RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR
CLERK'S OFFICE
D
JAN 0 6 2006
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK and
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
SIERRA CLUB
)
Petitioners
)
v .
)
PCB 06 -
)
(NPDES Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING )
COMPANY, LLC
)
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club have filed the
attached PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE .
DATED: January 6, 2006
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-673-6500
Albert F . Ettinger
(Reg. No. 3125045)
Counsel for Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club
RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK'S OFFICE
JAN 0 6 2006
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK and
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SIERRA CLUB
)
Pollution Control Board
Petitioners
)
v .
)
PCB 06 -
I
(NPDES Permi Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )
AGENCY and PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING
)
COMPANY, LLC
)
Respondents
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Pursuant to Section 101 .400 of the Board's Procedural Rules, Albert F . Ettinger and
Richard H. Acker hereby give notice of their appearance as counsel for petitioners in the above-
captioned matter.
Albert
. Ettinger
(Reg. No. 3125045)
~ A.
of&---
Richard H. Acker
(Reg. No. 6271838)
DATED: January 6, 2006
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-673-6500
RECEIVED
CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JAN 0 6 2006
STATE
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK and
)
OF It
Pollution Control ol Board
SIERRA CLUB
)
Petitioners
)
v .
)
PCB 06 -
(NPDES P
nit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING
)
COMPANY, LLC
)
Respondents
)
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Pursuant to 415 ILCS § 5/40(e)(1) and 35 Ill . Adm. Code § 105, Prairie Rivers Network
and the Sierra Club (collectively, "Petitioners") hereby petition for review of the December 5,
2005 decision of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA") to grant a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit (Permit No . 1L0076996) to Prairie
State Generating Company to discharge pollutants into the Kaskaskia River, Mud Creek, and
unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek .
In support of their petition, Petitioners state :
Petitioners
1 .
Prairie Rivers Network is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation concerned with
river conservation and water quality issues in Illinois . It works with concerned citizens
throughout the state to address those issues that impact Illinois streams . Prairie Rivers Network
members live in the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek watersheds and are concerned with
pollution that would affect their ability to safely drink water in the area and enjoy recreational
activities dependent on the ecological health of the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek including
fishing, boating, canoeing, nature study and hiking. Prairie Rivers Network members are
adversely affected by pollution discharged into the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek and other
downstream waters. (See Ex. A, Tr. 32-39 and Ex. C, Post-Hearing Comments of Prairie Rivers
Network, June 10, 2005)
2 .
The Sierra Club is a California not-for-profit corporation, which has among its
purposes to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment . The Sierra
Club has over 20,000 members residing in the State of Illinois . Sierra Club members live in the
Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek watersheds and many Sierra Club members are concerned with
pollution that would affect their ability to safely drink water in the area and enjoy recreation
activities dependent on the ecological health of the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek including
fishing, boating, canoeing, nature study and hiking . Sierra Club members are adversely affected
by pollution discharged into the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek and other downstream waters .
(See Ex. B Tr. 60-69, 88-93, 105-07 and Ex . D, Post-Hearing Comments of Sierra Club, June 10,
2005)
3
.
Members of the Petitioners, including Kathy Andria, Bruce Nilles, Jack Norman,
Verena Owen, Cynthia Skrukrud, Ph.D, Beth Wentzel, and Dale Wojtkowski appeared at the
hearing held in this proceeding and/or submitted comments in opposition to the permit . They and
other members of Petitioners are so situated as to be affected by pollution in the Kaskaskia River
and Mud Creek. (Exhibits A - D) .
The Prairie State Plant and the Kaskaskia River
4 .
The Prairie State Generating Company (Peabody Energy Company) plant will
discharge an average of 1 .7 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater to the Kaskaskia River .
2
In addition, overflow discharges during 10-year 24-hour storm events will occur into Mud Creek
and unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek. The Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek are general use
waters of the state
.
5 .
Public drinking water supplies for the towns of Sparta and Evansville draw water
from the Kaskaskia River downstream from the proposed discharge . Numerous recreational
activities, including canoeing, swimming, and other activities that could bring people in contact
with water from the Kaskaskia River occur downstream of the proposed discharge . Parks and
other public places are located downstream of the proposed discharge, such as portions of the
Kaskaskia River State Fish & Wildlife Area .
Statement of Issues Raised
6 .
On March 25, 2005, IEPA gave notice that it had made a tentative decision to
grant an NPDES permit to the Prairie State Generation Company to discharge into the Kaskaskia
River, Mud Creek, and unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek . After reviewing a copy of the draft
permit, Petitioners commented through testimony given at a public hearing held on the draft
permit on May 11, 2005 in Marissa, Illinois. (See Exs. A and B) Petitioners further commented
on the permit with written comments. (See Exs. C and D)
7 .
In those comments and that testimony, Petitioners raised legal and scientific
issues regarding flaws in the draft permit and in IEPA's consideration of the draft permit
including that :
a .
The draft permit allowed discharges of harmful chlorinated organics that
will impair existing and designated uses of the Kaskaskia River and lead to
concentrations of contaminants hazardous to human health . The draft permit also failed
to monitor these chemicals adequately
.
3
b .
The draft permit allowed stormwater discharges before a stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is even prepared, much less implemented .
c .
The tentative determination, fact sheet, and draft permit did not contain or
give notice of necessary effluent limitations for the proposed discharge of stormwater
.
The draft permit allowed a proposed discharge pursuant to a SWPPP that had not been
reviewed by IEPA and on which the public was not given an opportunity to comment
.
d .
In setting effluent limits, the draft permit relied on assumptions related to
minimum flows of the Kaskaskia River that failed to consider water withdrawals between
the Venedy station gauge and outfall 001
.
8 .
On December 5, 2005, Illinois EPA issued the permit that is subject to the current
appeal. (Ex. E) The final permit, while addressing some problems raised during the comment
period, did not remedy the flaws discussed above that were raised by Petitioners in oral
comments at the hearing and written comments made after the hearing
.
9 .
There is reasonable potential that discharge of harmful chlorinated organics from
the proposed facility will impair existing and designated uses of the Kaskaskia River as a public
water supply and a waterbody that provides primary contact and recreational uses. There is also
a reasonable potential that discharge of harmful chlorinated organics from the proposed facility
will lead to concentrations of contaminants hazardous to human health
.
10 .
The applicant proposes to use chlorine as a biocide in the cooling water to control
slime growth. Chlorine combines with natural organic matter to produce disinfection byproducts,
including numerous Total Organic Halogens (TOX), some of which are carcinogenic and have
been shown to cause other harmful health effects . Emerging evidence shows that chlorination
byproducts in tap water cause bladder cancer and are also linked to miscarriages, birth defects,
4
rectal and colon cancer, kidney and spleen disorders, and immune and neural system problems
.
(U.S . Public Interest Research Group Environmental Working Group, 2001)
11
.
The rate of formation of TOX is affected by the concentration of natural organic
compounds, concentration of chlorine, contact time or retention time, temperature, pH, and
concentration of bromide. Amy, et al. (1998) developed the following empirical formulas for
formation of total trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA6) based on chlorine
doses applied to raw water :
TTHM,gw(µg/L) _ 0.0412(TOCraw)
' 098(C12)0.152(Br~w)0.068(T)0.609(pH,w) 1601 (t)0.263
HAA6„w (µg/L) = 9.98(TOCraw)
o935
(Cl2)
o.aa3
(Brew)
-o.03 :
(T)
0.387
(pH.w)
-0.655(
t
)o.n8
Where :
TOCr,w
=
total organic carbon (mg/L)
Cl2 = applied chlorine dose (mg/L)
Brmw = raw water bromide concentration (pg/L)
T = temperature (C)
t = reaction time (hours)
(Amy, G., Siddiqui, M., Ozekin, K., Zhu, H.W., Wang, C. Empirically Based Models for
Predicting Chlorination and Ozonation By-product : Haloacetic Acids, Chloral Hydrate, and
Bromate. EPA Report CX 819579. USEPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water :
Cincinnati, OH, 1998 .)
12
.
These equations were developed based on data collected using lower TOC,
slightly higher C1 2 , and slightly lower temperature than the conditions projected for the cooling
towers at the Prairie State Generating Station . However, because there have not been alternative
models specifically for cooling towers and because most parameters are close to the range tested,
these formulas provide the best available estimate of potential for disinfection byproduct
5
formation
.
13 .
Ranges of parameters expected in the cooling towers were obtained from the
applicant, either in the permit application or through correspondence with IEPA . Bromide
concentrations were not available in the STORET database for Illinois streams, so a value on the
low end of the range tested was used in the development of the equations (7 - 600 pg/L). Use of
these equations yields the following results for the following parameters
:
* This number is an estimate based on the TOC maximum and average values given in the application
14 .
Because public water supplies are withdrawn from the Kaskaskia River
downstream of outfall 001 and recreational and primary contact activities also occur downstream
from outfall 001, these chlorinated organics should be monitored. Specific TOX compounds for
which the U.S. EPA has set limits in public water supplies should also be limited . These include
trihalomethanes or THMs (annual average limit = 80 ltg/L) and haloacetic acids or HAAs
(annual average limit = 60 pg/L)
. (U.S . EPA,
Stage I Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule,
http://www .epa.gov/OGWDW/mdbp/dbpl .html) Although the discharge will be mixed
with river water prior to withdrawal by downstream public water suppliers, there is no data
available on instream concentrations of THMs or HAAs . Therefore, IEPA cannot assume that
6
Scenario
Average
conditions
Maximum within
range
Minimum within
range
TOC (mg/L)
25
30
20*
C12 (mg/L)
0.5
1 .0
0.1
Br (µg/L)
100
100
100
T (C)
26
32
21
pH
8.0
8 .1
7 .9
t (hours)
60
90
30
TTHM (ltg/L)
1036
1811
455
HAA6 (gg/L)
242
450
79
dilution will be significant. Dechlorination will not remove these by-products if they have
already been formed. Limits at least as strict as 80 µg/L and 60 pg/L for THMs and HAAs
respectively should be placed in the permit
.
15 .
While THMs and HAAs are among the best understood and regulated of the
harmful chlorinated organics, there are numerous other chlorinated organics that likely have
negative health effects as indicated in epidemiological studies reported by Dr . David Reckhow in
a presentation at the Michigan American Water Works Association 2005 Research and Technical
Practices Seminar. These studies and their implications are due to be published in the near future .
Therefore, in addition to limits for THMs and HAAs, the facility should be required to monitor
and limit total organic halogens (TOX) in the effluent. THMs and HAAs may not be good
enough surrogates to eliminate risks from all disinfection byproducts, particularly because THMs
are volatile and may be lost from the cooling tower through evaporation
.
16 .
In the post-hearing responsiveness summary, Illinois EPA stated that "chlorine
will not be added to the raw river water. Water
.
. . will be provided pretreatment to remove
organic and suspended material
.
.
. As a result the pretreated water will contain relatively little
organic material and further the chlorine dosage necessary to provide the anti-scaling and fouling
control will be much less." (Ex. F, p. 15) IEPA's dismissal of this evidence was mistaken
because the numbers in the above table used for determining expected levels of THMs and
HAAs were based on information provided by the applicant and/or IEPA and represent the water
quality conditions within the cooling towers - not raw river water. Since the TOX are most likely
to be formed within the cooling towers, these are the most relevant data . According to Prairie
State Generating Company's NPDES application, the level of TOC entering the cooling tower is
much higher (average of 25 mg/L, maximum of 30 mg/L) than typical raw water used for
7
drinking
water
supplies .
In
addition, naturally occurring
constituents of the river water
withdrawn for cooling usage will concentrate to some extent due to the evaporative loss of a
portion of the cooling water. Furthermore, the amount of organic material in the water to be used
in the cooling towers will likely be greater if or when water is drawn from Carlyle Lake as
compared to that drawn from the Kaskaskia River system
.
17
.
The permit should not have been issued before the applicant had identified how it
will ensure that the stormwater will be controlled and local waterways are protected . This
provision reduces the SWPPP portion of the permit to a mere promise to comply with the law in
the future rather than the present.
18
.
According to Special Condition 21(B) of the final permit, the stormwater
pollution prevention plan is required to be completed within 180 days of the effective date of the
permit and shall provide for compliance with the terms of the plan within 365 days of the
effective permit date. IEPA issued the permit on December 5, 2005
- long before the applicant
has identified potential sources of pollution, how to reduce these pollutants in stormwater
discharges, and assured compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit
.
19 .
Many harmful materials will be stored on site. The SWPPP is the fundamental
component of the permit designed to ensure that these harmful materials are not washed into
local streams. Emergency discharges from eight outfalls will subject Mud Creek to new and
increased pollutants. Mud Creek is on the state's 303(d) list due to impairments caused by
manganese, siltation, low dissolved oxygen, and phosphorous . IEPA should not have issued this
permit until a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan had been completed and reviewed by the
agency and by the public
.
20 .
In the responsiveness summary, IEPA gives the following reason for the delayed
8
development of the plan: "Since the site is currently undeveloped, there is no industrial activity
occurring. The plan cannot be drafted and implemented until the site is developed and industrial
activity is initiated." (Ex. F, p. 8) According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a plan is a
"scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective."
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition, 2000 (emphasis
added)) IEPA's premise that a plan cannot be developed until the activity to be planned has
already begun makes no sense . Prairie State Generating will doubtless prepare site development
and industrial operation plans before those activities are initiated . The SWPPP should be
developed in conjunction with those plans. Moreover, the SWPPP will be more effective if it is
incorporated early in the design of the facility
.
21. IEPA also states that "[iln the interim, PSGC will be required to obtain coverage
under the general NPDES permit for storm water associated with construction site activities to
control runoff from the site." According to the General NPDES Permit No . ILR10, a stormwater
pollution prevention plan must be prepared for each construction site covered under the permit
.
The plan must identify potential sources of pollution which may affect the quality of stormwater
discharges, describe and ensure implementation of practices which will be used to reduce
pollutants in storm water discharges, and assure compliance with the terms and conditions of the
permit. This plan must be completed prior to the start of construction . As of December 23, 2005,
neither a Notice of Intent to be covered under General NPDES Permit No . ILRI0 had been filed
with IEPA, nor had a SWPPP been prepared for construction activities by Prairie State
Generating Co
.
22 .
The effect of delaying the completion of these SWPPPs is to prevent public
scrutiny and participation in their preparation . The federal Clean Water Act requires state
9
NPDES programs to "insure that the public
.
.
. receive[s] notice of each application for a permit
and
.
.
. an opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each such application." 33 U .S.C. §
1342(b)(3). IEPA instead held the public hearing at a time when no substantive provisions of the
SWPPP were available for the public to examine or comment on and approved the application
for a stormwater discharge permit without having before it any of that information
.
23 .
Once the SWPPPs (both for construction activities covered under the general
permit and for industrial activities covered under the individual permit) have been completed by
Prairie State Generating Co., the permit should be re-noticed so the public has an opportunity to
review and comment on the elements of the SWPPP
.
24 .
IEPA relies on 7Q10 flow data in setting effluent limits to ensure adequate
dilution and mixing zones during low flows. IEPA, in explaining why it included Special
Condition I to attempt to maintain a sufficient 7Q10 flow, states "Illinois EPA was intent on
preventing flows from artificially dropping below 7Q10 levels due to the operation of the PSGC
plant because of a mixing zone and adjusted standard granted to a downstream discharge ." (Ex .
F, p. 5) Sufficient 7Q10 levels are therefore necessary to prevent water quality violations at
downstream discharges in addition to being necessary to prevent violations at the proposed
Prairie State Generating plant. While IEPA has taken a step in the right direction by including
Special Condition 1 in the permit, Special Condition 1 is based on flow levels at the Venedy
Station gauge. The calculations in Special Condition I do not account for water withdrawals by
other parties between the Venedy Station gauge and outfall 001 that could lower the river flow
below 7Q10 levels at outfall 001 . This omission may result in violations of the permit limits at
outfall 001 as well as violations of permit limits for downstream discharges
.
25
.
By allowing discharges that may cause or contribute to violations of state water
10
quality standards or impair existing and designated uses, the permit violates 35 111 . Adm. Code
§ 302.105(c)(2)(B)(i), 35 Ill. Adm. Code § 304.105, and 35 Ill. Adm. Code §§ 309.141(d),
309.142, and 309.143. By allowing discharges that may lead to concentrations of contaminants
hazardous to human health, the permit violates 35 111. Adm. Code § 302.205. By failing to
require adequate monitoring of certain pollutants, the permit violates 35 Ill . Adm. Code
§ 309.146. See also 33 U .S.C. § 1342. By allowing stormwater discharges before a SWPPP is
implemented, the permit violates 33 U.S.C. § 1311 and 415 ILCS § 5/12 . The procedures used in
the issuance of the permit prevent meaningful public participation in the review of the SWPPP,
and fail to give notice of proposed effluent limits in violation of 35 111 . Adm. Code §§ 309 .108(b)
and 309.113. Further, by failing to contain an adequate SWPPP, the permit fails to contain
necessary effluent limits and monitoring in violation of 35 111 . Adm. Code §§ 309.141(d) and
309.146. See also 33 U .S.C. § 1342
.
26 .
Members of Petitioners will be affected adversely when pollution that may be
discharged under the permit causes or contributes to pollution of the Kaskaskia River, Mud
Creek, and the unnamed tributaries of Mud Creek as a result of IEPA's failure to require
protective effluent limits, monitoring, and a proper stormwater pollution prevention plan
.
WHEREFORE, the Sierra Club and Prairie Rivers Network ask that the Pollution Control
Board set aside the NPDES permit (No . IL0076996) issued to the Prairie State Generating
Company, LLC on December 5, 2005 as not sufficiently protective of the environment and not in
accord with law, and direct the Agency to reconsider the permit in order to establish conditions
and limits necessary to protect Illinois waters, assure protection of Illinois water quality
11
standards, and comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U .S.C. § 1251 et seq .,
and Illinois law and regulations .
Albert F. Ettinger
(Reg. No. 3125045)
Richard H. Acker
(Reg. No. 6271838)
DATED: January 6, 2006
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-673-6500
EXHIBIT A
1
quality standards and we make the review for each
2 and every discharge
.
3
MS . WENTZEL : Good evening, my name is
4 Beth Wentzel and I am the watershed scientist with
5 Prairie Rivers Network, we are a statewide river
6 conservation organization and the Illinois
7 affiliate of National Wildlife Federation . Mark
B told me the secret for not burning your ears out
9 so we see how I do with this mike . I do want to
10 thank the agency for holding this public hearing
11 tonight and providing this opportunity to share
12 our concerns and questions . I do have a number of
13 water quality related concerns that I will just
14 summarize here this evening, I do have a couple
15 questions but I will follow up with more detailed
16 written comments as well
.
17
First I am concerned that the applicant
18 has not considered alternatives that would avoid
19 or minimize the increased discharge of pollutants
20 from this facility specifically phosphorus . The
21 applicant is proposing to use phosphorus as a pipe
22 corrosion inhibitor and to discharge phosphorus at
23 levels that are over 10 times the average level in
24 the Kaskaskia River . These discharges may
3 2
1
contribute to nuisance alga growth and degrade the
2 river
.
3
The State antidegradat.ion regulations
4 require that all reasonable measures be taken to
5 avoid or minimize increased pollutant loading,
6 therefore alternatives that would minimize the
7 phosphorus loading increase must be analyzed and
8 incorporated into the design of this facility if
9 they are reasonable . Such alternatives might
10 include use of an alternative corrosion inhibitor
11 that does not contain phosphorus or other harmful
12 compounds . Another alternative that could be
13 considered would be the use of treatment
14 technologies that reduce phosphorus prior to the
15 discharge of that wastewater
.
16
As Kathy mentioned, many municipalities
17 have incorporated technologies to do just that and
18 it seems that if it's reasonable for those
19 communities to remove phosphorus, it should be
20 reasonable for this large corporation as well . I
21 would also encourage further consideration of
22 alternatives that would minimize the discharge of
23 other pollutants . Kathy suggested alternatives
24 that might be successful at eliminating discharge
33
1
all together and that would certainly be an
2 important alternative to consider
.
3
As I was reviewing the file for this
4 permit, I was also concerned about the potential
5 for cancer causing chlorinated organic chemicals
6 to be formed and discharged from this facility and
7 I want to ask the agency was there any analysis of
8 the potential for the formation of disinfection
9 by-products and the effect that such chemicals
10 would have on the downstream water intake, is that
11 something that has been analyzed?
12
MR . MOSHER: Well, I can speak to that
13 the power plant has requested the use of chlorine
14 as a biocide in the cooling towers . All cooling
15 towers for power plants or anything that uses
16 cooling towers has to use a biocide . In this case
17 they' are going to be using a dechlorinated
18 additive to remove that chlorine. This is a
19 process used not only in power plants but also in
20 municipal wastewater treatment plants . Up and
21 down the river treatment plants are chlorinating
22 sewage effluents, treated sewage effluents, and
23 dechlorinating to remove that harmful chlorine
.
24 The dechlorinating substance should reduce the
3 4
1
chance of formation of the chlorinated organics
2 which I think you are referring to as possible
3 harmful substances for drinking water sources
.
4 There isn't a potential generally we believe at
5 the agency, it's been a long standing policy to
6 allow chlorination, it's been known for many years
7 that you have to watch out for this sort of thing
8 to happen but generally I am not aware of problems
9 in intakes for public water supplies from
10 chlorinated organics that you are speaking of
.
11
MS . WENTZEL: Just to clarify, I do
12 understand that they are proposing to dechlorinate
13 prior to discharge into the river, my concern is
14 the contact time at the high temperatures in
15 association with high organic carbon within the
16 cooling tower itself and whether or not there will
17 be any monitoring or if there is any information
18 out there where this type of situation has been
19 studied to determine whether or not those harmful
20 disinfection by-products may occur in this type of
21 facility . My understanding is that dechlorination
22 would not remove the by-products if they have
23 already been formed, it will remove the residual
24 chlorine . I guess this is something maybe I can
3 5
1
talk with you further about, not to hold everybody
2 up here this evening but it is a serious concern
3 that I do hope that we'll be able to get some
4 analysis done .
5
A third concern that I have with the
6 permit as written is that the permit would be
7 issued before the applicant as identified how it
8 will ensure that storm water will be controlled
.
9 There will be harmful materials kept on site, we
10 are all aware of that and the storm water
11 pollution prevention plan is the primary component
12 of the permit designed to ensure that these
13 harmful materials are not washed into local
14 streams during active rain events . Therefore we
15 feel that Illinois EPA should not issue this
16 permit until the storm water pollution prevention
17 plan has been completed and reviewed by the agency
18 and reviewed by the public as well . As Kathy
19 suggested, I don't know if you have any kind of
20 home builders or developers in this audience here
21 tonight, if you wanted to build a residential
22 housing development, you would have to have your
23 storm water pollution prevention plan developed
24 and approved before you broke ground on the site,
3 6
1 I don't
see why it would be impossible to have
2 that pollution prevention plan available at this
3 time prior to finalization of this permit
.
4
The fourth concern is that this facility
S will likely contribute to violations of water
6 quality standards for public water supply and one
7 more question for the agency tonight, when I was
8 reviewing the file, I did not see analysis of
9 compliance or potential noncompliance with the
10 State's public water supply criteria from
11 manganese, is that something you looked at?
12
MR. MOSHER: Yes, we did, we looked at
13 that in a lot of detail . I personally went to our
14 Division of Public Water Supplies and talked to
15 engineers and scientists there and asked them
16 about the manganese issue, they assured me that
17 the two downstream public water supplies on the
18 Kaskaskia which would be Sparta and Evansville do
19 not currently have a problem with manganese even
20 though the river currently does not often meet the
21 public water supply intake water quality standard
22 for total manganese and that's because those
23 facilities remove the manganese along with the
24 silt and other things from the river water before
3 7
1
they supply it to their customers as finished
2 drinking water
.
3
The manganese loading to the river won't
4 increase because of this plant . Concentration
5 will increase. very slightly, very, very slightly
6 and it is just to not a significant amount and it
7 is not a problem for those public water supplies
8 to deal with that very slight increase in amount
9 so our conclusion was that there was no conflict
10 and there was no increased risk or danger from the
11 manganese in the effluent
.
12
MS . WENTZEL : The water quality criteria
13 for public water supply use waters for manganese
14 as you mentioned is quite low, has there been any
15 site specific standards changed for this section
16 of the river?
17
MR. MOSHER: No, there hasn't been
.
18
MS . WENTZEL: I will go into more detail
19 in my written comments on that . My fifth concern
20 is that the discharges that will be designed to
21 stay on site, I should say there is no evidence in
22 the permit file that I reviewed that there will be
23 no potential for groundwater contamination from
24 those holding ponds, just wanted to encourage the
38
1
agency and the applicant to make that
2 demonstration, I didn't see much information on
3 the liners that will be used in those holding
4 basins . I did not see any proposal for
5 groundwater monitoring to detect any seepage that
6 might occur at those basins . In this part of the
7 country rain fall rates tend to exceed operation
8 rates so that the water has to be going somewhere,
9 we just want to ensure that it's not getting into
10 groundwater potentially contaminating that water
.
11
The last point I want to make, the last
12 concern I want to mention is the concern that was
13 already mentioned regarding the withdrawal of
14 large quantities of water, I have seen that the
15 analysis that shows is one percent of the annual
16 average but certainly during most critical times
17 of the year when the river is low, during ten
18 percent of the time this facility will be
19 withdrawing at least 25 percent of the river and
20 that is significant when you think of it in those
21 terms and with that I will conclude my comments
22 and thank you again .
23
MR . BRITTON: Next is Kate or Kath
24 Logan .
3 9
EXHIBIT B
1
MR. KINSLEY
:
One
of the things
that the
2
agency has elected to do with those type of
3 permits is to post on our web site people who
4 apply for those permits and give an opportunity
5 for people to know who is being covered, where
6 their location is at .
7
MS . OWEN : I know what you are going to
8 say, Mr . Day, I have one last thing to say, when
9 you said you will answer questions, I make a
10 formal request that you answer questions before
11 the final permit is issued . Some of these
12 questions we need to have answered in order to
13 make meaningful comments on the draft permit . It
14 is not helpful for us to read the answers in the
15 questions in the responsiveness summary for a
16 final permit, again I thank you for coming and
17 listening to us
.
18
HEARING OFFICER DAY : Thank you for your
19 comments
.
20
MR. NILLES: Thank you . My name is
21 Bruce Nilles, I am the Senior Midwest
22 Representative for the Sierra Club. Mr . Day and
23 the rest of the IEPA thank you very much for
24 holding this hearing tonight . As a couple of
6 0
1
follow up points regarding this project and
2 underscore some of the major concerns we at the
3 Sierra Club with our 28,000 members around the
4 state have for this project, turning specifically
5 to the Kaskaskia River, was there any analysis and
6 this is a question I'd like to see if we could get
7 an answer to before going on to the next point,
8 was there any consideration of avoiding impacts on
9 Kaskaskia all together by using dry cooling which
10 is something you may know is the equivalent of
11 large air cool condensers which avoid basically
12 any water whatsoever, it's some type of cooling
13 they use regularly out west where water is a
14 serious issue, given the testimony we heard
15 tonight about the existing use of water already
16 stretching the resource to a very serious point,
17 was there any consideration of using technology
18 that would avoid the impacts on the Kaskaskia
19 River all together?
20
MR. MOSHER : It might be helpful at this
21 point in answer to your question to point out that
22 it's the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
23 that has the authority to permit water withdrawal
24 from waters of the state . That agency issued that
6 1
1
permit well over a year ago, it's a done deal,
2 they allow the Kaskaskia River water to be used by
3 the plant, they also allow Lake Carlyle water to
4 be bought by the plant for its use so that's not
5 something our agency does and that permit was
6 issued before I began analysis of water quality
7 standards for this project . Specifically you
8 asked about the dry cooling, no, we didn't
-- that
9 wasn't presented to us as an option and in my
10 experience with power plants in Illinois I've not
11 heard about that type of cooling
.
12
MR. NILLES : How many new power plants
13 are being permitted in the last 2.0 years, coal
14 fired power plants?
15
MR. MOSHER: We've certainly done an
16 analysis on several other coal fired power plants
17 but I don't believe any of them have been
18 permitted yet. Blaine Kinsley might
--
19
MR. KINSLEY : I don't have that
20 information for you, it would just be a guess, we
21 can get that information for you and provide it
.
22
MR. NILLES: It was just a response to
23 the point that you have experience and you never
24 seen dry cooling, my point is you have never
62
1
permitted another coal plant so of course you have
2 never considered dry cooling in the last 20
3 years . I would urge us to consider very seriously
4 it is water quality issue not just a water
5 quantity issue . All the pollution we are talking
6 about whether it's phosphorus, whether it's
7 manganese, whether it's chlorine or some of the
8 cancer causing agents you heard about earlier, all
9 of those would be avoided if we use dry cooling so
10 from the agengy's obligation to effectively
11 eliminate pollution when it's at all reasonable,
12 one of the ways to do that would be to use dry
13 cooling
.
14
The other issue you talked about is
15 mercury, do we not have a fish consumption
16 advisory on every single lake, river, stream in
17 Illinois including the Kaskaskia River urging
18 women and children not to eat the fish because of
19 elevated levels of mercury?
20
MR. MOSHER : You are right, a lot of
21 Illinois lakes and streams have mercury
22 advisories, I need to add in answer to that
23 question, the discharges that we are talking about
24 in this permit have no known sources of mercury
63
1
that
are being added by the plant other than a
2 very small chance that there would be some very
3 low amounts of mercury in these in the
4 intermittent storm water discharge so there has
5 been a lot of talk about mercury tonight but in
6 our analysis, we have found that the quantities of
7 mercury discharged would be just extremely,
8 extremely low .
9
MR. NILLES : Do you agree they already
10 have so much mercury in our rivers and the mercury
11 doesn't break down?
12
MR. MOSHER: That's true but it would be
13 hard to imagine any human activity resulting in a
14 discharge that would have the low potential for
15 mercury that we're talking about so it becomes
16 just kind of a thing that we look at but it just
17 isn't there that we know about . We've analyzed,
18 we didn't find
.
19
MR. NILLES : Did you consider any of the
20 deposition from the smoke stacks on the waters
21 including the Kaskaskia River?
22
MR. MOSHER: That is not our NPDES
23 tasks . We are looking at the NPDES discharges in
24 this permit
.
6 4
I
MR. NILLES
:
So you don't consider the
2 280 pounds of mercury that they are going to put
3 out of the smoke stack?
4
MR . MOSHER: I would guess that is
5 something our air pollution permit would be
6 looking at
.
MR. NILLES : I have a question, they're
8 proposing to use what is known as wet scrubbers to
9 address some of the sulfur dioxide emissions from
10 using high sulfur coal . In the capturing of
11 sulfur you also capture a tremendous amount of
12 mercury, where is that mercury going to end up
13 from the wet scrubber? What is the plan for
14 making sure that doesn't end up in the
15 environment? I am familiar with a coal plant in
16 Wisconsin that we entered as a proposal, their
17 mercury from their wet scrubber is being
18 discharged into Lake Michigan, it's supposed to be
19 discharged in Lake Michigan? What is different
20 about this proposal to keep the mercury from the
21 wet scrubber out of the Kaskaskia River and any
22 other waterways around the power plant?
23
MR. MOSHER: There's no link between
24 that scrubber waste and the discharges that we are
6 5
1
permitting in this permit . Scrubber waste will be
2 dealt with whereas the waste is taken off site
3 probably to either a permitted facility or if it
4 can be judged to be safe for other uses and that
5 is yet to be determined but really a feature of
6 this plant that is really good for the environment
7 is that there is no wet connection to what you are
8 referring to . There is no connection between that
9 and the discharge that goes to the waters of the
10 State .
11
MR. NILLES : Do you know what type --
12 how much the volume is that the wet scrubber waste
13 can actually house to be managed, is that part of
14 the analysis, are we sure it's going outside and
15 can be handled safely?
16
MR. MOSHER: We are sure that it's not
17 part of these discharges
.
18
MR. NILLES : That's simply taking the
19 company's application saying we are not going to
20 discharge it and that is the end of the story? I
21 guess I would just ask that there be a second look
22 at this given the entities our neighbor to the
23 north is proposing put some of that waste into
24 Lake Michigan . If we can't protect that resource,
6 6
I
why not and what
is Peabody proposing to do
2 different?
3
I just want to turn to a couple points
4 that the Peabody representive made at the start of
5 his presentation, he got up and said this is the
6 cleanest coal plant in 20 years, we haven't built
7 any coal plants in 20 years, there is no
--
8 nothing to compare it to except two counties over
9 in Williamson County, the Aurora group is
10 proposing what is known as a gas type coal plant,
11 that would be the cleanest coal plant in
12 Illinois . That will put out 20 percent of the
13 pollution that Peabody wants to put out in the air
14 around here, 1/5 of the pollution that Peabody
15 says is necessary in order for them to burn high
16 sulfur coal and to make a profit so in terms of
17 the facts which I think is credibly important
18 given that we already have elevated levels of
19 mercury in every water in every state, if they can
20 do it in Williamson County, don't we deserve that
21 level of pollution control here in Washington
22 County as well
.
23
The other point is why is it the world's
24 largest coal company wanting 1 .7 billion dollars
67
1 State funding
to build this project? Why
at
a
2 time
in extreme tight economic times is the
3 world's largest coal company looking for state,
4 local and federal handouts? What is going on
5 here? The final point is you have put this draft
6 permit out for public comment in one of the
7 largest pieces that is in essence a black box,
8 stone water permit, this is a large industrial
9 site with large coal pilots, a tremendous amount
10 of other industrial activity, when it rains we
11 collect our stored water, where is it going and
12 how is it going to be managed and how do we make
13 sure that it doesn't further degrade Kaskaskia
14 River or Mud Creek? How do we ensure that when
15 there is no plan for the public to review?
16
We'd like to make a formal request that
17 there be a draft store water plan available for
18 the public to look at so we know where that
19 pollution is going or how it's being managed
20 before the agency issues the permit, we are being
21 asked to comment on something, we don't know what
22 it looks like . It is a black box that only
23 Peabody knows about and in the spirit of full
24 disclosure we should know where that water is
6 8
L
going,
whatt kind of pollution is in there and what
2 is Peabody going to be required to do in order to
3 protect the water bodies around the plant site,
4 thank you .
5
HEARING OFFICER DAY : Thank you for your
6 comments, Mr . Nilles
.
7
MR . BRITTON : Colin Kelly?
8
MR . KELLY: I already spoke, I already
9 used up my ten minutes, maybe at the end I'll come
10 back
.
11
MR . BRITTON: Mayor Britehout?
12
MR . BRITEHOUT : My name is Dennis
13 Britehout, I am the mayor of the Village of New
14 Athens . I'd like to answer one question or one
15 comment that this one gentlemen made, there was no
16 support in the local area for this Prairie State
17 generating project, that is incorrect. The
18 Village of New Athens has issued a proclamation
19 several months ago in favor of this project . All
20 of the people in our
-- I wouldn't say a hundred
21 percent but 99 percent of the people in our area
22 is needing this project to provide jobs, security
23 for their families, a plant that will generate low
24 cost electricity for many, many years and probably
6 9
1
coal but no doubt
the Prairie State Energy Campus
2 is a flag ship for us because it addresses all
.
3 these things we look at and not just for the
4 positive impact it has economically but also
5 demonstrating that Illinois coal can he utilized
6 in harmony with our environment and bring these
7 mining jobs back to Illinois
.
8
One thing too we'd like -- the IMI would
9 like to convey is we'd like to thank Director
10 Cipriano and the IEPA staff with countless hours
11 and efforts put forth for a project of this
12 magnitude . We are going to see this project
13 become reality and it also ensures that the
14 project adheres to the standard set forth to
15 project the environment are safe in our future
16 generations, thanks a lot
.
17
HEARING OFFICER DAY: Thank you for your
18 comments, Mr. Dennison
.
19
MR. BRITTON: Next is Jack Norman
.
20
MR. NORMAN: Good evening, my name is
21 Jack Norman, I'm a resident of Monroe County, I'm
22 a volunteer for the Sierra Club Kaskaskia Group
23 which consists of members in St . Clair, Monroe, my
24 own county, Randolph, Washington, Clinton and two
88
1
notice for this hearing and on necessity for the
2 permit notice and then I asked for a further 30
3 days following this hearing for additional public
4 comment and my understanding now that has already
5 been arranged, am I correct in that? There is
6 another 30 days comment opportunity?
7
HEARING OFFICER DAY : Yes
.
8
MR. NORMAN: So I don't have to push
9 that, thank for your attention. If there are any
10 comments on any of that, fine, I don't need them
11 right now
.
12
MR. BRITTON: Does anyone wish to speak
13 to that?
14
HEARING OFFICER DAY : Responses to the
15 questions posed will be forthcoming in the
1.6 responsiveness summary .
17
MR . BRITTON : Next is Tom Benner
.
18
MR . BENNER: I will defer my comments
.
19
MR . BRITTON : Guy Hunt?
20
MR . HUNT : My name is Guy Hunt, I'm a
21 professional registered mining engineer here in
22 the State of Illinois . I've been involved in
23 mining all my life, my father's a miner, my
24 grandfather and his father and all right here in
93
1
Knapp,
he will.
tell
you what he knows about that,
2 he is the expert .
3
MS . ANDRIA: Thank you very much and
4 thank you for coming down and thank you for your
5 interest in our concern for this and I would
6 encourage all you guys to start fighting that
7 nuclear plant up north .
8
HEARING OFFICER DAY: Thank you again
9 for your comments . Do we have any other folks who
10 would like additional comments?
11
MR. NILLES : Again, my name is Bruce
12 Nilles, two real quick questions, do we know how
13 they are going to get the water from the river 14
14 miles to the power plant, what source of energy do
15 they need, is it diesel pump, electric pump, what
16 is the source of energy to pump that water?
17
MS . UNSER: I believe they're electrical
18 pumps if I'm correct
.
19
MR. NILLES : Peabody is confirming they
20 are electric, okay . When we get to a Q710
21 situation, drought condition in the river, what
22 happens to the downstream users, are they under
23 the same Q710 so does Peabody get the first rights
24 because they are upstream of downstream intakes,
1 05
1
how
is
it going
to work?
We heard the gentleman
2 from the Kaskaskia River group say of course
3 drinking water gets first priority, where is that
4 spelled out? Where is the agreement to make sure
5 that their interests are protected first before
6 Peabody gets their water, how are you assuring
7 that everyone gets their fair share?
8
MR . MOSHER : You will notice in the
9 permit there is a formula that the power plant has
10 to look at on a daily basis, special condition 1,
11 and we think that is sufficient to ensure that
12 7Q10 flow does not get below the Illinois State
13 Water Survey's value as a result of the operation
14 of that power plant and what that means to me is
15 that the river is dropping towards that low flow,
16 the power plant either exercises an option that at
17 least to my knowledge it has with Illinois
18 Department of Natural Resources to buy water out
19 of Lake Carlyle or they cut back operation of the
20 plant . They have their back up water source on
21 site
--
22 MR. NILLES : My question is now Peabody,
23 how are you divvying up water between the various
24 users, that is
-- I think you said earlier at
10 6
1 least two downstream communities, Sparta and
2 Evansville; is that correct?
3
MR. MOSHER : Yes
.
4
MR. NILLES : Do they have provisions in
5 their permit saying you may not take out more
6 water than when you get to
-- you have to stop
7 pumping water at the Q710 level?
S
MR. MOSHER: No, they don't have those
9 provisions, of course they are very small water
10 users
.
11
MR. NILLES : So there's no restriction
12 on when they can pull the water out?
13
MR. MOSHER: Not that I know of .
14
MR. NILLES : No one else has water
15 restrictions, only Peabody?
16
MR. MOSHER: I am not aware of any other
17 permit that our agency issues with a restriction
18 of this nature
.
19
MR . NILLES : Okay, thank
you .
20
HEARING OFFICER DAY: Thank you again,
21 Mr . Nilles . Do we have any other folks who have
22 spoken previously that would like additional
23 time?
24
MR. WOJTKOWSKI: My name is Dale
1 0 7
EXHIBIT C
0 1/05/:006
17:18
Exenitive Director
Jean Flenuna
Board of
'irectors
Eric F eyfogle
P
esident
Urban.
Anne Phillips
& cietary
Urean.
Jon Mc 4ussen
Tl uasurer
VI L Grove
Brian At demon
I ocheoer
Clark':lullard
Urbane
Charles C oodall
Sidell
Carolyn G •osboll
Pe araburg
Bruce
F annon
Ch mpaign
Jason L ndsey
Ch mpalan
Ward Mc1'onaM
N ahonret
Michael Rosiathal
,
:lencoe
Virgins.,
Scott
Spr ngfield
809 South Pif h Street
Champs 6n, IL
61821.6215
wwwprairierivrn.org
217.34 &-2371
Fax 217-341-2381
2173442381
PRAIRIE RIVERS
PAGE
02
Prairie Rivers Network
June 10, 2005
Heating Officer James Day #21
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
P. 0. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Also submitted via email to : James.Day@epa.state.il.us
Re: Comments on NPDES Permit No. 1L0076996, Notice No
.
BAU:04112201 .dlk
Dear Sir or Madam:
On behalf of Prairie Rivers Network, American Bottomland Conservancy, and
Kaskaskia Group of the Sierra Club, I appreciate this opportunity to submit
comments on NPDES permit 11.0076996, which would regulate new discharges
from Prairie State Generating Station to the Kaskaskia River, Mud Creek, and
tributaries to Mud Creek. Prairie Rivers Network, American Bottonaland
Conservancy, and Kaskaskia Group of the Sierra Club have members that live and
recreate near and downstream from the proposed discharges, and have substantial
interest in ensuring that discharges do not impair waters in the area. We object to
issuance of the permit for the following reasons,
1) The applicant has failed to satisfy the antidegradation regulations
.
The state antidegradation regulations at 35 IAC 302.105(c)(2) require that all
reasonable measuresbe taken to avoid or minimize increased pollutant
loading. The applicant has not considered alternatives that would avoid or
minimize the increased discharge of phosphorus. The applicant is proposing
to use phosphorus
as
a pipe corrosion inhibitor, and to discharge an average
concentration of 3 .7 mg/L according to the application. These discharges may
contribute to nuisance algal growth and degrade the quality of the Kaskaskia
River.
Protecting Illinois' Streams
The IllinoisAp
f
flinto
of the National Wildlife Federation
0
printed on recycled paper
01/05/:006 17:18
2173442381
PRAIRIE RIVERS
PAGE
03
Comment, on NPDES P rmit No . 111)076996. Notice No. BAU:04112201.d1k
t he Prairie State Generating Station. However, because there have not been alternative models
`,pacifically fbr cooling towers and because most parameters are close to the range tested, these
I Drmulas will provide the best available estimate of potential for disinfection byproduct
f xmation .
F .anges of parameters expected in the cooling towers was obtained from, the applicant, either in
t to
application or through correspondence with 1WA . Bromide concentrations were not
available in the STORBT database for Illinois streams, so I used a value on the low end of the
r
urge tested
in
the development of the equations (7 - 600 (tg/L). Use of these equations yields
t) e following results for the following parameters :
TI a drinldng'water standard for THINS is 80 M&, while that for HAAS is 60 .pg/L . Although
the discharge will be mixed with river water prior to withdrawal by downstream public water
su pliers, there is no data available
on
instream concentrations of THMs or HAAS . Therefore .
vn cannot assume that dilution will be significant, and the proposed facility must reduce the
la 4 of these harmful pollutants . Limits of 80 y
.g/L and 60 µg/L for TIIMs and HAAS
tl
pectivrly should be placed in the permit
W l le
THMs and HAAS are among the best understood and regulated of the harmful chlorinated
organics, there are numerous other chlorinated organics that likely have negative health effects
as ndicated in epidemiological studies reported by Dr . David Reckbow in a presentation at the
Ml AW WA 2005 RTP Seminar. These studies and their implications are due to be published in
the near future. Therefore, in addition to limits for THMs and HAAS, the facility should be
req wired
to
monitor and limit total organic halogens . (TOX) in the effluent . THMs and HAAS
may not be good enough surrogates to
.eliminate risks from all disinfection byproducts,
pat ticularly because THMs are volatile and may be lost from the cooling tower through
evl potation .
3
Scenario
-Average
conditionss
-Maximum
within
ran
-Minimum
'thin ran
TOC
25
20
'0.5
1 .0
0.1
100
100
100'
32
21
8.0
8.1
7.9
90
30
TTHM
1036
455
HAA6 (µg11 ..)
242
450
79
01/05,2006
17:18
2173442381
PRAIRIE RIVERS
PAGE
04
6)
IBPA should restrict the withdrawal of water further such that the water withdrawal does not
violate standards by eliminating aquatic life uses
.
Special Condition 1 of the permit limits the water withdrawal beyond the limitations placed by
the 1DNR. This is explained in the fact sheet as necessary to ensure that water quality standards
ate satisfied, even at low flows. However,
the
7Q10 flow
is
not considered a protective flow for
fish and wildlife in the river. Therefore, withdrawals that lower flow levels to that of the
7Q 10
flow more frequently may impair the aquatic life use of the river, thereby violating water quality
standards. According to the USGS flow data at Venedy from 1990 to 1994, the 7Q10
flow
was
)bserved only 0.2% of the days. If the proposed facility withdraws 30 MGD, as they have been
;ranted by the DNR permit, this flow
would
be observed more than 5% of the time . Further,
for
lows between the 5 percentile and 10 percentile flows, the withdrawal of 3Q MGD would be
pore than a quarter'of the river flow
.. To ensure that this withdrawal does not contribute to
,riolatiogs of water quality standards, IEPA must further restrict withdrawals
.
r
We appreciate your consideration of these comments and look forward to receiving your response.
Sin( erely,
M. I loth Wentzel
Wat srshed Scientist
Prai ie Riven Network
A1sc for:
Amt rican Bottomlands Conservancy
Karl:askia Group of the Sierra Club
Comments on NPDE$ Permit No. 1L0076996, Notice No. BAU:04112201 Alk
EXHIBIT D
FROM
: S(RUKRUDAVON GELDERN
FAX NO.
:
815-675-2594
Sierra Club
Illinois
Chapter
200 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 505, C i cago,1L 60601-5908
(312 25251-1680
• (312) 251-1780 (FAX)
Fl a regularmad mid emw7WjamexdayQ epssrasatl xs
H siring Officer James Day #21
Ill nacre Environmental Protection Agency
1(21 North Grand Avenue East
P. 0. Box 19276
Sl Tingfield, IL 62794-9276
Jan. 06 2006 08:29AM P2
June 10, 2005
Ri c NPDES Permit No.110076996 Notice No. BAU:04112201 .dlk; Prairie State Generating Station,
l~ ar Mr. Day-
TI e Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club thanks you for the opportunity to provide post-hearing
co mments on
the
proposal to issue a new NPDES permit to the proposed Prairie
State Generating
St ition for
the
discharge of 1.7 million gallons of wastewater per day into the Kaskaskia
River
and to
pe mit additional
wet
weather flows into the
river
and Mud Creek. SierraClub has members who live
wi
bin the gaaiaiskia River watershed and use the river for activities including fishing and canoeing as
wiles bird' and other wildlife watching activities. We object to the proposed permit in that we have not
be m assured that 1) all technically and economically reasonable measures to avoid or minimize the
ex at of the proposed increase in pollutant loading have been incorporated into the proposed activity,
.
2) water quality standards will not be exceeded as a result of the proposed activity and 3) all existing
us s will be fully protected., Such assurances are required under Illinois' antidegradation rule .
Ot r concerns with this proposal include both permit conditions and the opportunity afforded the publicto
co neat on the proposal. Below we detail our concerns and make recommendations regardin
the usee of
tit,cooling technologies and on limits for the discharge of
phosphorus,
organic halogens and manganese
frc
mthe
plant. We also reiterate concerns we raised at the hearing about the opportunity for public input
int )the proposed project and specifically request that the public be given an opportunity to review the site's
Stn trmwater Pollution Prevention Plan. before any permit
is
issued .
Dr Y Goebng'Technology should be explored
As Bruce :.Nlles, Sierra Club'sSenior Midwest Representative, testified at the May 11, 2005
public
hearing.
alt unative cooling technologies exist which would not require withdrawal and discharge ofwastewater to
am l ¢omthe Kaskaskia River. Such tecnologies were not discussedin the motion Asses
for
the proposed permit. As drycoolingtechniques would offer opportunities to minimize pollutantdischarges
to: he river and would assure that river flows would be protected
.for aquatic life and other uses, werequest
tha t this alternative be thoroughly explored
.
FROM : E<RUKRUD/UON GELDERN
FAX NO .
:
815-675-2594
Jan. 06 2006 08:30AM P3
S area Club comments m NPDES Permit No .110076996 Notice No. HAU04112201 .dlk, Prairie State Generating Station p, 2
uch an alternative is an air-cooled condenser (ACC) which has no water demand . ACCs have been
used on large coal-fired power plants for over 25 years. The 330 MW Wyodak coal-fired power plant
i i Wyoming has successfully operated with an ACC for over 25 years. The largest ACC-equipped coal
f red power plant in the world, the 4,000 MW Marimba ftoility in South Africa, has been operating
s xacaadidfy for over 10 years. A number of new opal-fired power plants; have been proposed in New
rfcdco ova the last three years. In all cases the project proponents have voluntarily incorporated ACC
i to the plant design to minimize plant water use. A 36 MW pulverized cal unit
in
Iowa, Cedar Palls
(JtMhies
Streeter Station Unit 7) was retrofitted with dry cooling in 1995
.
The use of dry cooling on
rulvesized coal fired power plants is well established .
I boophores discharge should be limited to 1 mg/L
I be fatality,proposes to use phosphorus as a pipe corrosion inhibitor so this pollutantwvill be present lathe
c xAng.tower blowdown effluent. Ifthe facility will use water as a coolant, we request tat the generating
a anion be required to install pbosphoe is removal technologies and that a co
be added to tine permit
r qubing that a rant from
OW W
001 meet a monthly average phosphorus limit of I mgt .
This is
c utsiskokwith theinterim phosphonts aft,ent standard which the Illinois EPA has proposed to the Maxis
P ollutiom Control Board. Many municipal wastewater discharges already hmveapboephormslrtuf 1 mg/L
b i theirp=*s so thisrequest.isboth technically and economically*i$&
7otal
.Organic Halogens should be measured
C onditicos within the cooling tower at the proposed generating statiosare such that the produce of
d I khc.
byproducts suchasTotal Organic, Halogens (TOX)nhltely. Emengi ug evidence shows that
c goti nation byproducts in top water cause bladder cancer and are .linked also to miscarriages, birth
d steal rectal and colon cancer, kidney
and,
spleen disorders,, inmntns and neural
system
problems.
(,lee attached CwSder
the Spent,
a2001 report by the State PIRGS and the Enviromnentsi . Working
(rop),
E exwse -water supplies arm withdrawn downstream fium the Kaskaskia River, TOX shouldbe
n cdtormd in the cooling tower blogdownoffbeat Specific TOX compounds for which the USEPA
h is
•s
et limits for in public water supplies should also be monitored and limited,
These inchde
tt ibalomathaw (annual average lbndt- 0.1€ mg/L) and baloacetie adds (aoaual average limit .,0.06 :
n g/L).
..(See the attached USEPA Sctsbact-Sl4u
I Dim m4D lljpradirersArls
fiend athttpJ/www.e maov/OGWDW/Mdbo/dbvl.tmi)
Ihe PvW aheuld have en opportaaky to review Stareiwater Plan
I be proposed permit Am discharges from S ethos to Mud Creek in
.the event of a. 10
. y/24 h (or
g vaber) storm event Mud Creak is bed onthe state's 303(d) list due
to
iota caused by
m
atiuo, dissolved oxygen and phosphonrs. Yet the permit toed not requ re rise
b
t
Papers a $torment
Pollition Pnevantion Plan (SWf'P) utitl 6 months afterthe permit is iwued.
westthe importance ofgood stotmwater mono
for to health ofMrrd Creak, we r+epnlat that
P emit be revised to require that the SWM be is place befte tidepertis Swde& The permit ehoin)d
b , renoticed so the public has an opportunity to review and comment on the demeata ofthe SWPPP, A
FROM
:
S :RUKRUD/UON GELDERN
FRX NO .
:
815-675-2594
Jan. 06 2006 08:30RM P4
Si era Club comments on NPDES Permit No. U,0076996 Notice No. BAU:0411220141k, Prairie State Generating Station p . 3
tr ily effective SWPPP should be part of the site design process so this request poses no hardship to
the
al plicant. A more effective S WPPP can be achieved by incorporating it early in the design of the
fa duty.
1V:anganee discharges must meet water quality standards
TT to permit should limit manganese in discharges
to
the Kaskaslda River and Mud Creek such that water
tp
ality standards are met in stream A mixing zone can be used to meet the standard
.
It appears from
th a Antidegradation Assessment that it is anticipated that water quality standards will be met in Mud
C wk It is unclear bow the Agency plans to ensure that water quality standards are met in the
K askaskia River.
11 tank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this draft permit . We are looking forward
to seeing a new permit on public notice which has incorporated our suggestions for improvement .
Si we*,
a~Z~0~
0 nthia L. Skrukrud, PhD .
Cl nn Water Advocate
phoneMnx:815-675 2594
en, ail: cynthiaskmkrud®sierraclub.org
tar 1: 4209 W. Solon Rd., Richmond, IL 60071
Al:achmetts:
ConsideemeSource.pdf (via small only)
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfation Byproducts Rule
EXHIBIT E
In compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35 of III. Adm. Code, Subtitle C and/or Subtitle D, Chapter
1, and the Clean Water Act (CWA), the above-named permittee is hereby authorized to discharge at the above location to the above-named
receiving stream in accordance with the standard conditions and attachments herein .
Permittee is not authorized to discharge after the above expiration date
. In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the expiration
date, the permittee shall submit the proper application as required by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) not later than 180
days prior to the expiration date .
Alan Keller, P.E.
Manager, Permit Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
SAK:BAU:04112201 .dlk
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
New (NPDES) Permit
Expiration Date: November 30, 2010
Issue Date: December 5, 2005
Effective Date: December 5, 2005
Name and Address of Permittee:
Facility Name and Address
:
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
Prairie State Generating Station
701 Market Street, Suite 781
Marigold Road & Highway 12
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Marissa, Illinois 62257
(Washington County)
Discharge Number and Name :
Receiving Waters :
001
Cooling Tower Blowdown
Kaskaskia River
002
Cooling Tower Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
003
River Water Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
004
Recycle Basin Overflow
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
A04
Coal Combustion Waste Area Sedimentation Basin
Effluent
Mud Creek via Outfall 004
B04
Coal/Limestone Sedimentation Basin Effluent
Mud Creek via Outfall 004
C04
Cooling Tower Sedimentation Basin Effluent
Mud Creek via Outfall 004
D04
Bottom Ash Quench Water
Mud Creek via Outfall 004
E04
Treated Sanitary Wastewater
Mud Creek via Outfall 004
005
Coal/Limestone Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
006
Coal Combustion Waste Area Sedimentation Basin
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
Emergency Overflow
007
Power Block Runoff Sedimentation Basin Emergency
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
Overflow
008, 009 Stormwater Runoff
Mud Creek via drainage ditch
Page 2
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited at all
times as follows :
PARAMETER
Outfall: 001 - Cooling Tower Blowdown
Flow (MGD)
pH
Temperature
Total Residual Chlorine
Manganese
Mercury
Sulfate
Fluoride
Chloride
Ammonia
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Total Dissolved Solids
126 Priority Pollutants***
*See Special Condition 11
"Monitor
only
***See Special Condition 12
****See Special Condition 22
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
DAF (DMF)
30 DAY
DAILY
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
See Special Condition 3
See Special Condition 4
See Special Condition 5
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS mg/i
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Daily
Continuous
1/Week
Grab
Daily
Continuous
0.011* 0.019* 1/Week Grab
1/Week
Grab
1/Year Grab
1/Year
Grab
1/Year
Grab
1/Year
Grab
I/Year
Grab
1/Year
Grab
1/Year Grab
1/Year
Grab
1/Year Grab
1/Year Grab
1/Year
Grab
I/Year
Grab
1/Yeer Grab
1/Year
Grab
Page 3
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows:
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
CONCENTRATION
AAF (DMF)
LIMITS mall
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Outfall: 002 - Cooling Tower Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Measure When
Flow (MGD)
See Special Conditions 3 & 17
pH
See Special Condition 4
Monitoring
Daily**
Grab
Temperature
See Special Condition 5
Daily**
Single
Total Residual Chlorine
0 .011*
0.019*
Daily"
Reading
Grab
BOD S
10
20
Daily**
Grab
Total Suspended Solids
12
24
Daily"
Grab
Fluoride
Daily**
Grab
Sulfate
Daily**
Grab
Mercury
Daily"*
Grab
Chloride
Daily"*
Grab
Ammonia
Daily**
Grab
Cadmium
Daily"
Grab
Chromium (total)
Daily"
Grab
Copper
Daily"
Grab
Lead
Daily**
Grab
Manganese
Daily"*
Grab
Nickel
Daily**
Grab
Silver
Daily**
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids
Daily**
Grab
Zinc
Daily**
Grab
126 Priority Pollutants****
1/Year
Grab
*See Special Condition 11
**Daily when discharging
***Monitor only
****See Special Condition 12
Page 4
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitorinq
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows :
*Daily when discharging
**Monitor only
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
DAF (DMF)
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS maA
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Outfall: 003 -Raw Water Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Flow (MGD)
See Special Conditions 3 & 17
Measure When
Monitoring
pH
See Special Condition 4
Daily*
Grab
Total Suspended Solids
15
30
Daily*
Grab
Iron (dissolved)
Daily*
Grab
Iron (total)
2.0
4.0
Daily*
Grab
Manganese
Daily*
Grab
Page 5
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows :
*Daily when discharging
"Monitor only
***See See Special Condition 18
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
DAF (DMF)
30 DAY
DAILY
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
Outfall: 004 - Recycle Basin Overflow
This discharge consists of :
1 . Plant equipment & floor drains
2 .
Runoff from developed plant areas
3 .
Neutralization tank effluent
a) Ion exchange/reverse osmosis regenerant wastewater
b) Chemical area secondary containment drains
c) Chemical area floor drains
d) Chemical equipment drains
e) Battery room floor drains
f) Lab floor & sink drains
g) Water treatment plant floor drains
4 .
Oil/water separator effluent
a) Equipment maintenance area secondary containment drains
b) Ammonia storage area secondary containment drains
5.
Cooling Tower Blowdown
6.
Coal combustion waste area sedimentation basin effluent (A04)
7.
Coal/Limestone sedimentation basin effluent (B04)
8.
Cooling Tower sedimentation basin effluent (C04)
9.
Bottom Ash Quench Water (D04)
10. Power block runoff basin effluent
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS ma/I
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
11. Treated Sanitary Wastewater (E04)
Flow (MGD)
pH
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
See Special Conditions 3 &
See Special Condition 4
See Special Condition 5
17
15
30
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Continuous
Grab
Single
Reading
Grab
Oil & Grease
15
20
Daily*
Grab
Ammonia
Total Dissolved Solids
Manganese
Boron
Sulfate
Mercury***
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Page 6
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
I- From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows:
*See Special Condition 6
Outfall: B04 - Coal/Limestone Sedimentatin Basin Effluent
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 3
pH
See Special Condition 4
Total Suspended Solids
*See Special Condition 6
Outfall: C04 - Cooling Tower Sedimentation Basin Effluent
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 3
Measure When
Monitoring
pH
See Special Condition 4
Daily*
Grab
Total Residual Chlorine
0.2
0.5
Daily*
Grab
126 Priority Polutants**
1/Year
Grab
*See Special Condition 6
**See Special Condition 12
***Monitor Only
Measure When
Monitoring
Daily*
Grab
15
30
Daily*
Grab
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
DAF (DMFI
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS mg/I
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Outfall: A04 - Coal Combustion Waste Area Sedimenation Basin Effluent
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 3
Measure When
Monitoring
pH
See Special Condition 4
Daily*
Grab
Total Suspended Solids
15
30
Daily*
Grab
Oil & Grease
15
20
Daily*
Grab
Page 7
*Daily when discharging
**Monitor only
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows :
LOAD LIMITS Ibs/day
CONCENTRATION
DAF (DMF1
LIMITS ma/I
PARAMETER
30 DAY
DAILY
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
30 DAY
AVERAGE
15
15
DAILY
MAXIMUM
30
20
SAMPLE
FREQUENCY
Measure When
Monitoring
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
SAMPLE
TYPE
Grab
Grab
Grab
Outfall: D04 - Bottom Ash Quench Water
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 3
PH
See Special Condition 4
Total Suspended Solids
Oil & Grease
*See Special Condition 6
Outfall: E04 - Treated Sanitary Wastewater
Flow (MGD)
See Special Condition 3
pH
See Special Condition 4
BOD5
30
Total Suspended Solids
30
60
60
1/Week
1/Week
1/Week
1/Week
24-Hour Total
Grab
24-Hour
Composite
24-Hour
Composite
Outfall: 005 - Coal/Limestone Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Flow
See Special Conditions 3 & 17
pH
See Special Condition 4
Total Suspended Solids
15
30
Measure When
Monitoring
Daily*
Daily*
Grab
Grab
Boron
Manganese
Sulfate
Total Dissolved Solids
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Daily*
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Page 8
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Effluent Limitations and Monitorinq
1 . From the effective date of this permit until the expiration date, the effluent of the following discharge(s) shall be monitored and limited
at all times as follows:
*Daily when discharging
**Monitor Only
***See See Special Condition 18
Outfall: 007* - Power Block Runoff Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
*See Special Conditions 16, 17 & 21
Outfall: 008*, 009* - Stormwater Runoff
*See Special Conditions 16, 17 & 21
LOAD LIMITS lbs/day
DAF (DMF)
CONCENTRATION
LIMITS ma/I
30 DAY
DAILY
30 DAY
DAILY
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
PARAMETER
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FREQUENCY
TYPE
Outfall : 006
- Coal Combustion Waste Area Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow
Flow
See Special Conditions 3 & 17
Measure When
Monitoring
pH
See Special Condition 4
Daily*
Grab
Total Suspended Solids
15
30
Daily*
Grab
Oil & Grease
15
20
Daily*
Grab
Boron
Daily*
Grab
Manganese
Daily*
Grab
Sulfate
Daily*
Grab
Mercury*`*
Daily*
Grab
Total Dissolved Solids
Daily*
Grab
Page 9
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
SPECIAL CONDITION 1 . The permittee is limited to the following Kaskaskia River water withdrawal conditions in addition to the conditions
specified under IDNR Permit No . DS2002134 :
a)
When the river flow measured at the USGS gage No. 05594100 on the Kaskaskia River at Venedy Station is 120 cfs or less, the
permittee will record the gage reading, the total amount of water withdrawn and the amount of water discharged to Outfall 001
. This
information shall be recorded for each day that river flow conditions of 120 cfs or less exist, and shall be reported as an attachment to
the monthly Discharge Monitoring Report.
b)
The permittee shall not withdraw river water such that the river flow drops below the 7410 flow value as established by the Illinois
State Water Survey for any single day . This will be calculated based on the river flow at the Variedly Station USGS gage where the
7Q10 flow is 74 cfs. The allowable daily water withdrawal rate is to be determined by the following formula :
Allowed maximum daily water withdrawal amount = Daily flow value at USGS gage 05594100 - 74 cfs + daily flow value of water
discharged back to the river on the previous day.
SPECIAL CONDITION 2 .
Cooling Water Intake Structure Monitoring
A .
Biological Monitoring
1 .
The permittee shall collect monthly samples over a 24 hour period to determine impingement rates for each species identified in
the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization provided as
part of the application for this permit . If sampling is to be
conducted by a diver and unsafe diving conditions preclude sample collection for an entire monitoring period, monitoring for that
month shall be waived. All such monitoring periods shall be identified and an
explanation included in the annual report required
under Item D of this special condition.
2 .
The permittee shall collect biweekly samples over a 24 hour period to determine entrainment rates during the primary period of
reproduction, larval recruitment and peak abundance for each species identified in the Source Water Baseline Biological
Characterization provided as part of the application for this permit. For the purpose of this permit, the primary period for
reproduction, larval recruitment and peak abundance will be the months of March through June
.
3 .
In the event that the intake structure does not operate during an entire monitoring period (one month for impingement, two weeks
for entrainment), no sampling is required for that monitoring period . All such monitoring periods shall be identified in the annual
report required under Item D of this special condition .
B .
Velocity Monitoring
Head loss across the intake screen shall be utilized to determine average daily through
screen velocity. A maximum through screen
velocity shall be determined on a daily basis .
C .
Visual or Remote Inspections
Visual inspections or remote monitoring devices shall be utilized as part of an operation and maintenance program to ensure that the
cooling water intake structure screens are functioning as designed
. Remote inspections can include alarm systems on the head loss
measuring device for the screen and pressure monitoring of the air sparging system
used to clean the screen. Visual inspection of the
screening device shall be conducted should alarm conditions persist . Visual inspection or remote monitoring shall be performed
weekly at a minimum.
D .
Reporting
From the effective date of this permit, the Permittee shall prepare a report on an annual basis containing the following information and
submit the report by December 31 to the address identified in Special Condition
18 :
1
.
The results of biological monitoring for impingement sampling and entrainment
sampling shall be tabulated by species for each
sampling event .
Page 10
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
2. Through screen velocity monitoring shall be tabulated on a daily basis for each month . A daily average velocity shall be
provided. The daily maximum velocity value and the time lapse that occurred for each event resulting in the daily maximum
value shall be provided.
3 .
The permittee shall identify the results of any visual or remote inspection . If remote inspection is utilized to satisfy the
requirement of Special Condition 2(C), the method of remote inspection utilized shall be identified . Should visual inspection be
necessary because of persistent alarm conditions, the Permittee shall report the result of any visual inspection and the corrective
action needed .
SPECIAL CONDITION 3.
Flow shall be reported, in Amillion gallons per day@ (MGD), as a daily maximum and monthly average . In the
event that no discharge occurs during a given month, a statement of AN0 discharge@ shall be reported on the DMR submitted for that month
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 4
. The pH shall be in the range 6.0 to 9.0. The monthly minimum and monthly maximum values shall be reported on
the DMR form .
SPECIAL CONDITION 5
. Discharge of wastewater from this facility must not alone or in combination with other sources cause the receiving
stream to violate the following thermal limitations at the edge of the mixing zone which is defined by Section 302.211, Illinois Administration
Code, Title 35, Chapter 1, Subtitle C, as amended
:
A.
Maximum temperature rise above natural temperature must not exceed 5EF (2 .8EC) .
B.
Water temperature at representative locations in the main river shall not exceed the maximum limits in the following table during more
than one (1) percent of the hours in the 12-month period ending with any month. Moreover, at no time shall the water temperature at
such locations exceed the maximum limits in the following table by more than 3EF (1 .7EC). (Main river temperatures are
temperatures of those portions of the river essentially similar to and following the same thermal regime as the temperatures of the
main flow of the river .)
Jen
Feb.
Mar
ARf1
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept .
Oct
Nov.
Dec.
EF
60
60
60
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
60
EC
16
16
16
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
16
C .
The monthly maximum value shall be reported on the DMR form .
SPECIAL CONDITION 6
.
Monitoring at the internal Outfalls (A04, B04, C04 and D04) is only required during periods when Outfall 004 is
discharging. When the flowfrom Outfall 004 is zero, no monitoring of the internal Outfalls is required . If no discharge occurs at Outfall 004
during an entire month, a statement of ANo monitoring required, no discharge at 004" shall be reported in the comment section of the DMR
submitted for each Internal Outfall for that month
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 7
. There shall be no discharge of wastewater pollutants from fly ash transport water
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 8
.
There shall be no discharge of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCB=s)
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 9 . There shall be no discharge of complexed metal bearing wastestreams and associated rinses from chemical metal
cleaning unless this permit has been modified, subject to public notice and opportunity for hearing, to allow the new discharge
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 10.
There shall be no discharge of collected debris from the raw water intake
.
Page 11
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
SPECIAL CONDITION 11 .
For Outfalls 002 and 004, all samples for total residual chlorine (TRC) shall be analyzed by an applicable
method contained in 40 CFR 136, equivalent in accuracy to the low-level amperometric titration method
.
The water quality standard for TRC (0.011 mg/l ave. and 0.019 mg/I max.) is below the method detection level (0.05 mg/I) as described in 40
CFR 136 . Therefore, for the purpose of this permit, the method detection level will be utilized to determine compliance with the permit limit
for TRC. A measurement of <0.05 mg/I reported on the DMR shall not be considered a violation of the water quality based effluent limit
. This
reporting threshold is being established to determine compliance and does not authorize the discharge of TRC in excess of the water quality
based effluent limit
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 12 .
The permittee shall sample the discharge from Outfalls 001, C04 and 002 once per year for the 126 Priority
Pollutants listed in Attachment A. Sampling shall be conducted when the cooling water additives are present in the discharge
.
a)
If all parameters analyzed produce a result of Anondetect@ during two consecutive sampling events, monitoring for the 126 Priority
Pollutants may be discontinued, upon written notification to the Agency .
b)
If both Outfalls C04 and 002 are discharging at the same time, and the effluents are substantially identical, the permittee may sample
one of the outfalls for the Priority Pollutants and report the quantitative data as representative of both . A note should be included in
the comment section of the DMR indicating which outfall the sample was collected
at .
SPECIAL CONDITION 13 . If an applicable effluent standard or limitation is promulgated under Sections 301(b)(2)(C) and (D), 304(b)(2) . and
307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act and that effluent standard or limitation
is more stringent than any effluent limitation in the permit or controls
a pollutant not limited in the NPDES Permit, the Agency shall revise or modify the permit in accordance with the more stringent standard or
prohibition and shall so notify the permittee
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 14 .
The effluent, alone or in combination with other sources, shall not cause a violation of any applicable water
quality standard outlined in 35 III. Adm. Code 302.
SPECIALCONDITION 15 . For the purpose of this permit, the discharge from Outfalls 001
and 002 is limited to noncontact cooling water,
free from process and other wastewater discharges . In the event that the permittee shall require the use of water treatment additives other
than those listed in the permit application, the permittee must request a change in this permit in accordance with the Standard Conditions .
Changes in the additive treatment scheme may not be initiated until authorization is granted by the Agency .
SPECIAI CONDITION 16 . For the purpose of this permit, the discharge from Outfalls 007,008 and 009 is limited to storm water, free from
process and other wastewater discharges .
SPFCIAL CONDITION 17. Discharge from outfalls 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008 and 009 shall only occur in
the event of a 10 yr./24 hr.
(or greater) storm event. In the event a discharge does occur, storm event data (date, duration, total rainfall, last measurable rainfall event)
shall be submitted to the Agency with the Discharge Monitoring Report containing the required monitoring data for the discharge event
SPECIAL CONDITION 18 .
All samples for monitoring mercury shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with EPA Method 1631
(detection limit: 1 nanogram per liter) or an approved equivalent method
.
SPFCIAI CONDITION 19 .
Samples taken in compliance with the effluent monitoring requirements shall
be taken :
a)
For Ouffalls 001 . 002. 003. 004. 005 and 006 -
at a point representative of the discharge, but prior to mixing with any other
wastestreams and prior to entry into the drainage ditch tributary to the receiving stream
.
b)
For Outtells A04. B04. C04. D04 and E04-at a point representative of the discharge, but prior to mixing with any other wastestrearns
and prior to entry into the recycle basin .
SPECIALCONDITION20 . The Permittee shall record monitoring results on Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Forms using one such form
for each outfall each month
.
The Permittee may choose to submit electronic DMRs (eDMRs) instead of mailing paper DMRs to the IEPA . More information, including
registration information for the eDMR program, can be obtained on the IEPA website, http://www.epa.state.1l .ustwater/edmr/index.html .
The completed Discharge Monitoring Report forms shall be submitted to IEPA no later than the 15th day of the following month, unless
otherwise specified by the permitting authority .
Page 12
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
Permittees not using eDMRs shall mail Discharge Monitoring Reports with
an original signature to the EPA at the following address :
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
Attention: Compliance Assurance Section, Mail Code # 19
SPECIAL CONDITION 21 .
STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)
A.
A storm water pollution prevention plan shall be developed by the permittee for the storm water associated with industrial activity at
this facility. The plan shall identify potential sources of pollution which may be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges
associated with the industrial activity at the facility
.
In addition, the plan shall describe and ensure the implementation of practices
which are to be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial activity at the facility and to assure
compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit
.
B .
The plan shall be completed within 180 days of the effective date of this permit. Plans shall provide for compliance with the terms of
the plan within 365 days of the effective date of this permit
.
The owner or operator of the facility shall make a copy of the plan
available to the Agency at any reasonable time upon request. [Note: If the plan has already been developed and implemented f shall
be maintained in accordance with all requirements of this special condition
.]
C .
The permittee may be notified by the Agency at any time that the plan does not meet the requirements of this condition
. After such
notification, the permittee shall make changes to the plan and shall submit a written certification that the requested changes have
been made. Unless otherwise provided, the permittee shall have 30 days after such notification to make the changes
.
D .
The discharger shall amend the plan whenever there is a change in construction, operation, or maintenance which may affect the
discharge of significant quantities of pollutants to the waters of the State or if a facilityy inspection required by paragraph G of this
condition indicates that an amendment is needed . The plan should also be amended if the discharger is in violation of any conditions
of this permit, or has not achieved the general objective of controlling pollutants in storm water discharges. Amendments to the plan
shall be made within the shortest reasonable period of time, and shall be provided to the Agency for review upon request .
E .
The plan shall provide a description of potential sources which may be expected to add significant quantities of pollutants to storm
water discharges, or which may result In non-storm water discharges from storm water
outfalls at the facility . The plan shall include, at
a minimum, the following items
:
1
.
A topographic map extending one-quarter mile beyond the property boundaries of the facility, showing : the facility, surface water
bodies, wells (including Injection wells), seepage pits, infiltration ponds, and the discharge points where the facility's storm water
discharges to a municipal storm drain system or other water body
. The requirements of this paragraph may be included on the
site map if appropriate.
2 .
A site map showing
:
i .
The storm water conveyance and discharge structures
;
ii .
An outline of the storm water drainage areas for each storm water discharge
point;
iii.
Paved areas and buildings ;
iv .
Areas used for outdoor manufacturing, storage, or disposal of significant materials, including activities that generate
significant quantities of dust or particulates .
v .
Location of existing storm water structural control measures (dikes, coverings, detention facilities, etc.);
vi .
Surface water locations and/or municipal storm drain locations
Page 13
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
vii.
Areas of existing and potential soil erosion
;
viii. Vehicle service areas;
ix.
Material loading, unloading, and access areas .
3 .
A narrative description of the following
:
i .
The nature of the industrial activities conducted at the site, including a description of significant materials that are treated,
stored or disposed of in a manner to allow exposure to storm water ;
ii .
Materials, equipment, and vehicle management practices employed to minimize contact of significant materials with storm
water discharges ;
iii .
Existing structural and non-structural control measures to reduce pollutants
in storm water discharges
;
iv.
Industrial storm water discharge treatment facilities ;
v.
Methods of onsite storage and disposal of significant materials
;
4 .
A list of the types of pollutants that have a reasonable potential to be present in storm water discharges in significant quantities
.
5 .
An estimate of the size of the facility in acres or square feet, and the percent of the facility that has impervious areas such as
pavement or buildings
.
6 .
A summary of existing sampling data describing pollutants in storm water discharges.
F .
The plan shall describe the storm water management controls which will be implemented by the facility. The appropriate controls shall
reflect identified existing and potential sources of pollutants at the facility. The description of the storm water management controls
shall include :
1
.
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Personnel - Identification by job titles of the individuals who are responsible for developing,
implementing, and revising the plan
.
2.
Preventive Maintenance
- Procedures for inspection and maintenance of storm water conveyance system devices such as
oil/water separators, catch basins, etc., and inspection and testing of plant equipment and systems that could fail and result in
discharges of pollutants to storm water
.
3.
Good Housekeeping - Good housekeeping requires the maintenance of clean, orderly facility areas that discharge storm water .
Material handling areas shall be inspected and cleaned to reduce the potential for pollutants to enter the storm water conveyance
system .
4 .
Spill Prevention and Response - Identification of areas where significant materials can spill into or otherwise
enter the storm
water conveyance systems and their accompanying drainage points
.
Specific material handling procedures, storage
requirements, spill clean up equipment and procedures should be identified,
as appropriate. Internal notification procedures for
spills of significant materials should be established
.
5.
Storm Water Management Practices
- Storm water management practices are practices other than those which control the
source of pollutants. They include measures such as installing oil and grit separators, diverting storm water into retention basins,
etc. Based on assessment of the potential of various sources to contribute pollutants, measures to remove pollutants from storm
water discharge shall be implemented
.
In developing the plan, the following management practices shall be considered
:
i
Containment - Storage within berms or other secondary containment devices to prevent leaks and spills from entering
storm water runoff;
ii .
Oil & Grease Separation - Oil/water separators, booms, skimmers or other methods to minimize oil contaminated storm
water discharges;
Page 14
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
iii .
Debris & Sediment Control
- Screens, booms, sediment ponds or other methods to reduce debris and sediment in storm
water discharges ;
iv .
Waste Chemical Disposal
- Waste chemicals such as antifreeze, degreasers and used oils shall be recycled or disposed
of in an approved manner and in a way which prevents them from entering storm water discharges
.
Storm Water Diversion
- Storm water diversion
away
from materials manufacturing, storage and other areas of potential
storm water contamination ;
vi .
Covered Storage or Manufacturing Areas - Covered fueling operations, materials manufacturing and storage areas to
prevent contact with storm water
.
6 .
Sediment and Erosion Prevention - The plan shall identify areas which due to topography, activities, or other factors, have a high
potential for significant soil erosion and describe measures to limit erosion
.
7 .
Employee Training - Employee training programs shall inform personnel at all levels of responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution control plan . Training should address topics such as spill response, good housekeeping and
material management practices. The plan shall identify periodic dates for such training
.
8 .
Inspection Procedures-Qualified plant personnel shall be identified to inspect designated equipment and plant areas . A tracking
or follow-up procedure shall be used to ensure appropriate response has been taken in response to an inspection
. Inspections
and maintenance activities shall be documented and recorded
.
G .
The permittee shall conduct an annual facility inspection to verify that all elements of the plan, including the site map, potential
pollutant sources, and structural and non-structural controls to reduce pollutants in industrial storm water discharges are accurate
.
Observations that require a response and the appropriate response to the observation shall be retained as part of the plan. Records
documenting significant observations made during the site inspection shall be submitted to the Agency in accordance with the
reporting requirements of this permit .
H
.
This plan should briefly describe the appropriate elements of other program requirements, including Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) plans required under Section 311 of the CWA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and Best
Management Programs under 40 CFR 125.100 .
The plan is considered a report that shall be available to the public under Section 308(b) of the CWA . The permittee may claim
portions of the plan as confidential business information, including any portion describing facility security measures
.
J .
The plan shall include the signature and title of the person responsible for preparation of the plan and include the date of initial
preparation and each amendment thereto
.
Construction Authorization
K.
Authorization is hereby granted to construct treatment works and related equipment that may be required by the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan developed pursuant to this permit
.
This Authorization is issued subject to the following condition(s) .
1
.
If any statement or representation is found to be incorrect, this authorization may be revoked and the per mittee there upon waives all
rights thereunder .
2.
The issuance of this authorization (a) does not release the permittee from any liability for damage to persons or property caused
by or
resulting from the installation, maintenance or operation of the proposed facilities ; (b) does not take into consideration the structural
stability of any units or part of this project; and (c) does not release the permittee from compliance with other applicable statutes of
the State of Illinois, or other applicable local law, regulations or ordinances
.
3.
Plans and specifications of all treatment equipment being included as part of the stormwater management practice shall be included in
the SWPPP .
4
.
Construction activities which result from treatment equipment installation, including clearing, grading and excavation activities which
result in the disturbance of one acre or more of land area, are not covered by this authorization
. The permittee shall contact the IEPA
Page 15
regarding the required permit(s)
.
REPORTING
The facility shall submit an annual inspection report to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. The report shall include results of
the annual facility inspection which is required by Part G of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan of this permit . The report shall
also include documentation of any event (spill, treatment unit malfunction, etc.) which would require an inspection, results of the
inspection, and any subsequent corrective maintenance activity
. The report shall be completed and signed by the authorized facility
employee(s) who conducted the inspection(s) .
M .
The first report shall contain information gathered during the one year time period beginning with the effective date of coverage under
this permit and shall be submitted no later than 60 days after this one year period has expired. Each subsequent report shall contain
the previous year's information and shall be submitted no later than one year after the previous year's report was due.
N .
Annual inspection reports shall be mailed to the following address
:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Bureau of Water
Compliance Assurance Section
Annual Inspection Report
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois
62794-9276
O .
If the facility performs inspections more frequently than required by this permit, the results shall be included as additional information
in the annual report
.
SPECIAL CONDITION 22 .
Effluent limits for manganese at Outfall 001 are as follows :
A limit of 0.15 mg/I shall be applied as a daily
maximum when the flow in the Kaskaskia River is at or below 500 cubic feet per second . Limits of 1 .0 mg/I (applied as a monthly average)
and 2.0 mg/I (applied as a daily maximum) must be met at the discharge point when flow in the Kaskaskia River is greater than 500 cubic feet
per second . River flows shall be taken from the Venedy USGS gauging station
.
NPDES Permit No. IL0076996
Special Conditions
EXHIBIT F
Prairie State Generating Company NPDES Permit
Responsiveness Summary
Table of Contents
Agency Decision
2
Pre-Hearing Public Outreach
2
Public Hearing - May 11, 2005
3
Background of Permit
3
Responses to Comments, Question Concerns
I
.
Water Withdrawal And Utilization Issues 4
II
.
Specific NPDES Permit Conditions
8
III
.
Application of IPCB Antidegradation Regulation I 1
IV
.
Power Plant Operations
13
V
.
Manganese
18
VI
.
Mercury
21
VII
.
Weather Related Concerns
22
VIII
.
General Issues
23
Manganese Mass Balance Results
25
Acronyms and Initialisms
26
Distribution of Responsiveness Summary
27
Who Can Answer Your Questions
27
1
December 5, 2005
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF :
)
PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING COMPANY (PSGC)
)
APPLICATION FOR NEW NPDES PERMIT
)
FILE #80-05
PERMIT NUMBER IL0076996
)
AGENCY DECISION
On December 5, 2005, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA or Agency)
approved the Prairie State Generation Company, LLC, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit
.
The following changes were made to the draft permit:
•
Manganese permit limits added for outfall 001
.
•
All discharges to Mud Creek will be monitored for manganese
.
PRE-HEARING PUBLIC OUTREACH
Beginning March 23, 2005, the entire public hearing notice was published thrice (March 23, 30
and April 6) in the Nashville News and thrice (March 24, 31 and April 7) in the New Athens
Journal-Messenger .
The public hearing notice was mailed on March 23, 2005, to persons on a
service list maintained by the Illinois EPA . The notice was mailed to local legislators, county,
township and municipal officials, environmental organizations and interested citizens. The
public hearing notice was also posted electronically on the Illinois EPA website,
http://www.epa.state.il.us and in the Illinois EPA Collinsville and Marion regional offices
.
Prairie Rivers Network carried the public hearing notice on their listserv . The hearing notice
was sent to 26 newspapers who had published articles about the facility and/or who were in
geographic proximity to the site. Information about the hearing was published in the newsletters
of the Washington County Farm Bureau (1,979 members), the Randolph County Farm Bureau
(1,500 members) and the St. Claire-Madison County Farm Bureau (20,800 members). The
American Bottom Conservancy distributed informational fliers prior to the hearing. The public
hearing was announced in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (5-9-05) and Southern Illinoisan
(5-9-05) .
2
May 11, 2005, PUBLIC HEARING
Illinois EPA Hearing Officer James Day opened the hearing May 11, 2005, at 6 :35 p.m. in the
Marissa High School gym, 300 School View Drive in Marissa
.
Illinois EPA Permit Engineer Beth Unser explained the NPDES permit .
PSGC President Collin Kelly provided an overview of the project
.
Comments and questions were received from the audience
.
Hearing Officer James Day closed the hearing at 9:35 p.m. on May 11, 2005
.
Illinois EPA personnel were available before, during and after the hearing to meet with elected
officials, news media and concerned citizens
.
Eighty persons representing local governmental officials, businesses, labor/trade unions,
Southwestern Illinois College, residents, news media, consultants, interested citizens and
watershed/environmental interests attended the hearing . A court reporter prepared a transcript of
the public hearing which was posted on the Illinois EPA website. Newspaper articles about the
hearing were printed in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (5-12-05), the Southern Illinoisan (5-12-05),
Breese Journal (5-12-05, 5-25-05) and Centralia Sentinel (5-12-05) .
BACKGROUND OF PERMIT
The Prairie State Generating Company, LLC (PSGC) (Peabody Energy Company), plans to build
a 1,500-megawatt coal-fired power plant (Prairie State Energy Campus, Prairie State Generating
Station) in Lively Grove Township, Washington County, approximately four miles east,
northeast of Marissa, Illinois. The proposed plant would be a mine-mouth project and the new
mine, which would be located east of the power plant, would be named the Lively Grove Mine
.
Water withdrawn from the Kaskaskia River will be used in the coal fired boiler units and
recycled within the plant for other operational purposes .
Plant operation will result in the
average discharge of 1,700,000 gallons of wastewater per day into the Kaskaskia River . In
addition, emergency overflow discharges during extreme wet weather events are permitted to
Mud Creek. The Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek are classified as general use waterways
.
The Illinois EPA issued this five-year NPDES permit for discharge into waters of the state in
accordance with 35 Illinois Administrative Code Subtitle
C
(Water Pollution)
and the federal
Clean Water Act
.
3
Responses to Comments, Questions and Concerns
Questions, comments and recommendations received by the Agency regarding the draft permit
during the full comment period including the initial public notice and comment period, the May
11, 2005 public hearing, and the post hearing comment period that extended to midnight, June 1,
2005 have been assembled into nine (9) topical categories . Those questions, comments and
recommendations are documented along with Agency responses (in
bold) by those topical
categories as follows
:
I .
Water Withdrawal And Utilization Issues
Protection of aquatic life, potable and industrial water supply are officially recognized as
legitimate beneficial uses within the Illinois Environmental Protection Act . The Kaskaskia River
basin is more fortunate than other sectors of the state due to the two large (Lake Shelbyville and
Carlyle Lake) multi-purpose reservoirs that were developed by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and Illinois Division of Water Resources (IDWR, a division of the Department of
Natural Resources) to address such issues . Water storage for both industrial and public supply
was one of the primary purposes for development of Carlyle Lake . Under state law, the IDWR is
responsible for management and operation of those reservoirs, including allocation of water
quantity in support of those uses for which the reservoirs were built
.
Numerous questions and comments were received during the comment period for this discharge
permit relative to the water allocation to Prairie State Generating by IDWR to support the
industrial water supply needs related to operation of the facility. In addition to this overview of
the IDWR allocation process, this section includes specific questions and responses relative to
the water withdrawal issue
.
PSGC will be allowed to withdraw up to 30 MGD (million gallons per day) from the
Kaskaskia River and up to 18 MGD from Carlyle Lake . These water withdrawals could
adversely impact both the water quality and quantity above and below the withdrawal and
discharge points. When the river is low, PSGC will be withdrawing at least 25 percent of
the river. Does the state have a right to limit withdrawals from the Kaskaskia River?
Special Condition 1 in the NPDES permit is designed to protect the Kaskaskia River
during low flow conditions. If the Kaskaskia River drops to a low flow condition,
PSGC will not be allowed to withdraw water and must use water stored in an on-site
water impoundment. PSGC has a 40-year contract with IDNR to purchase water
stored in Carlyle and Shelbyville lakes . Water in these lakes will be discharged into
the Kaskaskia River where it can be withdrawn by PSGC. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of water from Carlyle Lake to the
Kaskaskia River. The IDNR has authority to allocate distribution of this water .
The permit for PSGC to build a water withdrawal intake structure at the Kaskaskia
River was issued by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Water
4
Resources (IDNR) in 2002 and revised in 2005. The amount of water that can be
withdrawn from the river is limited by river flow as specified in Special Condition
#1 and by pump and pipe capacity
.
2
.
Special Condition 1 of the permit limits the water withdrawal beyond the limitations
placed by the IDNR . This is explained in the fact sheet as necessary to ensure that water
quality standards are satisfied, even at low flows . However, the 7Q10 flow is not
considered a protective flow for fish and wildlife in the river. Therefore, withdrawals
that lower flow levels to that of the 7Q10 flow more frequently may impair the aquatic
life use of the river, thereby violating water quality standards . According to the USGS
flow data at Venedy from 1990 to 1994, the 7Q10 flow was observed only 0 .2 percent of
the days. If the proposed facility withdraws 30 MGD, as they have been granted by the
DNR permit, this flow would be observed more than 5 percent of the time . Further, for
flows between the 5 percentile and 10 percentile flows, the withdrawal of 30 MGD would
be more than a quarter of the river flow. To ensure that this withdrawal does not
contribute to violations of water quality standards, Illinois EPA must further restrict
withdrawals .
Illinois EPA respectfully disagrees with the premise that "7Q10 flow
is not
considered a protective flow for fish and wildlife in the river." Illinois EPA is not
aware of evidence indicating that 7Q10 flows lead to river impairment. Flows
periodically and naturally drop to 7Q10 flow levels, or even below, during drought
conditions. Illinois EPA was intent on preventing flows from artificially dropping
below 7Q10 levels due to the operation of the PSGC plant because of a mixing zone
and adjusted standard granted to a downstream discharge . The discharger depends
on 7Q10 flows to assure that water quality standards are met outside the mixing
zone.
3
.
Withdrawal of water from the Kaskaskia River by PSGC will lessen the amount of water
in the river. When the river reaches low flow conditions,
will
there be enough water for
downstream users? Is there an agreement to protect downstream interests? How do you
assure that everyone gets their fair share?
NPDES permits and drinking water permits are based upon consideration of low
flow in the river.
Special Condition 1 ensures that PSGC will not cause the river to drop below 7Q10
flows. This means that the Baldwin Station downstream will have sufficient river
flow (barring any natural reduction in river
flow) to meet water quality standards
below its effluent outfall. Public water supplies should not be impacted since 7Q10
river flows are planned on when designing river intake structures . Fish and wildlife
historically have experienced low flow events on the river and also should not be
affected.
5
4 .
A report prepared a couple of years ago for the Corps and the IDNR concluded that there
were more requests for water allocation than there was water available in the Kaskaskia
River.
By statute the IDNR regulates water allocation in the Kaskaskia River. IDNR
granted the PSGC request. The Illinois EPA is not aware of other requests to IDNR
for Kaskaskia River water allocation .
5 .
Will withdrawal of water impact fishing, swimming and boating on the Kaskaskia River
and Carlyle Lake?
The Kaskaskia Regional Port District reported that they had reviewed the plans and
that the water withdrawal from the river will have no significant impact on
commercial navigation, sediment buildup or recreational boating .
6
.
There is concern about the impact on Lake Carlyle if during a drought, additional waters
would be released to maintain the levels in the Kaskaskia River from which PSGC could
be removing up to 30 MGD. When there is a drought, Lake Carlyle will already be
stressed .
A dry spring followed by a summer drought would adversely affect the
recreational resources of the lake such as swimming and boating
.
The IDNR regulates water allocation and the contractual additional release of water
from Lake Carlyle. Water demand and extended drought conditions are factors
considered by IDNR in determining acceptable allocations
.
7
.
Rate of water release from Carlyle Lake is a complex subject with numerous stakeholders
with contrary interests in agriculture, water supply and recreation . How are other
interests affected?
The IDNR regulates water allocation and it was their decision to grant PSGC's
request .
8
.
What is the role of the Illinois EPA regarding the IDNR permit for building a structure
for withdrawing water from the Kaskaskia River?
On September 10, 2003, the Illinois EPA issued a Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act (33 USC §1341, Section 401) certification that the federal permit activities
would not cause a violation of the Illinois Water quality standards . The Section 401
Certification was provided because a Section 404 permit was required from the U.S .
Army Corps of Engineers. IDNR is a participant in the 404 permitting process in
6
addition to any state permitting functions overseen by that agency stemming from
the intake structure .
9 .
When the river is low, this facility will be withdrawing at least 25 percent of the river
.
Existing 7Q10 river flow values will be preserved due to Special Condition #1
.
PSGC may have to purchase water from Lakes Carlyle and Shelbyville through
IDNR during periods of relatively low flow to maintain river flows above 7Q10 . It is
true that at times the facility will be withdrawing approximately 25 percent of the
river's water.
10 .
Page 5 of the public notice/fact sheet states that when the Kaskaskia River flow at the
Venedy Station is at or below 120 cfs (cubic feet per second), PSGC must record the
amount of water withdrawn from the river and the amount of water discharged at 001 . It
is unclear if this monitoring trigger is for any time during the day or for the entire day
.
PSGC
will
access
the
US
Geological
Survey
website
http://waterdata.usgs.aov/il/nwis/rt once per day and obtain the latest, available
instantaneous flow value for the Venedy Station gauge. A daily average flow will
obviously not be available for the current day. The instantaneous value will
approximate the daily average flow value, however, and will be sufficiently accurate
to apply to the calculation found in Special Condition #1
(i.e . flow is at or below 120
cfs) .
The amount of discharge from the previous day will be the entire daily
discharge. These values will be used to determine the amount of water the facility
may withdraw during the current day .
11 .
Page 5. PSOC is to report occurrence of the trigger rate . No verification by the agency is
expected. Why?
The daily flow of the river can be verified by the Agency at any time since the data
collected at the Venedy Station gauge is readily available from the US Geological
Survey.
12 .
Page 5. How the 120 cfs rate at the Venedy Station was determined is not explained
.
Downstream of the Venedy Station, the Kaskaskia River is joined by Jackson Slough,
Silver Creek, Elkhorn Creek and Mud Creek. Their flows may be substantial at times but
its unclear how that has been figured into the trigger calculation. Outfall 001 discharges
downstream of the withdrawal structure .
The Venedy Station gauge is the nearest upstream USGS continuously monitored
gauge. The 7Q10 flow at that gauge is 74 cfs. The facility has pumps capable of
withdrawing 30 million gallons per day (equals 46.4 cfs) from the river. One
7
hundred twenty cfs minus 46.4 cfs equals 73 .6 cfs. The value of 120 cfs in Special
Condition #1 therefore guarantees that a maximum daily water withdrawal will not
cause the river to drop below 7Q10 flow at the nearest measured river location . A
river flow value between 120 and 74 cfs will allow water intakes between 30 million
gallons and zero gallons as calculated by the equation. The flows from the tributary
streams downstream of the Venedy station gauge will make up the difference in
7Q10 flow in the Kaskaskia River at the plant intake and discharge site. If these
streams are flowing at least at 7Q10 flows, the 7Q10 of the Kaskaskia River will be
maintained downstream .
II.
Specific NPDES Permit Conditions
13 .
Why doesn't PSGC have to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP)
until six months after the NPDES permit is issued? Many materials will be stored on site
and the stormwater pollution prevention plan should be designed to protect local
waterways .
Emergency discharges from eight outfalls will subject Mud Creek to
pollutants that have never been introduced into this environment . Mud Creek is on the
state's 303(d) list due to impairments caused by manganese, siltation, dissolved oxygen
and phosphorous. The Agency should not issue this NPDES permit until both the Illinois
EPA and the public have had an opportunity to review and comment on the SWPPP
.
How can this NPDES permit be submitted for public comment when a major component
is tacking? What assumptions were made relating to the storm water plan and the
stormwater outfalls?
The requirements for the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are
outlined in detail in Special Condition 21. The plan must be developed for the
discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity, as defined in 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14). Since the site is currently undeveloped, there is no industrial activity
occurring. The plan cannot be drafted and implemented until the site is developed
and industrial activity is initiated. In the interim, PSGC will be required to obtain
coverage under the general NPDES permit for storm water associated with
construction site activities to control runoff from the site
.
14 .
Why isn't PSGC required to have a comprehensive water permit that includes the
proposed mine?
The operation of electric generating station is a distinct and separate function from
the coal mining activity .
The nature of the two operations is different, the
environmental issues are distinctly different, they are subject to different state and
federal regulations, and while within relative proximity to each other, are located on
separate and distinct parcels of land .
8
15 .
What is the justification for omitting manganese and phosphate from the contaminants
listed by the permit given that the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek are impaired by
manganese? Also, why is PSGC being allowed to discharge phosphorous at a level four
times greater than what is allowed for sewage treatment plants?
Manganese limits have been incorporated into the final permit .
Please refer to the
Manganese Section of this Responsiveness Summary (Comment #38, page 18) for
additional discussion .
Illinois EPA respectfully disagrees with the statement "PSGC is being allowed to
discharge phosphorus at a level four times greater than what is being allowed for
sewage treatment plants". A discharge model based on raw water concentrations
and removal of phosphorus in the clarifying process PSGC intends to use to prepare
river water for use in the plant indicates that the final effluent
concentration
discharged to the Kaskaskia River will be 1 .7 mg/L total phosphorus on an average
basis. A typical sewage treatment plant effluent in Illinois contains approximately
3.5 mg/L total phosphorus.
PSGC will discharge phosphorus concentrations that
are significantly lower that those found in sewage treatment plant effluents,
not
higher. Moreover, after the public hearing, PSGC was asked to re-evaluate their
proposed use of a phosphorous-containing treatment additive that
functions to
prevent corrosion in cooling tower piping.
On June 10, 2005, PSGC proposed the
use of a different product (GE Betz AEC3107) that would prevent corrosion and not
add additional phosphorous to the effluent
.
In a July 11, 2005 review memo, the
Agency approved the use of the substitute product.
No significant amount of
phosphorous is now added to the river by the proposed power plant . The proposed
amount of phosphorous in the effluent was present in the Kaskaskia River water
withdrawn for cooling. Given the 1.6 million gallon per day average discharge from
PSGC, 22.7 pounds per day of phosphorous will be discharged. This is less than the
amount (25 ppd) (pounds per day) covered by a proposed effluent phosphorous
standard currently before the Illinois Pollution Control Board as of this writing
.
16. Special condition 12 requires PSGC to annually test for 126 specified priority pollutants
.
"If all parameters analyzed produce a result of 'nondetect' during two consecutive
sampling events, monitoring for the 126 priority pollutants may be discontinued upon
written notification to the Agency." Why not require testing every year since these are
substances we are trying to keep out of the water .
If we don't look for it, we are not
going to find it
.
Based on the information provided in the permit application, there is no reason to
believe that any pollutants other than those limited in the permit will be present at
levels exceeding the applicable water quality standards and/or effluent standards
.
The sampling requirements contained in Special Condition
12 are intended to
provide verification of the expectation that these substances are not present in
environmentally significant concentrations . This condition is consistent with federal
effluent standards developed for the Steam Electric Power Generating
Industry .
9
However, while the federal effluent standards developed for the Steam
Electric
Power Generating industry include a requirement for information regarding all 126
priority pollutants, the federal regulations allow the permittee to submit engineering
calculations to demonstrate that the pollutants are not detectable in the discharge in
lieu of actual monitoring.
Instead of calculations, the permit requires PSGC to
conduct at least two sampling events to show that the pollutants are not present
.
Priority pollutant monitoring
required in this permit goes
beyond federal
requirement .
17 .
What are the contaminants of concern in the discharge of bottom ash quench water from
outfall 004 into Mud Creek?
Bottom ash is a relatively inert material and the Agency expects
little or no
contaminants associated with it.
Since the bottom ash quench water is combined
with other plant wastewater streams, prior to discharge through Outfall 004, the
permit requires monitoring of total suspended solids, oil and grease, and pH
.
18 .
Some pollutants listed for other NPDES permits are absent from this permit
. Why?
Each discharge to be covered under an NPDES permit is reviewed on an individual
basis .
Not all facilities within
an industrial category
generate identical
wastestreams. Operations within power plants can vary greatly . The PSGC facility
has been designed to
recycle
many wastestreams that similar power generation
facilities discharge to surface waters . Pollutant concentrations in each wastestream
tributary to waters of the state are examined, and then limits and/or monitoring are
imposed as necessary based on the level of pollutants present .
19 .
Is the Illinois EPA hurrying with this permit so that a decision can be made before any
new regulations take affect?
The Agency is committed to professional, accurate and timely disposition
of our
duties including administration of its permitting program
.
Also, Special Condition
13 allows the Illinois EPA to open these permits at any time to update requirements
based on changes in regulations .
20
.
How does issuing a permit at the same time or before distributing
a response to
comments meet Illinois EPA's public participation goals?
Upon completion of the pubic participation phase of this permitting process,
the
Agency will evaluate public comments and recommendations received, finalize the
Agency review, modify or adjust the draft permit, if appropriate, and issue the
Agency's final determination on the permit application, concurrent with a summary
1 0
of comments received and responses to those comments. We believe this is the best
approach to using input from the public .
21
.
How does the Agency determine compliance of Special Condition 15?
Special Condition 15 limits the discharges from outfalls 001 and 002 to noncontact
cooling water .
Outfall 001 discharges to the Kaskaskia River. Outfall 002
discharges to Mud Creek via a drainage ditch .
The Illinois EPA's Field Operations Section (FOS) performs inspections at
permitted facilities on a periodic basis to review compliance with the terms and
conditions of the facility's permit(s). Inspections at this facility will include
verification that the discharges from outfalls 001 and 002 are limited to noncontact
cooling water .
III .
Application of IPCB Antidegradation Regulation
In addition to discharge limitations and water quality standards, Illinois Pollution Control
Board (IPCB) regulations include an "antidegradation" provision that applies to new and
expanding activities subject to NPDES permitting . The development of this facility with the
provision for newly permitted discharges to waters of the state necessitate that an
antidegradation evaluation be completed by the Agency and its final action be consistent with
determinations emanating from that evaluation. The Agency completed an initial
antidegradation assessment and provided a summary of that assessment for public review and
comment .
This section contains the comments and responses received relative to
antidegradation assessment .
22
.
The first paragraph of the antidegradation assessment refers to the monetary exchange
between PSGC and IDNR for water releases from Carlyle Lake. Why isn't this monetary
exchange explained in the NPDES permit?
Fees charged for water allocation are directly mandated under state law,
The
Kaskaskia River and Basin Act of 1965.
This law specifies that only fees related to
Carlyle Lake operation and maintenance expenses of the Army Corps of Engineers
can be assessed to users. The state receives no money from these allocations. IDNR
serves merely as a pass through administrator to recover expenses that the Corps of
Engineers incurs in Lake operations. IDNR notifies each party that has an
allocation of the fees associated with that allocation ; however payment is made
directly to the federal government .
I1
23 .
In the antidegradation assessment, it states that certain state water quality standards
presently under development may be applied to future NPDES permits for this facility
.
No explanation is given for these not being applicable whenever established
.
The reference to development of future standards refers to the current assessment
of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). The only component of the operation
authorized under this permit that may constitute a source of nutrients is the treated
sanitary waste from the operating staff at the facility. This is a relatively small
nutrient source constituting a near negligible increment to the receiving stream that
will occur only after periods of high rainfall when a discharge from the recycle pond
(Outfall 004) is possible. Should future regulations require a different regulatory
response, there is ample opportunity to modify operating requirements in the
future. However, proposed new phosphorus limits currently under Illinois Pollution
Control Board consideration for adoption would not require phosphorus removal at
facilities of this size due to the unfavorable cost effectiveness and impractibility of
applying supplemental phosphorus control technologies to such small sources
.
24 .
In the antidegradation assessment, paragraph 13 states that "these outfalls will on average
occur once every ten years ." Should the word outfalls be replaced with overflows?
The wording in the antidegradation assessment is the result of a typographical
error. The word "Outfalls" should be replaced by "discharges."
25. Paragraph 18 states that the power plant plans "are consistent with appropriate
technology for this size and type of project ." This is an issue that should be decided by
the USEPA Environmental Appeals Board and should not be presented here as facts or
opinion .
Pursuant to Section 39(a) of the Act, the Agency is authorized to make permitting
decisions. It is the Agency's duty to issue a permit upon proof by the applicant that
the facility will not cause a violation of this Act or the Pollution Control Board
regulations .
In this case, the Agency has made the determination that the
technology proposed by the applicant has met the burden of proof required under
Section 39(a), and also that the design and operation of the facility as permitted
would not cause a violation of the Act or the regulations. The Act allows any person
to appeal the Agency's final decision .
26
.
The endangered species comment was reported to have been received by IDNR on April
14, 2005, well past the public notice beginning date of March 3, 2005. The public has
not had 30 days in which to examine and comment on the IDNR report .
12
Please refer to the second to last paragraph of Antidegradation Assessment: "A
copy of the application was sent to IDNR on October 28, 2003. IDNR responded on
April 14, 2004 that no threatened or endangered species are found in the vicinity of
the outfalls and therefore consultation is terminated." When the correct date of the
IDNR response is considered, it is apparent that this response was available when
the permit was public noticed. The commenter has a 2005 date for the response
when the date was actually in 2004.
27 .
The area of the proposed PSGC plant is home to the Eastern Narrow Mouth Toad
- a
state endangered species. PSGC might impact this endangered species' habitat by using
approximately one million tons of limestone per year that will be sourced from the
immediate area.
The comment is premised upon the belief that mining of limestone constitutes a
threat to the Eastern Narrow Mouth Toad. This permit does not authorize or
regulate the mining activity the commenter speculates will occur. Should limestone
mining at this location be necessary the entity conducting the mining activity will
need separate authorization from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Office of Mines and Minerals. The Illinois EPA takes notice of this concern and
requests that they consider in this any permitting application they may receive for
the site for a State mining permit issued by this Agency
.
28 .
What other alternatives have they considered to minimize other pollutants?
Pollutants added to the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek from the PSGC facility are
extremely minimal .
This is because methods of coal ash and scrubber waste
handling do not contact water that will be discharged to the environment .
Additionally, coal pile runoff, bottom ash handling and other potential wastewater
sources discharge to a recycle pond so that these waters are reused, often in
consumptive uses, at the facility. Compared to a traditional wet ash/scrubber waste
handling system, this system discharges only a very small fraction of pollutants
related to coal combustion. The facility has minimized all pollutants to a large
degree and will meet all water quality standards applicable in the receiving waters
.
IV .
Power Plant Operations
The PSGC plant is designed to minimize discharge of pollutants to waters of the state . Several
outfalls will discharge to waters of the state; a cooling water discharge to the Kaskaskia River, a
recycle pond wet weather discharge to Mud Creek and several other minor wet weather
discharges to Mud Creek. Coal combustion byproducts, i .e. ash and scrubber sludge, are handled
by a dry system that allows almost no discharge of water contacting these materials. Cooling
water is withdrawn from the Kaskaskia River, is treated to make the water acceptable for use in
cooling towers and then is discharged back to the river after several cycles of evaporation in the
1 3
towers .
The cooling water treatment process removes some constituents found in the river water .
Those that remain are concentrated through the evaporation process .
Several constituents will
have a mixing zone in the river thereby allowing water quality standards to
be met although
loading of these substances to the river will not increase because these substances were naturally
present in the river water. The plant uses water for many functions besides cooling
.
A recycle
pond will be employed to re-use this water rather than to use it for only one function and then
discharge it. The recycle pond will enable wastewater to be held until it is eventually used for
some consumptive use. Because of these consumptive uses, make-up water will be periodically
added to the recycle pond from the Kaskaskia River.
The recycle pond will only discharge to
Mud Creek after periods of heavy rainfall when runoff from the property will enter the recycle
pond faster than the water in the pond is used. The recycle pond acts as a combined storage and
equalization basin for stormwater .
Discharge of recycle pond water will only occur when Mud
Creek is at a very high flow stage from the heavy rains that caused the overflow
.
Water quality
standards will be met in Mud Creek and the Kaskaskia River at all times
.
29 .
Why must there be piles of coal storage if this is a mine-mouth operation?
Storage of coal is a normal part of operations. For example, there may be times that
the mine is shut down for maintenance. Coal in storage would then be needed to
operate the generation plant.
30 .
PSGC is proposing to use phosphorous as a pipe corrosion inhibitor and to
discharge
phosphorous at levels that are over 10 times the average level in the Kaskaskia River
.
These phosphorous discharges may contribute to alga growth, degrade the river and cause
problems for Sparta's public water supply. The state antidegradation regulations require
that all reasonable measures be taken to avoid or minimize increased pollutant loading .
Therefore, alternatives that would minimize the phosphorous loading must be analyzed
and incorporated into the design of this facility if reasonable.
Such alternatives might
include the use of a different corrosion inhibitor or removing the phosphorous prior
to
discharge. The phosphorous discharge should be limited to 1 mg/L
.
PSGC is no longer planning to use the phosphorous-based corrosion inhibitor.
31
.
Concern was expressed about the potential
for cancer causing chlorinated organic
chemicals to be formed and discharged from this facility
. Has the Agency analyzed these
disinfection by-products and the effect they might have on the downstream waters and for
anyone using these waters?
PSGC plans to use chlorine as a biocide in the cooling water to control slime growth
.
Conditions within the cooling tower at the proposed generating station are such that the
production of disinfection byproducts such as Total Organic Halogens (TOX) is likely .
Because downstream public water supplies are withdrawing Kaskaskia River water, TOX
should be monitored in the cooling tower blowdown effluent
. Specific TOX compounds
14
for which the USEPA has set limits for in public water supplies should also be monitored
and limited. These include trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids . Dechlorination will not
remove these by-products if they have already been formed
.
Chlorine added to the raw water intake, to the holding basin and at the cooling towers
could form disinfection by-products that could potentially cause the city of Sparta water
supply to encounter problems complying with the Stage I and Stage 2
disinfectants/disinfection by-products rules
.
We recommend that PSGC consider
utilizing potassium permanganate as an oxidant at the raw water intake and copper sulfate
at the holding basin .
Contrary to the assertion of the comment, chlorine will not be added to the raw
river water. Water withdrawn from the Kaskaskia River will be provided
pretreatment to remove organic and suspended material inherently contained in the
river water prior to the chlorination step. As a result the pretreated water will
contain relatively little organic material and further the chlorine dosage necessary
to provide the anti-scaling and fouling control will be much less . As a result, it is
extremely unlikely that the cooling operations at this facility will create significant
amounts of chlorinated organics. It is even less likely that trace levels of chlorinated
organics, if present in the cooling water discharge, would create any detrimental
environmental effect in the Kaskaskia River or persist in the river to downstream
public water supply intakes. Furthermore, any trace chlorinated organics that may
be produced will be subjected to natural attenuation through photolysis,
volatilization, bacterial degradation and other destruction mechanisms, and would
not persist in the receiving stream .
32 .
Can PSGC operate the power plant without the proposed mine?
Yes. PSGC could bring in coal from other mines .
33
.
Why can't PSGC use alternative cooling methods to avoid depletion of the water supplies
and contributing to a violation of water quality standards? Were any alternatives
considered and were cost benefit analyses prepared? Western plants use dry cooling
.
Did the Bureau of Air permit consider dry cooling? Such an alternative is an air-cooled
condenser (ACC) which has no water demand
.
PSGC evaluated alternative cooling methods in its cooling selection process. PSGC
selected wet cooling tower technology because it represented an efficient cost
effective cooling method. The cooling tower technology to be employed by PSGC
meets or exceeds Best Technology Available (BTA) standards set forth in federal
regulations regarding cooling water intake structures to reduce impingement and
entrainment. In developing its BTA standards USEPA considered specifying dry
cooling technology as BTA, but ultimately rejected dry cooling based on factors
1 5
such as reduced energy efficiency of steam turbines, cost and increased air emissions
because of dry cooling energy requirements .
Once-through cooling water
technology would use less water than cooling towers (because of reduced
evaporative losses) .
The Illinois EPA has reviewed PSGC's application for discharge of cooling tower
blowdown and finds that the proposed discharge will not violate any applicable state
or federal water quality criteria. The Illinois EPA, Bureau of Air, also considered
the dry cooling alternative and concluded that it was not warranted for the PSGC
facility. For more detail please see the Bureau of Air Responsiveness Summary .
34 .
Please list the permits that PSGC will need for this operation
.
Permits required by the Illinois EPA include :
1. Air permit for generation station - issued April 28, 2005 ;
2. NPDES permit for generation station -
discussed in this responsiveness
summary ;
3. General NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from construction site
activities at generation station ; and
4. NPDES permit modification for Randolph Preparation Plant Site to receive coal
combustion waste
.
Additionally, reliance on coal from the Lively Grove mine will require an NPDES
permit for that mining operation and required mining permits from IDNR Office of
Mines and Minerals
.
PSGC would be the best source of information for other required permits .
35 .
Were public water supplies downstream on the Kaskaskia River informed on how the
discharges might affect pollution levels in the Kaskaskia River? Will the phosphorous
and organic chemicals affect their operation and cost? How will this affect water quality?
Have the public water supplies downstream of the discharge approved of this permit?
Agency NPDES staff assessed the potential for this facility to affect downstream
water supplies in consultation with their Division of Public Water Supply
colleagues. Special condition # 1 was incorporated in the permit to assure sufficient
downstream flow to meet downstream users needs. Discharge quality required
through effluent limitations on individual outfalls and other permit conditions are
sufficient to maintain the integrity of water quality in Kaskaskia River and affected
tributaries. The full terms and conditions of the permit and a fact sheet explaining
the technical assessments conducted by the Agency were made available to all
interested parties through public notice, comment and hearing phases of the
16
permitting process ; however no separate and specific communication was provided
to water supply providers.
36 .
Much of the water taken from the river will be evaporated in the cooling towers
.
Contaminants in the river water will be concentrated in the discharge water. Added to
this will be biocides and anti-corrosion chemicals . What calculations were used to
determine these concentrations in the effluent outfall 001? What evaluation was
conducted to determine the validity of this model?
The most recent proposed water treatment chemicals for corrosion control were
evaluated in a July 11, 2005 memo. The additives will not pose an aquatic life
toxicity threat at the concentrations at which they will be used. This conclusion was
based on the listed laboratory aquatic life toxicity data for the product or from an
analysis of the ingredients of the product. This type of analysis is conducted on
treatment additives for all dischargers. The additives approved for use at PSGC
would be suitable for use in many other plants and for a wide variety of receiving
waters. Chlorine will be used as a biocide at PSGC, however, dechlorination is
required prior to discharge back into the river. Naturally occurring constituents of
the river water withdrawn for cooling usage will concentrate to some extent due to
the evaporative loss of a portion of the cooling water, however most constituents will
still be within acceptable standards at the point of discharge . Only four substances
(nickel, manganese, sulfate and fluoride) will require utilization of allowable mixing
and dilution to assure attainment of acceptable concentrations within the Kaskaskia
River. The analysis and calculations relied upon to support these findings are
presented in the fact sheet accompanying the draft permit and public notice
.
37 .
No assurance has been provided that discharges that are intended to stay on site will not
contaminate ground water. The permit indicates that the facility will be designed to hold
most of the wastewater on site, except during very heavy rains . There will be holding
ponds onsite that potentially might contain substances that could contaminate the
groundwater. Because precipitation exceeds evaporation rates for this area, the water has
to go somewhere . Therefore, demonstration must be made that these waters will not
contaminate groundwater. The holding basins should be designed with impervious liners
and monitoring wells to ensure that wastewater does not seep out and to ensure that if
water does seep into ground, it will be detected. Will the Agency require monitoring of
the pond water and the groundwater?
The recycle basin will be lined with an impervious synthetic liner . All other basins,
with the exception of the raw water impoundment ponds, will have compacted soil
liners .
The clay liners will prevent the pond contents from impacting the
groundwater below the site. Since the raw water impoundment ponds will only
contain river water withdrawn from the Kaskaskia River, liners are not necessary
.
17
V .
Manganese
Manganese is a naturally occurring constituent of surface water and is especially prevalent in
rivers and streams in this area of the state . A water quality standard of 1 .0 mg/L exists for
General Use waters, which includes the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek . Public water supply
intakes are protected by a more stringent standard for manganese, 0 .15 mg/L. The reason for the
more stringent standard for protection of drinking water sources is because manganese will cause
staining. No federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exists for manganese, indicating that
no health-based concerns require regulation. Currently, the General Use standard is met, but at
public water supply intakes at Sparta and Evansville downstream of the proposed PSGC plant,
the standard is not always met. Questions concerning manganese at the public hearing prompted
a complete re-evaluation of the anticipated manganese discharges at PSGC . It was concluded
that a permit limit for manganese is necessary and has been added to the permit as issued
.
38 .
There is concern that PSGC discharges will increase the level of manganese in the
Kaskaskia River, which could contribute to noncompliance of public water supply
criteria.
The Illinois EPA re-evaluated the manganese discharge from PSGC in response to
this comment. Based upon the manganese data collected at the Agency's Ambient
Water Quality Monitoring Network Station on the Kaskaskia River at Venedy
Station, (0-20) collected over the past five years, a permit limit for manganese is
warranted for Outfall 001
.
Data supplied by the applicant indicated that a
significant portion of the manganese in the river was in the suspended rather than
dissolved form. This caused the Agency to initially conclude that most of the
manganese in the withdrawn river water would be removed with the clarification
treatment that PSGC will apply and that no permit limit for manganese was
therefore necessary. However, examination of the Illinois EPA collected data shows
that during low river flows, most of the manganese in the river is dissolved and
therefore will not be removed by simple clarification
.
Supplemental Illinois EPA analysis found that while low river flows have higher
concentrations of total manganese with dissolved manganese comprising the
majority present, at river flows higher than 500 cfs, the relationship between
dissolved and suspended manganese is dominated by suspended manganese and the
overall concentration is much lower. The low flow characteristic of manganese in
the Kaskaskia River is very unusual and appears to be a natural phenomenon .
Since the plant will potentially withdraw and evaporate up to one-fourth of the river
volume at 7Q10 low flow, an unregulated discharge of manganese from the cooling
tower blowdown may cause concentrations of manganese to increase in the river
and thereby increase the burden of downstream public water supplies to remove the
manganese and meet drinking water standards . For river samples collected at river
flows of less than 500 cfs at the Venedy Station USGS gauge, an average of 0 .49
mg/L total manganese was found in 44 Illinois EPA samples collected from 1999 to
January, 2004 .
In order that the Outfall 001 effluent does not cause this
1 8
concentration to increase, a daily maximum permit limit of 0.5 mg/L will be applied
when river flows are less than 500 cfs. During higher river flows, the concentration
of manganese in the river is lower and also more dilution will be present. During
these flows, the state effluent standard of 1.0 mg/L will be applied as a monthly
average with a 2.0 mg/L daily maximum limit as dictated by the 35 Ill. Admin. Code
Part 304 averaging rule.
The permit limits for manganese will ensure that no additional burden is placed on
downstream public water supplies using the Kaskaskia River. PSGC will have to
apply additional treatment to remove manganese at least when the river is at lower
flows and manganese is at higher ambient concentrations .
39 .
Based on available water quality data,
. the Kaskaskia River already has high
concentrations of total manganese that exceed the Public Water Supply criterion of 0 .15
mg/L. The data obtained from the online STORET database from 1990 through 1998
indicate that 80 percent of the samples exceed this criterion .
According to the
application, the discharge from this facility would discharge concentrations of manganese
at 0.703 mg/L, more than 4 times the criterion . Because this discharge would contribute
to the violation of the standard, water quality based limits must be determined and
incorporated into the permit, such that manganese discharges are reduced
.
At the hearing, Bob Mosher indicated that he had consulted with downstream water
users, which allegedly assured Illinois EPA that they do not have a problem removing
manganese to acceptable levels at their treatment facilities. However, Illinois EPA also
indicated that they had not adopted an adjusted standard for the Kaskaskia River based on
this information from the downstream users
.
There is no provision in the state's
regulations that allows violations of water quality standards based on informal
discussions with downstream users. If an adjusted standard is appropriate for this river,
Illinois EPA must go through a formal process subject to public review and comment to
adopt such a standard. Until an alternative standard is adopted, Illinois EPA must enforce
the standards that currently apply
.
The PSGC Outfall 001 cooling tower blowdown discharge to the Kaskaskia River
will return water constituents,
i.e., dissolved and suspended substances inherent to
the river water, including manganese, back to the river where they came from. No
significant amounts of manganese are added from plant processes. In fact, some
manganese, as well as other substances, will be removed from the river water when
PSGC treats the water to prepare it for use in the cooling tower. With the inclusion
of the manganese permit limits of 0 .5 mg/1L during river flows of less than 500 cfs
and an average of 1.0 mg/L when river flows are 500 cfs or greater, PSGC will be
required to reduce manganese concentrations even further. The limits mean that
concentrations of manganese in the river will not increase even though PSGC
reduces flows in the river due to evaporation in the
cooling towers. Therefore,
downstream public water supplies will not incur additional burdens of manganese
that must be removed to meet the drinking water standard . The PSGC effluent will
19
not cause or contribute to a manganese water quality standard violation nor will an
increase in manganese loading occur in the river .
40 .
In paragraph 13 it states "It is extremely unlikely that the rare discharge of the proposed
effluents will comprise a significant source of the manganese in the stream system."
In
the following paragraph "Increases to Mud Creek will be extremely small
.
. ."
It is not
explained how a rare event must be small although the yearly average concentration may
be small nor why it is unreasonable to expect significant impacts from a surge of
pollutants however rare
.
This discharge is storm related and will occur only under extreme precipitation
events. Furthermore, during such weather conditions, stream flows will be elevated,
ground water base flow will be a smaller portion of total stream flow and
manganese concentrations will be less problematic .
41
.
Why does the permit limit monitoring of manganese to only once per year?
The NPDES permit now requires daily monitoring of manganese from outfalls 002,
003, 004, 005, and 006 when discharging. In addition, limits and weekly monitoring
have been included for outfall 001 .
42 .
How is manganese getting into Mud Creek at this time?
Manganese is already present in the Mud Creek system . It is thought to originate in
the local soils and is transported to the stream during storm events
.
43
.
What is the likelihood that coal dust in the stormwater will contribute to manganese
levels?
In addition to carbon, coal dust contains small amounts of many other elements
including manganese. The real question here is how significant the contribution of
manganese will be to the creek. A discharge from this source is predicted to occur
only once every ten years. Manganese will be discharged to Mud Creek from the
plant during these intense but rare storm events .
The storm that causes the
overflow will deposit rainwater on the remainder of the Mud Creek watershed
during one of these events just as it will on the grounds of the plant
. Manganese in
the agricultural soil in the watershed will enter Mud Creek through runoff and the
creek will fill and possibly even overflow its channel during this exceptional rainfall
event. The manganese contribution from the soil particles will far exceed the coal-
sourced manganese from the plant discharge
.
Relatively speaking, the manganese
contribution from the plant is insignificant to the total amount entering the creek
.
20
44 .
How did Illinois EPA determine that "there is no increase [in MN] that would exacerbate
the existing conditions is the river?
Upon further investigation of the manganese concern, the permit as issued has been
modified from the public notice draft to incorporate additional discharge limitations
on manganese to assure no exacerbation of ambient conditions
.
The different
characteristics of manganese in the river water at lower and higher flows were
taken into consideration in establishing this permit limit . At relatively low flows
(<500 cfs), average flow is approximately 3700 cfs, a permit limit of 0.5 mg/L as a
daily maximum will ensure that no increase in river concentration will occur . This
value is essentially the average concentration of manganese now found in the river
at these flows. As river flows get higher, manganese concentrations decrease while
dilution potential for the effluent increases. Therefore, the more stringent limit of
0.5 mg/1L is unnecessary at higher flows and the state effluent standard for
manganese replaces it in the permit . The mass balance calculations for river flows
of 500 and 120 (7Q10) cfs flows attached to this responsiveness summary display
how manganese limits were determined
.
45
.
The permit should limit manganese in discharges to the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek
such that water quality limits are met
.
Manganese is limited in Outfall 001. No limits are necessary for the other outfalls
because no reasonable potential exists to exceed water quality standards in Mud
Creek.
VI. Mercury
46. The runoff from coal carries mercury . The permit states that mercury will be monitored
in outfalls 001, 002, 004 and 006. When will monitoring occur? How will Illinois EPA
enforce monitoring? Why are there no limits in the permit for mercury?
PSGC is required to monitor its discharge for mercury. Monitoring is required
"daily when discharging" at outfalls 002, 004 and 006. Annual monitoring is
required at outfall 001 . In our review of the proposed discharge as regulated by the
water quality standards, we determined that the standards would not be exceeded
for mercury. Intermittent discharges of stormwater may contain mercury but at
levels so low that water quality standards for Mud Creek and the Kaskaskia River
would still be met. For verification purposes, PSGC is required to monitor its
discharges down to one part per trillion. The human health water quality standard
stands at twelve parts per trillion .
21
47 .
Many of the waterways in Illinois including the Kaskaskia River have advisories urging
women and children to limit their intake of fish because of elevated levels of mercury
.
This power plant is expected to yearly discharge 280 pounds of mercury into the air.
Some of this mercury may be deposited in local waterways such as the Kaskaskia River .
Did the Agency consider this mercury deposition?
How was the likelihood of air
deposition of mercury from the plant included in the calculations relating to water
quality?
The mercury emission aspects of this operation are regulated through the Clean Air
Act emissions permitting program. Application of current state and federal mercury
emission limits and other requirements have been dealt with in that permitting
activity. The air emission permit issued for this facility requires mercury reduction
to a 95% efficiency level .
48
.
PSGC is proposing to use wet scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide emissions . In the
capturing of sulfur you also capture mercury. What is the plan for keeping the mercury
out of the environment? How are you going to protect the Kaskaskia River?
Coal combustion waste includes scrubber sludge, fly ash and bottom ash. PSGC
proposes to dispose of the coal combustion waste offsite at the Peabody Randolph
Preparation Plant Site.
49 .
Why doesn't Illinois EPA expect to find much mercury in the effluent?
The Illinois EPA review of the proposed wastewater discharges at PSGC found no
significant source of mercury that might enter those wastewaters . All effluents are
expected to meet water quality standards for mercury . Mercury will be captured in
air emission scrubber sludge and handled in a dry manner, separate from these
permitted effluent outfalls.
VII.
Weather Related Concerns
50 .
Historically, what is the longest drought period experienced in this area?
According to the Illinois State Water Survey, the worst drought on record over the
past 90 years in this area occurred during the mid 1950s .
22
The headwaters of the Kaskaskia River begin in Champaign County, 130 miles to
the north. A drought in and around St. Clair-Washington counties may affect
smaller watersheds such as Mud Creek but the general condition of the Kaskaskia
River may be governed by precipitation events far from this area . Releasing or
withholding water in Carlyle and Shelbyville lakes can also be used to regulate
water levels in the Kaskaskia River .
As published by the Illinois State Water Survey
:
Drought is a complex physical and social phenomenon of widespread significance, and
despite all the problems droughts have caused, drought has been difficult to define.
There is no universally accepted definition because:
1) drought, unlike food, is not a
distinct event, and 2) drought is often the result of many complex factors acting on and
interacting within the environment.
For additional information:
www.sws.uiuc.edu/atmos/statecli/general/drough t def.html
51
.
What date and method was used to determine the 10-year 24-hour rain event?
Retention basins at the facility have been designed with the capacity to retain runoff
from a 10-year/24-hour rain event .
The design was based on storm event
information obtained from "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, TR-55"
published by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division . The document utilized
rainfall duration-frequency data from the National Weather Service.
52
.
In analyzing stream flow data over the past 10 years, has the Illinois EPA noticed any
changes that might indicate a climate trend associated with global warming
.
Ten years is a very short period when considering climate trends . The Illinois EPA
commissioned the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) to update and produce 7Q10
maps periodically.
There are differences in river flows each time the ISWS
calculates that data but we see no discernible trends . We suggest you contact the
ISWS for additional information .
VIII. General Issues
23
53 .
How many new coal-fired power plants has the Agency permitted over the past 20 years?
The Agency has not issued any NPDES permits to new coal-fired power plants in
the past 20 years (1985-2005)
.
54 .
Mayor Dennis Britehout announced that the village of New Athens has issued a
proclamation in support of this project
.
The Agency thanks the mayor for sharing this information .
55 .
Explain why the sanitary waste from the plant will be sent to the adjacent coal mine for
treatment.
Sanitary waste from the power plant and from the mine will enter a sewage
treatment lagoon on the coal-mine site. The treated effluent from the lagoon will be
pumped back to the recycle basin .
24
Manganese Mass Balance Results Under Two River Flow Scenarios
Scenario 1
:
When Kaskaskia River flow is 500 cfs and the concentration is at the five year average for
this flow condition : 0.49 mg/L total Mn .
The plant removes 46.4 cfs of water (30 Million Gallons per Day) from the river
The plant discharges 3 .1 cfs (2 MGD) back to the river (the predicted high daily average) at a
concentration of 2.0 mg/L (the daily maximum allowed by the permit)
453.6 cfs @ 0.49 mg/L remain in the river and the discharge adds 3.1 cfs @ 2.0 .
453.6 X 0.49 = 222.26
3.1 X 2.0 = 6.2
Projected Kaskaskia River in-stream Manganese Concentrations below the Discharge will be at
or below: 0.5 mg/L
222.26 + 6.2 = 228.46 / 453.6 + 3 .1 = 0.50 mg/L (concentration downstream)
Scenario 2 :
When Kaskaskia River flow is 120 cfs (the lowest flow where the permit allows a 46.4 cfs
water withdrawal)
.
The manganese limit is 0.5 mg/L at this flow .
73.6 cfs @ 0.49 mg/L remains in the river and the discharge adds 3 .1 cfs @ 0.5 mg/L
73 .6 X 0.49 = 36.06
3.1 X 0 .5 = 1.55
Projected Kaskaskia River in-stream Manganese Concentrations below the Discharge will be at
or below: 0.49 mg/L
36 .06 + 1 .55 = 37 .61 / 73 .6 + 3.1 = 0.49 mg/L (concentration downstream)
25
ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
CBOD
Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
efs
Cubic feet per second
Corps
United States Corps of Engineers
DMRs
Discharge Monitoring Reports
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
IDNR
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
Illinois EPA
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
MGD
Million Gallons per Day
mg/L
Milligrams per Liter
mL
Milliliter; one part per million; 100 mL is the normal sample size and
equals about one-half cup .
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ppm
Parts per Million
PSGC
Prairie State Generating Company (Washington County)
STP
Sewage Treatment Plant
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
WWTP
Wastewater Treatment Plant
303(d)
Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)
7Q1O
The lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be
expected to occur once in ten years .
2 6
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
An announcement that the
permit
decision and accompanying
responsiveness summary
is
available on the Agency website was mailed to all who registered at the hearing, to all who sent
in written comments and other interested parties . A copy of the responsiveness summary is
available for review at the Marissa Public Library, 212 N. Main, Marissa. Printed copies of this
responsiveness summary are available from Bill Hammel, Illinois EPA Office of Community
Relations, e-mail : <Bill.Hammel@epa.state . il .us> or phone 217-785-3924
.
WHO CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
Illinois EPA NPDES Permit for Prairie State Generating Company :
Illinois EPA NPDES technical decisions . .
.
.Blaine Kinsley 217-782-0610
Legal questions
Sanjay Sofat 217-782-5544
Water quality issues Bob Mosher 217-782-3362
Public hearing of May 11, 2005 James Day 217-782-5544
Prairie State Generating Station
Spokeswoman Beth Sutton
314-342-7798
The public hearing notice, the hearing transcript, the NPDES permit and the responsiveness
summary are available on the Illinois EPA website
: www.epa.state.il.us
Scroll down to Web Updates and click on
:
See also: PublicNotices
Scroll down to NPDES Permit and Hearing Notices and click on :
NPDES Public Notices
Scroll down until you locate
:
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
•
Public Comment Period Ends, April 25, 2005
(note -public notices normally filed by date - scroll down
dates to April 25, 2005)
.
27
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK and
)
SIERRA CLUB
)
Petitioners
)
v .
)
PCB 06 -
)
(NPDES Permit Appeal)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY and PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING )
COMPANY, LLC
)
Respondents
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Albert F. Ettinger, certify that on January 6, 2006, I filed the attached PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY and NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. An original and 9 copies was filed, on recycled
paper, with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 West
Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601, and copies were served via United States Mail to
those individuals on the included service list .
DATED: January 6, 2006
Environmental Law and Policy Center
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312-673-6500
Albert F. Ettinger
(Reg. No. 3125045)
Counsel for Prairie Rivers Network and Sierra Club
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Legal Council
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
701 Market Street, Suite 781
St. Louis, MO 63101
SERVICE LIST
