduction
into
pubicly
owned
or
regulated
treatment works)
used
for
collecting,
pumping,
treating,
or disposing of wastewaters or for
the
recovery of byproducts from such wastewater.
The bay
is neither
a construction nor
a device,
therefore
it
is
not
a treatment works.
The bay does not fall under
either
exception.
Electric asserts that the bay
is not
a water
of
the
state
because very little discharge from lagoon outfall 010 would ever
reach
the Ohio river.
As Electric states
in its petition:
(finally,
the
rate
of discharge from outfall
010
to the cooling water bay
is only 3,475,000
gpd on
a
daily average while
the water
intake
rate
into
the
condenser
cooling
system
is
fully
505,985,000
gpd
on
a
daily
average.
This
difference
in
flow
rates
causes
the
direction
of
flow
to
be
toward
the condenser
cooling
system
intake
structure
arid away
from
the
Ohio
River.
Very
little,
if
any,
discharge
from
the se~ttling lagoon
will
ever
flow
directly
through
the
bay
to
the
Ohio
River.
See
also
Exhibit
B,
paragraph
21.
Pet.
at 10).
The rate of
flows involved, however,
support the classification
of
the cooling water bay as
a water of the state.
The effect of
this system of flows
is to cause Ohio River water
to continually
flow into the cooling water
intake bay so as
to provide
sufficient water
“to condense the
‘expended’
steam from the steam
generator turbines.”
(Exh.
B to pet.,
par.
21).
The cooling
water bay
is
an extension of the river proper:
the bay
is
physically continuous with the Ohio River,
its water
level rises
and falls with that of the Ohio River,
and
it contains no
obstructions
to the movement of
biota from the Ohio River
(Exh.
B
to the Petition,
par.
19).
The
Board.., for the above reasons,
finds
the cooling water
intake bay
to be
a water
of the state.
Interpretation of
40 CFR 423.12(b)
Electric relies
on
a 1977 stipulation with USEPA and
contends that commingling the lagoon effluent, which includes
acid coal pile runoff, with
the alkaline once through cooling
69-383
5
water
is permitted
for pH control under
40 CFR 423.12(b)(l) and
(12).
The Agency argues that
in 1977,
at the time of the
stipulation, Subpart D of Part 423 did not mention combining
waste
streams and that in 1982 the regulations were amended
(Ag.
Rec..
at
7;
47 Fed.
Reg.
52290)..
Therefore,
the Agency argues
that the lagoon effluent
(010) must be treated prior
to admixture
with the once through cooling water
for
pH control.
Section 423.12 of
40 CFR establishes effluent limitation
guidelines representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by
the use of the best practicable control technology
currently available
(BT)
for
the steam electric power generating
point source category.
Subsection
(b)
(9) regulates coal pile
runoff discharges.
Subsection(b)(l)
provides that “the
pH of
all discharges,
except once through cooling water,
shall
be
within the range
of
6.0_9.O.tt
Subsection(b)(12) provides:
In
the
event
that
waste
streams
from various
sources
are
combined
for
treatment
or
discharge,
the
quantity
of
each pollutant
or
pollutant
property
controlled
in
paragraphs
(b)(l)
through
(11)
of
this
section
attributable
to
each
controlled
waste
source
shall
not exceed
the specified limitations for
that waste source.
At Electric’s Joppa plant, various low volume waste sources
and coal pile runoff combine
in the lagoon and are discharged at
outfall
010.
Electric asserts that it may commingle its combined
wastestreams from lagoon outfall 010 with the once through
cooling water before any pH treatment.
In this manner,
the pH of
both wastestreams would neutralize,
any metals from the lagoon
effluent would precipitate out,
and pH treatment would be
unnecessary.
Electric relies on a USEPA letter dated October
18,
1985
(Attached
to Ag.
Rec) to support its commingling assertions,
but its reliance
is misplaced.
The pertinent portion of the
letter
states:
The
pH limitation
per
Part
423
applies
at the
“end-of—pipe” discharge
to surface waters when
the
wastewater
discharge
contains
low volume
wastewater
that
is
commingled
with
once-
through cooling water.
However,
the intent of
Part
423
is
also
that
the
total
suspended
solids
and
oil
and
grease
limitations
applicable
to
low
volume
waste
streams
be
applied
to
the
low volume
waste
component
of
such
a combined discharge prior
to commingling
of the
individual waste streams.
69.384
6
What the letter does not say
is that when there are combined
wastestreams which include
coal pile runoff, pH
is
to be
controlled
at the end—of—the-pipe.
The
letter speaks only
of low
volume wastestreains
to be commingled with once through cooling
water.
There
is
no support
for the conclusion that where
only- low
volume wastestreams are involved, the pH effluent limitation may
be met after commingling with once through cooling water.
Either
the pH limitation applies at the end-of—pipe
for all wastes treams
or
at each point source,
such
as coal pile runoff,
before
commingling with once through cooling water.
Subsection 423.12(b) regulates many different types
of
discharges, including low volume, fly and bottom ash and metal
cleaning wastestreams.
Effluent
limitations as specified in
paragraphs
(3),
(4)
and
(5)
for example are applied at the point
of discharge
of that pollutant before commingling with once
through cooling water.
Paragraph
(9) regulates total suspended
solids
(TSS)
from coal pile runoff
“point source discharges.”
The point source discharge
for the coal pile runoff
in 40 CFR
423.l2(b)(9)
is lagoon outfall
010.
Looking
at
the individual wastestreams,
the effluent
limitations
are applied
before commingling with once through
cooling water.
This exemption from pH treatment for once through
cooling water
(40 CFR 423.12(b)(1))
should not be read broadly
where
there
are combined wastestreams.
A literal and limited
construction, which
the Board endorses, would exempt
a discharger
from regulating
the PH of once through cooling water when such
water
is the only discharge.
In the case of
combined discharges,
however,
the Board construes
the regulation
to require pH
treatment
of the other discharges before commingling with the
once through cooling water.
The Board
finds that the pH limitation of
40 CFR
423.l2(b)(l) applies
to the combined wastestreams
of lagoon
outfall
010 effluent, which effluent
includes both coal pile
runoff and low volume wastestreams,
before commingling with once
through cooling water.
The Proposal
and Alternatives
Electric sets forth
its proposal
to comply with the
2 mg/i
total
iron and 6-9
pH effluent limitations.
Electric proposes
to
eliminate the lagoon discharge
at outfall 010
to the cooling
water bay by extending and physically connecting
the settling
lagoon discharge pipe
to the intake structure of the condenser
cooling system.
The actual construction details are Set forth
in
paragraphs
4 through
8 of
the Exhibit
A.
The compliance schedule
has been amended by paragraph
25
of Exhibit
B and
is
to be
attained by December
31,
1986.
The cost
is approximately $63,000
69.385
7
arid would
reduce one years net
income by 4 percent before
depreciation, with no operating expense
(Ag. Rec. at
8).
Based
on the Board’s findings and interpretations
above,
the
proposal would
be insufficient for compliance with the pH and
iron effluent
limitations.
The proposal would eliminate the
discharge
to water of the state:
it would not solve
the conflict
with
40 CFR 423.12(b).
Other alternative control systems are
examined below.
One alternative would
be
to pump the generally acidic
settling lagoon effluent
to the generally alkaline ash pond
(Pet.
at
6).
As
a consequence, metals would precipitate out
in the ash
pond.
A multiple pump installation would be required as well
as
corrosion resistant materials for the pipes
and pumps.
This
alternative would end the discharge
to the cooling water
bay and
would also treat
the lagoon effluent
in the ash pond for pH
before discharge
in compliance with 40 CFR 423.l2(b)(l).
Capital
cost would
be $174,300 and the annual operating cost would be
$37,000.
No annual maintenance cost
is presented.
It would
reduce one year’s net income by 12 percent before depreciation
and increase annual operating costs by 0.02 percent
(Ag. Rec.
at
8).
The second alternative would involve
the addition of
lime on
a continous basis
to
the settling lagoon
to raise
its pH, thereby
causing
iron and other metals
to precipitate out.
This
alternative also would bring Electric into compliance.
The
alternative would include
a packaged facility capable
of
receiving, mixing,
and metering the addition of the lime.
Electric estimates the capital cost
of this compliance
alternative
to be at least $158,000 and an annual operating cost
of $116,000 excluding maintenance
costs.
It would reduce one
years net income by 8 percent before depreciation and increase
annual operating costs
by 0.1 percent
(Ag.
Rec.
at
8).
A third alternative would involve the use of a tarp or dome
to shield
the
10 acre, 500,000
ton coal pile from rainfall.
Electric estimates this alternative
to cost
in the millions
of
dollars.
This alternative as well
as
a fourth alternative,
derating or shutting down the plant,
appear unnecessary and
ineffective according to the Agency
(Ag. Rec.
at
6).
Environmental Impact
The general use total iron water quality standard
(WQS)
of
35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.208
is applicable to the Ohio River and
is
1 mg/l.
The water quality of the Ohio River consistently exceeds
2 mg/i total iron
(data from Electric as well
as
the Agency: Pet.
at
9, Response at
4;
Ag.
Rec.
at
4).
In fact,
total
iron water
quality ranges from 2.27
to 6.63 mg/i
at river mile 952.3
at
Electric’s plant
and from 3.9
to 5.3 mg/i at Lock and Dam 53
69.386
8
downstream of Electric.
The total iron water quality ranges from
3.9
to 5.3 mg/i where
the Ohio River flow is approximately
530,000
to 662,000 cubic
feet per second.
Id.
Because
of the existing violations of the general use WQS
for total
iron in the Ohio River already upstream of the plant,
the
total iron contribution of Electric would
be minimal
if the
lagoon outfall 010 discharge were allowed
to continue until
December
31, 1986.
Thereafter,
the 010 discharge and its effect
on the Ohio River would be.terminated under either
the pump or
lime addition alternatives.
In addition, the Agency contends that any heavy metals from
the discharge will precipitate
in the cooling water and be
discharged
to the Ohio River.
The Agency points out that
treating for pH before any mixing occurs will
cause the metals
to
precipitate
on Electric’s property (Agency Rec.
at
7).
Electric
counters by saying that the metal content
of the 010 discharge
are “far below the limitations specified
in Section 304.124”
(Response
to Agency Rec.
at
4).
The Board. believes that
treatment
is
the superior alternative.
Hardship
Electric argues that immediate compliance with
the iron and
pH limitations essentially would impose an arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship upon
it by not only subjecting
it
to
penalties (Pet. at 10,11)
but by
causing cessation of plant
operations
(Pet.
at
11).
Electric asserts hardship because
it originally rerouted the
settling lagoon discharge
to the cooling water bay under a 1977
USEPA agreement.
Under
the agreement
it was understood that
neutralization with the cooling water
in the bay would be
acceptable.
Now the agreement,
is
no longer acceptable to the
Agency
(Pet. at 11).
The Board
notes that the applicable
regulations did change since
the 1977 agreement and that the
Agency
is
responding
to these changes.
While the Agency has recommended denial
of the variance,
the
Board believes the better posture
is
to grant a variance from the
pH and total
iron effluent limitations until December 31, 1986
and
to amend
the compliance plan by ordering implementation of
another
record—supported compliance option while retaining the
original compliance timetable.
Should Electric believe that
either
the plan
or the timetable
is infeasible
or unduly onerous,
Electric may move for reconsideration to present any prefered
modifications.
The Board will impose
as
a condition
of this variance that
Electric move forward with
a multiple pump installation with
corrosion
resistant materials
to enable
it
to eliminate lagoon
69-387
9
outfall
010
by pumping
the effluent to the ash pond, where
neutralization and metal precipitation
is expected
to occur.
The
schedule
in Exhibit B of
the petition, paragraph
23 will
be the
construction timetable.
The interim pH range shall
be 3.2
to
9
as requested
by Electric,
and fully supported by the record.
The
requested total
iron interim limit
of 8.6 mg/i
(Pet.
at 12) has
no support
in the record.
The highest total
iron limit in the
record for lagoon outfall 010
is 4.40 (Response, Attachment
1,
April
1980),
which shall
be the interim limit.
This Opinion concludes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Electric Energy,
Inc.
is granted
a variance
from the
2 mg/i
total
iron and 6—9 pH effluent limitations
of
35
Ill. Mm.
Code
304.124 and 304.125, respectively,
for its settling lagoon
discharge at NPDES outfall 010 at its Joppa, .Illinois plant
subject
to the following conditions:
1.
This variance begins on January 31, 1986 and expires on
December
31, 1986.
2.
During the variance period,
the settling lagoon effluent
at NPDES outfall
010 shall not be less than
a pH of 3.2
or more than
a pH of
9.0.
3.
During
the variance period,
the settling lagoon effluent
at NPDES outfall 010 shall
not exceed 4.40
nig/l
total
iron.
4.
Electric shall install and operate
a multiple pump
system,
including pumps and piping, consisting
of
corrosion resistant materials,
to enable the pumping of
the settling lagoon effluent including the coal pile
runoff at NPDES outfall 010
to the ash pond.
Such
a
multiple system shall
be capable of operating
efficiently both during normal
lagoon flow of
approximately and during high flows.
5.
The installation and operation
of
the multiple pump
system described
in paragraph
4
shall be according
to
the following timetable:
a)
Engineering completed and permit application
to
Agency by:
June
9,
1986.
b)
Construction completed,
facilities
in place
and
operational:
December
31,
1986.
69.388
10
6.
The Agency shall
issue
a modified NPDES permit pursuant
to 35 Ill.Adm.Code Sections 309.184 and 309.154 which
is
consistent with this Opinion and Order.
7.
Within 45 days
of the date of this Order,
Electric shall
execute and forward
to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Compliance Assurance Unit, Water
Pollution Control Division, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois 62706,
and to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board,
a Certification of Acceptance
and Agreement
to be bound
to all
terms and conditions
set forth
in the Order.
The 45 day period
shall
be held
in abeyance during the period
in which this matter is
being appealed.
The form shall
be
as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We), _______________________________,
hereby accept(s)
and agree(s)
to
be bound by the above
terms and conditions
of
the
Order
of
the Pollution Control Board
in PCB 85—171 dated
March
27, 1986.
Petitioner
Titie
Date
By:
Authorized Agent
IT
IS SO ORDERED
I,
Dorothy
M. Gum, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on the
9~-~
day of
________________,
1986,
by
a vote
of
__________________.
/
~.
~
~rothy
M. Gum,
Clerk
Iliinois Pollution Control Board
69-389
