AMERICAN BOTTOM CONSERVANCY

)

and DALE WOJTKOWSKI,

)

Petitioners

)

v.

)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )

AGENCY and PRAIRIE STATE GENERATING )

COMPANY, LLC (a .k.a. Peabody Energy),

)

Respondents

)

ORIGINAL

RECEIVEDCLERICS

OFFICE

JAN

1

1 2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

PCB

(NPDES

06Permit

-'

aI

Appeal)

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF A DECISION BY THE ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Pursuant to 415 ILCS § 5140(e)(1) and 35 Ill . Adm

. Code § 105, American Bottom

Conservancy and Dale Wojtkowski (collectively, "Petitioners") hereby petition for review of the

December 5, 2005 decision of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("IEPA" or

"Agency") to grant a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ('NPDES") permit

(Permit No

. IL0076996) to Prairie State Generating Company ("Peabody") to discharge

pollutants into the Kaskaskia River, Mud Creek, and unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek . (See

Attached Exhibit A)

. In support of their petition, Petitioners state :

Petitioners

1.

American Bottom Conservancy ("ABC")

is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation

working to protect the people and resources of Southern Illinois . Among the resources ABC

works to protect are rivers and streams and water quality

. To accomplish its mission ABC works

with organizations and citizens throughout the state. ABC has members who live in the

Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek watersheds that are concerned with pollution that would affect

---

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, water-skiing, canoeing, nature study and hiking . (See Attached Exhibits C J Post-

Hearing Comments of Prairie Rivers Network and ABC, June 10, 2005 .)

2 .

Dale Wojtkowski lives near Marissa with his wife, Virginia, and their nineyear-

old daughter, Czessie, at 5727 Biddleborn Rd., 1

.5 miles from the proposed Peabody facility .

The Wojtkowskis get their drinking water from the Kaskaskia River and are adversely affected

by pollution discharged into the Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek . The Wojtkowskis are also

members of ABC .

3.

Members of ABC, including Kathy Andria, president, and Petitioner Dale

Wojtkowski testified at the public hearing held in this proceeding on May 11, 2005, and

submitted written and oral comments thereafter in opposition to the permit . They and other

members of Petitioner ABC are so situated as to be affected by pollution in the Kaskaskia River

and Mud Creek . (See Attached Exhibits C-J).

The Peabody Plant and the Kaskaskia River

4.

Peabody's Prairie State Generating Company plant will take in up to 30 million

gallons of water per day (mgd) from the Kaskaskia River for use in its cooling towers for its

1500 MW mine-mouth pulverized coal-fired power plant

. Permission for the water withdrawal

was apparently originally granted by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in 2002 and

modified as a result of IEPA concerns about water quality during the consideration of this

permit .

5.

According to the permit application, the Peabody plant will discharge an average

of 1

.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater back into the Kaskaskia River . In addition,

2

---

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.

6.

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 boating, canoeing, fishing, swimming, water skiing 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, including portions of the Kaskaskia River State Fish & Wildlife Area .

Statement of Issues Raised

7.

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, a

.k.a. Peabody Energy

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

Petitioners further commented on the permit with written comments

. (See Attached Exhibits G

J). In comments and 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 fails to monitor these

chemicals adequately .

b.

The draft permit allowed stormwater discharges before a stormwater

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is even prepared, much less implemented

.

3

---

c.

The tentative determination, Fact Sheet and draft permit did not contain or

give notice of necessary effluent limitations on the discharge of stormwater pursuant to a

SWPPP that had been reviewed by IEPA and on which the public had an opportunity to

comment.

d. The Agency engaged in piecemealing and did not consider the cumulative

impacts on water quality from the entire Peabody project including additional discharges

not only from stormwater, but also from the coal mine and the coal waste pile

.

e.

IEPA failed to adequately consider the impacts to water quality, wildlife,

recreation, public water supplies and other uses of the water from the enormous intake of

up to 30 million gallons of water per day by from the Kaskaskia River by Peabody and

also failed to consider potential drought conditions.

8.

On December 5, 2005, Illinois EPA issued the permit that is subject to the current

appeal. (See Attached Exhibit A) The final permit, while addressing some problems raised

during the comment period, did not adequately 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 .

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 b}products,

including numerous Total Organic Halogens (TOX), some of which are carcinogenic and have

been shown to cause other harmful health effects . Sierra Club and/or Prairie Rivers Network

4

---

presented evidence through public comment that shows that chlorination byproducts in tap water

cause bladder cancer and are linked also to miscarriages, birth defects, rectal and colon cancer,

kidney and spleen disorders, immune and neural system problems

(U.S.

Public Interest Research

Group Environmental Working Group, 2001)

.

11

.

Evidence was also presented through public comment by Prairie Rivers Network

and/or the Sierra Club that indicates that 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

. Because public water supplies are

withdrawn downstream from the discharge into the Kaskaskia River, these chlorinated organics

should be monitored in the cooling tower blowdown effluent

. Although the discharge is proposed

to be mixed with river water prior to withdrawal by downstream public water suppliers, no data

was presented on instream concentrations of THMs or HAAs

. Therefore, IEPA cannot assume

that dilution will be significant

.

12 .

The permit should not have been issued because the applicant had not identified

how it will ensure that the stormwater will be controlled and local waterways protected

.

According to Special Condition 21(B) of the final permit, the stormwater pollution plan

(SWPPP) 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 or how to reduce these pollutants in stormwater discharges, and

assured compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit

.

13 .

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

5

---

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, dissolved oxygen and phosphorous . IEPA should not have issued this

permit before a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan had been completed and reviewed by the

agency and by the public .

14.

According to the General NPDES Permit No

. ILR10, a stormwater pollution 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 and thall

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 this 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 . ILR10 had been filed with IEPA, nor

has a SWPPP been prepared for construction activities by Prairie State Generating Co .

15. 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 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) (emphasis added) . 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.

16. No permit should be issued to any applicant, including Peabody, if the applicant has

not identified how it will ensure that stormwater will be controlled and local waterways

6

---

protected. The Peabody permit reduces the SWPPP requirement to a promise to comply

sometime in the future.

17. By allowing discharges that may cause or contribute to violations of state water

quality standards or impair existing and designated uses, the permit violates 35 Ill . Adm . Code

302 .105(e)(2)(B)(i), [35 111 . Adm. Code 302.305 ,] 35 Ill . Adm. Code § 304 .105 and 35 111 . Adm.

Code 309 .141(d), 309 .142, and 309 .143 .

18

.

By failing to require adequate monitoring of certain pollutants, the permit violates

35 Ill. Adm . Code 309 .146.

19. The procedures used in the issuance of the permit regarding the SWPPP prevent

meaningful public participation in the review of the SWPPP, and fail to give notice of proposed

effluent limits in violation of 35 Ill . Adm. Code 309 .108(b)(2) and 309 .113 . Further, by failing to

contain the SWPPP the permit fails to contain necessary effluent limits and monitoring in

violation of 35 Ill . Adm. Code 309.141(d) and 309 .146. see also, 33 U .S .C

. § 1342.

20. The Agency failed to consider the cumulative impacts of the Peabody facility by

issuing this permit in a piecemealing fashion

. In addition to this NPDES permit and the SWPPP,

Peabody will require at least two other NPDES permits as IEPA indicated at the hearing . Not

only did IEPA not consider stormwater pollution as a part of this permit, it also failed to consider

the additional impacts to water quality in the Kaskaskia River and its tributaries from the mine

and from the coal combustion waste pile. IEPA has since proposed those two draft NPDES

permits, held a hearing at the request of Petitioners and have closed the comment period .

Despite the fact that all permits could have been considered together, the Agency failed to

consider the cumulative impacts and how, even if each met water quality standards, the

cumulative impact from all of them might not . Nor did it consider how all the discharges from

7

---

the Peabody plant, mine and coal combustion waste pile in combination with discharges from

other sources would impact the Kaskaskia River and its tributaries

. (It merely noted in the

Responsiveness Summary that one downstream discharger, apparently the Baldwin power plant,

which has a mixing zone and adjusted standards, depends on adequate flow levels to assure that

water quality standards are met outside the mixing zone

.)

21

. Peabody is authorized to withdraw up to 30 million gallons of water per day from

the Kaskaskia River

. Although Peabody maintained in its application and at the public hearing

that it would only use one per cent of the river flow, IEPA admitted in the Responsiveness

Summary that at times Peabody would be using fully 25 per cent of the river flow

. And even

though IEPA added Special Condition 1 to the Peabody permit requiring that it rut be allowed to

withdraw river water such that the river flow drops below the 7Q10 flow value, it failed to

adequately consider how water quality, habitat, wildlife, public water supplies, recreation and

navigation would be affected during drought conditions and by demands on the water by other

water users

. IEPA answered all questions about allocation by saying IDNR made the allocation

decision and it had no role in the decision or knowledge about other allocation requests

. But,

because water quantity affects water quality-a fact recognized by IEPA in requiring Special

Condition 1, water quantity is appropriately addressed through this appeal

.

22

. Petitioners cautioned IEPA at the hearing and in comment about the dry spring and

potential drought

. Indeed, after the close of the public comment period, the area was officially

declared to be in a drought

. Petitioners submitted supplemental comment in the form of an email

to the Agency noting the drought and the fact that marinas had closed and the river had closed to

navigation

. (See Attached Exhibits I and J) IEPA appears not to have re-evaluated the permit or

required modeling to demonstrate that water quality would be attained no matter the flow

8

---

conditions.

The Agency's response seemed to be limited to a quote in the Responsiveness

Summary from the Illinois State Water Survey that said

: "Drought is a complex physical and

social phenomenon

. . .

and is often the result of many complex factors acting on and interacting

within the environment ."

23

. There is no evidence that the Agency indeed considered current or more frequent

future drought conditions or that it asked the Illinois State Water Survey to update the 7Q10 as

Petitioners had requested

. (Petitioners also note that the Illinois State Water Survey inlicated in

2004 that the water in the Kaskaskia River had already been "fully allocated

.")

24

. In its Responsiveness Summary IEPA states that Special Condition I in the NPDES

permit is designed to protect the Kaskaskia River during low flow conditions as measured at the

Venedy station

. But, because the Venedy station is located above the water intake, there is no

evidence that water quality below the intake will be protected

. Rather, it appears that the water

quality below the discharge would likely be negatively impacted from not only the issuance of

this permit, but also the two additional NPDES Peabody permits and also perhaps the stormwater

runoff.

25

. Petitioners are adversely affected by the unlawful issuance of Permit No

. IL0076996

to Peabody's Prairie State Generating Co

., LLC .

9

---

WHEREFORE, American Bottom Conservancy and Dale Wojtkowski ask that the

Pollution Control Board set aside NPDES permit (No IL0076996) issued to Peabody's Prairie

State Generating Company, LLC on December 5, 2005 as not sufficiently protective of the

environment and not in accord with law, and remand to the Agency for issuance of a permit

denial letter .

Respectfully submitted

American Bottom Conservancy and Dale Wojtkowski

BY: PENNI

S

. LIVINGST N

Attorney #06196480

DATED : January 8, 2006

Livingston Law Firm

4972 Benchmark Centre, Suite 100

Swansea, IL. 62226

618/628-7700

penni@livingstonlaw

.biz

10

---

ORIGINAL_

RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

JAN 1 1 2006

STATE OF ILLINOIS

I, Kathy Andria, do certify that I caused to be mailed this 9th dj~q1Pr&fl&4gtrgb@~ard

the foregoing Petition for Review of a Decision by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency to the IL Pollution Control Board, James Day of IEPA, Prairie State Generating Co

.

by depositing the same with the St

. Louis, Missouri branch of the United States Postal

Service with first class postage in place .

Kathy Andria

---

EXH A

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

In compliance with the provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, Title 35 of Ill

. 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

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

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

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 :

CONCENTRATION

LIMITS mq/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

1/Year

Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year

Grab

1/Year Grab

1/Year

Grab

---

Page 3

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

:

LOAD LIMITS lbs/day

CONCENTRATION

DAF (DMF)

LIMITS ma/I

30 DAY

DAILY

30 DAY

DAILY

SAMPLE

SAMPLE

PARAMETER

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

FREQUENCY

TYPE

Outfall : 002 -

Cooling Tower Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow

Flow (MGD)

See Special Conditions 3 & 17

Measure When

Monitoring

pH

See Special Condition 4

Daily"

Grab

Temperature

See Special Condition 5

Daily"

Single

Reading

Total Residual Chlorine

0 .011'

0 .019*

Daily"

Grab

BOD5

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""

'See Special Condition 11

"Daily when discharging

"'Monitor only

""See Special Condition 12

1/Year

Grab

---

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 mq/I

PARAMETER

30 DAY

DAILY

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

30 DAY

AVERAGE

DAILY

MAXIMUM

SAMPLE

FREQUENCY

SAMPLE

TYPE

Outfall : 003 -

Raw Water Sedimentation Basin Emergency Overflow

Flow (MGD)

pH

Total Suspended Solids

See Special Conditions 3 & 17

See Special Condition 4

15

30

Measure When

Monitoring

Daily*

Daily*

Grab

Grab

Iron (dissolved)

Iron (total)

2.0

4 .0

Daily*

Daily'

Grab

Grab

Manganese

Daily*

Grab

---

Page 5

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 :

LOAD LIMITS lbs/day

CONCENTRATION

DAF (DMF)

LIMITS mg/I

30 DAY

DAILY

30 DAY

DAILY

SAMPLE

SAMPLE

PARAMETER

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

FREQUENCY

TYPE

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

*Daily when discharging

**Monitor only

*"See See Special Condition 18

NPDES Permit No . IL0076996

11

. Treated Sanitary Wastewater (E04)

Flow (MGD)

pH

Temperature

Total Suspended Solids

See Special Conditions 3 & 17

See Special Condition 4

See Special Condition 5

15

30

Daily*

Daily*

Daily'

Daily*

Continuous

Grab

Single

Reading

Grab

Oil & Grease

15

20

Daily*

Grab

Ammonia

**

Daily*

Grab

Total Dissolved Solids

Manganese

Boron

Sulfate

Mercury***

Daily'

Daily*

Daily*

Daily'

Daily'

Grab

Grab

Grab

Grab

Grab

---

Page 6

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:

'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

Measure When

Monitoring

Daily

Grab

15

30

Daily

Grab

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

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 : 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 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 :

LOAD LIMITS lbs/day

CONCENTRATION

DAF (DMF)

LIMITS mq/I

PARAMETER

30 DAY

DAILY

30 DAY

AVERAGE

MAXIMUM

AVERAGE

DAILY

MAXIMUM

SAMPLE

FREQUENCY

SAMPLE

TYPE

Outfall : D04 - Bottom Ash Quench Water

Flow (MGD)

See Special Condition 3

PH

See Special Condition 4

Total Suspended Solids

15

Oil & Grease

15

'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

30

20

60

60

Measure When

Monitoring

Daily'

Daily*

Daily*

1/Week

1/Week

1/Week

1/Week

Grab

Grab

Grab

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 mq/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 7010 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 Venedy Station USGS gage where the

7Q1 0 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 ANo discharge@ shall be reported on the DMR submitted forthat 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 .)

Jan .

Feb .

Mar .

April

May

June

July

Auo .

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 flow from 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/I 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 .

SPECIAL CONDITION 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 .

SPECIAL 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 .

SPECIAL 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

.

SPECIAL CONDITION 19

.

Samples taken in compliance with the effluent monitoring requirements

shall be taken :

a)

For Outfalls 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 Outfalls A04, B04, C04

. D04 and E04 -

at a point representative of the discharge, but priorto mixing with any otherwastestreams

and prior to entry into the recycle basin.

SPECIAL CONDITION 20.

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 :/Awvw.epa .state.il .us/water/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 IEPA 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 maybe 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 it 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 facility 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 wateroutfalls 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;

An outline of the storm water drainage areas for each storm water discharge point

;

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 :

The

stored

nature

or

of

disposed

the industrial

of in a

activities

manner to

conducted

allow exposure

at the

to

site,

storm

includingwater

;

a description of significant materials that are treated,

water

Materials,

dischargesequipment,

;

and vehicle management practices employed to minimize

contact of significant materials with storm

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 .

pavement

An estimate

or

of

buildingsthe

size

.

of the facility in acres or square feet, and the percent of the facility that has impervious areas such as

6 . A summary of existing sampling data describing pollutants in storm water discharges

.

F .

reflect

shall

The plan

includeidentified

shall

:

describe

existing

the

and

storm

potential

water

sources

management

of pollutants

controls

at

which

the facilitywill

be

. The

implementeddescription

by the

of

facilitythe

storm

. The

water

appropriate

management

controls

controlsshall

1 .

implementing,

Storm Water Pollution

and revising

Prevention

the planPersonnel

.

-

Identification by job titles of the individuals who are responsible for developing,

2

. Preventive

oil/water

discharges

separators,

of

Maintenancepollutants

catch

to

-

basins,

Procedures

storm wateretc.,

for

.

and

inspection

inspection and

and

testing

maintenance

of plantof

equipment

storm water

and systems

conveyancethat system

could fail

devices

and result

such

inas

3.

Material

Good

systemHousekeeping

.

handling areas

-

Good

shall

housekeeping

be inspected

requires

and cleaned

the

to

maintenance

reduce the

of

potentialclean,

orderly

for pollutants

facility

to

areasenterthe

that

storm

discharge

water

storm

conveyancewater

.

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

spills

requirements,

of significant

spill clean

materials

up equipment

should be

and

establishedprocedures

.

should be identified, as appropriate

. Internal notification procedures for

5 .

water

source

etcStorm

. Based

discharge

of

Water

pollutantson

assessment

Management

shall

. They

be

of

implementedinclude

Practicesthe

potential

measures

-

.

Storm

In

of

such

various

developing

water

as installing

sources

management

the plan,

to

oil

contribute

and

practices

the

grit

following

pollutants,separators,are

management

practices

diverting

measures

practices

other

to

storm

than

remove

water

shallthose

pollutants

into

be

whichretention

consideredcontrol

from

basins,storm

:

the

Containment -

Storage within berms or other secondary containment devices to prevent leaks and spills from entering

storm water runoff;

water

Oil &

dischargesGrease

Separation

;

- Oil/water separators, booms, skimmers or other methods to minimize oil contaminated

storm

---

Page 14

NPDES Permit No . IL0076996

Special Conditions

n

.

Debris

water discharges&

Sediment

;

Control -

Screens, booms, sediment ponds or other methods to reduce debris and sediment in storm

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

.

V .

Storm Water Diversion -

Storm water diversion away from materials manufacturing, storage and other areas of potential

storm water contamination ;

vi .

Covered

prevent contact

Storage

with

or Manufacturing

storm water .

Areas -

Covered fueling operations, materials manufacturing and storage areas to

6 .

potential

Sediment

for

and

significant

Erosion Preventionsoil

erosion

-

The

and

plan

describe

shall identify

measures

areas

to limit

which

erosiondue

to

.

topography, activities, or otherfactors, have a high

7 .

goals

Employee

material

of the

management

Trainingstorm

water

-Employee

practicespollution

training

.

control

The plan

programs

planshall

. Training

identify

shall inform

periodic

should

personnel

address

dates for

at

topics

all

such

levels

trainingsuch

as

of

spill

.

responsibility

response,

of

good

the

housekeeping

components andand

8. Inspection Procedures

- Qualified plant personnel shall be identified to inspect designated equipment and plant areas

. A tracking

and

or follow-up

maintenance

procedure

activities

shall

shall

be used

be

to

documented

ensure appropriate

and recordedresponse

.

has been taken in response to an inspection

. Inspections

G . The permittee shall conduct an annual facility inspection to

verify that all elements of the plan, including the site map, potential

documenting

pollutant

Observations

sources,

significant

that require

and structural

observations

a response

and

and

non-structural

made

the

during

appropriate

the

controls

site

response

to

inspection

reduce

to the

pollutants

observation

shall be

in

submitted

shall

industrial

be retained

to

storm

the Agency

water

as part

discharges

in

of

accordance

the planare

.

accuratewith

Recordsthe

.

reporting requirements of this permit .

H .

This plan should briefly describe the appropriate elements of other program requirements, including Spill Prevention Control and

Management

Countermeasures

Programs

(SPCC)

under

plans

40

required

CFR 125under

.100 .

Section 311 of the CWA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and Best

I

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 permittee there upon waives all

rights thereunder.

2 .

The issuance of this authorization (a) does not release the permittee from any liabilityfor damage to persons or property caused by or

resulting

stability of

from

any

the

units

installation,

or part of this

maintenance

project

;

or

and

operation

(c) does

of

not

the

release

proposed

the

facilitiespermittee

;

from

(b) does

compliance

not take

with

into

other

consideration

applicable

the

statutes

structuralof

the State of Illinois, or other applicable local law, regulations or ordinances

.

3 .

the

Plans

SWPPPand

specifications

.

of all treatment equipment being included as part of the stormwater management practice shall be included in

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 EPA

---

Page 15

regarding the required permit(s) .

NPDES Permit No . IL0076996

Special Conditions

REPORTING

L

.

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 .

---

EXH B

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

11

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 .

1 .

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

.pov/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

. PSGC 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 lacking? 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

10

---

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

.

11

---

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

13

---

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

15

---

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

18

---

concentration to increase, a daily maximum permit limit of 0

.5 mg/L will be applied

when river flows are less than 500 efs

. 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/L 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/L 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 flood, 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

cfs

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

W W TP

Wastewater Treatment Plant

303(d)

Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d)

7Q10

The lowest stream flow for seven consecutive days that would be

expected to occur once in ten years

.

26

---

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: Public Notices

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

---

June 10, 2005

Hearing 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 . IL0076996, 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 1L0076996, 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 Bottomland

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 measures be 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.

EXH C

---

Comments on NPDES Permit No . IL0076996, Notice No . BAU :04112201 .dlk

Alternatives that would minimize P loading increases must be analyzed and incorporated if they

are reasonable . Such alternatives include use of an alternative corrosion inhibitor that does not

contain phosphorus or other harmful compounds and/or use of treatment technologies that

reduce phosphorus prior to discharge . Many municipalities have acknowledged that it is

reasonable to reduce P discharges to average concentrations of 1

.0 mg/L and have started

incorporating the technology to do so

. Such technologies should also be reasonable for this

industrial discharge.

In ensuring that all reasonable measures to avoid the discharge are taken, the applicant must also

consider alternatives that would eliminate discharges to the Kaskaskia . Use of dry cooling

technology would achieve this purpose

.

2) There is reasonable potential that discharge of harmful chlorinated organics from the proposed

facility will impair the existing designated use of the Kaskaskia River as a public water supply .

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, some of

which are carcinogenic and have been shown to cause other harmful health effects . Rate of

formation of these byproducts 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„H,(gg/L) = 0.0412(TOCmw)

'-o9s (C12)o .152 (Brnw)o .068 (T)°609 (pHmw)'

.w1 (t)°263

HAA6„w (µg/L) = 9 .98(TOC„w)0.935(Cl2)o.443(Br„w )-0.031(T)o.387(pHmw)-0.655(t)o.na

Where:TOC

.w = total organic carbon (mg/L)

C'2=

applied chlorine dose (mg/L)

Br., = raw water bromide concentration (pg/L)

T = temperature (C)

t = reaction time (hours)

These equations were developed based on data collected using lower TOC, slightly higher C1 2 ,

and slightly lower temperature than the extreme 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 will provide the best available estimate of potential for disinfection byproduct

formation.

Ranges of parameters expected in the cooling towers was obtained from the applicant, either in

the application or through correspondence with IEPA . Bromide concentrations were not

available in the STORET database for Illinois streams, so I used a value on the low end of the

range tested in the development of the equations (7 - 600 (µg/L). Use of these equations yields

the following results for the following parameters :

' 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 .

2

---

Comments on NPDES Permit No

. IL0076996, Notice No

. BAU :04112201 .d1k

The drinking water standard for THMs is 80 µg/L

,

while that for HAAs is 60 µg/L

. 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,

we cannot assume that dilution will be significant, and the proposed facility must reduce the

load of these harmful pollutants

. Limits of 80 µg/L and 60 µg/L for THMs and HAAs

respectively should be placed in the permit

.

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

MI AWWA 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

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 .

3) This facility would contribute to violations of the manganese water quality standard for Public

Water Supply

.

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% 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 IEPA that they do not have a problem removing manganese to

acceptable levels at their treatment facilities

. However, IEPA 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, IEPA must go through a formal process subject to public

3

Scenario

-Average

conditions

-Maximum

within range

Minimum

within range

TOC (mg/L) 25

30

20 (guess)

Cl, (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 (µg/L) 1036

1811

455

HAA6 (µg/L)

242

450

79

---

Comments on NPDES Permit No

. IL0076996, Notice No

. BAU :04112201 .dlk

must

review

enforce

and comment

the standards

to adopt

that

such

currently

a standardapply

.

.

Until an alternative standard is adopted, IEPA

4) The permit should not be issued before the applicant has identified how it will ensure that the

stormwater will be controlled

.

There will be harmful materials on this site, and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is the

fundamental component of the permit designed to ensure that these harmful materials are not

washed into local streams

. Therefore, IEPA should not issue this permit until a Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan has been completed and reviewed by the agency and by the public

.

5) 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

the water

during

has

very

to go

heavy

somewhererains

.

. Because

Therefore,

precipitation

demonstration

exceeds

must

evaporation

be made that

rates

these

for

waters

this area,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

.

6) IEPA 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 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% of the days

. If the proposed facility withdraws 30 MGD, as they have been

granted

flows between

by the

the

DNR

5

permit,

percentile

this

and

flow

10

would

percentile

be observed

flows,

more

the withdrawal

than 5% of

of

the

30

timeMGD

.

would

Further,

be

for

more than a quarter of the river flow

. To ensure that this withdrawal does not contribute to

violations of water quality standards, IEPA must further restrict withdrawals

.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments and look forward to receiving your response

.

Sincerely,

M. Beth Wentzel

Watershed Scientist

Prairie Rivers Network

4

---

Also for :

American Bottomlands Conservancy

Kaskaskia Group of the Sierra Club

Comments on NPDES Permit No . IL0076996, Notice No

. BAU :04112201 .dlk

5

---

EXH D

Hello, my name is Dale Wojtkowski and I reside in Biddleborn which is

approximately 1

.5 miles from the proposed site of the power plant

. I am concerned

about the impact of the plant's of water usage and effluents expelled from this

industrial site

. I am objecting to the issuance of this permit based on the following

deficiencies

. Phosphates from the plants water conditioning will be unnecessarily

expelled into the Kaskaskia River via outfall 001

. Manganese and other minerals

will be 10 times more concentrated when they are re-introduced back into the river

and will be contributing to a violation of water quality standards (The Kaskaskia is

already on the 303d list for Manganese)

. The withdrawal limits should be

revisited

. The current permit allows this power plant to remove 38% (30MGD) of

the rivers volume at a flow rate of 120cfs (30MGD = 46

.4 cfs)

. This is totally out

of line and would surely make recreational use of the river prohibitive at such

conditions not to mention that this would jeopardize m y very own drinking water

supply

. This permit trivializes the impact of the SWPPP

. The SWPPP will surely

have an impact on outfalls 002 thru 009

. When these outfalls experience

emergency discharges this will subject Mud creek to pollutants which have

basically never been introduced into this environment

. Wildlife such as deer,

rabbits, birds, ect, use this creek as a water source

. This permit should not be

issued with no SWPPP in place

.

---

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, IL 62794-9276

Re: Comments on draft NPDES Permit No

. IL0076996 Notice No . BAU :04112201 .dlk

I recently reviewed available information for draft permit IL0076996 . which would

authorize discharges from the Prarie State Generating Station to the Kaskaskia River and

Mud Creek

. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the following comments regarding

this permit .

I do not feel that the information available provides assurance that the terms of this

permit will ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal regulations . Therefore

I object to issuance of the permit as written based on the following problems

:

1) Phosphates from the plants water conditioning will be unnecessarily expelled

into the Kaskaskia River via outfall 001

. Manganese and other minerals will be

10 times more concentrated when they are re-introduced back into the river and

will be contributing to a violation of water quality standards (The Kaskaskia is

already on the 303d list for Manganese) .

2) The withdrawal limits should be revisited . The current permit allows this power

plant to remove 38% (30MGD) of the rivers volume at a flow rate of 120cfs

(30MGD = 46.4 cfs). This is totally out of line and would surely make

recreational use of the river prohibitive at such conditions not to mention that this

would jeopardize my very own drinking water supply

.

3) This permit trivializes the impact of the SWPPP

. The SWPPP will surely have an

impact on outfalls 002 thru 009 . When these outfalls experience emergency

discharges this will subject Mud creek to pollutants which have basically never

been introduced into this environment

. Wildlife such as deer, rabbits, birds, ect,

use this creek as a water source . This permit should not be issued with no

SWPPP in place.

Sincerely,

EXH E

Dale E. Wojtkowski

5727 Biddleborn Rd

Marissa, IL 62257

Dale E . Wojtkowski

---

Marie Herndon

EXH F

From :

Kathy Andria [ abc@prairienet .or

g]

Sent:

Friday, June 10, 2005 5

:11 PM

To :

j

ames .day@epa

.state .il.us

Cc :

abc@prairienet .or g ; Ted Horn

Subject :

PSGS IL0076996

Attachments : Kathy Andria

.vcf

On behalf of American Bottom Conservancy and Kaskaskia Group of the Sierra Club, we submit these comments

to supplement our other comments, both written and oral, with regard to the Prairie State NPDES permit

.

PSGS should be required to use alternative cooling methods that severely limits water usage

. According to

calculations made by one of our members, PSGS could use up to 38 per cent of the flow of the Kaskaskia River

.

That figure, as well as the lower figure calculated by Prairie Rivers Network, is totally unacceptable from the

standpoint of other uses of the river and the upstream lakes

. It is unacceptable for a private entity to jeopardize

public water that is used for public water supplies, navigation, recreation, fishing, boating, swimming, habitat and

wildlife

. Carlyle Lake, for example, is the centerpiece of a $71 million tourism economy with 1250 jobs

.

In addition, we ask for addditional review of the impacts to wildlife after revelations that an IDNR report and other

documentation was changed or withheld during the PSGS air permitting process (see ABC et al EAB Petition filed

with previously submitted comment

.) Will any discharge affect the Eastern Narrow Mouth toad? Has any

biological information been withheld regarding the water permit?

PSGS should be required to have a completed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan as a part of this permit

subject to public review and public comment before

it is issued, not later.

The water permit for the coal mine should be a part of this permit to avoid piecemealing

. This permit states that

sanitary waste will be sent to the adjacent coal mine for treatment

; therefore, the two should be considered

together in one permit

.

In view of the air deposition of mercury into the water both from this plant and the Dynegy plant upwind, mercury

in the water discharge should not be allowed or at the very least severely limited

. Even the limits referred to by

Mr

. Mosher at the hearing are sufficient to contaminate an entire lake

.

Monitoring is inadequate .

Kaskaskia River and Mud Creek are already impaired from manganese and phosphorus

. No more should be

allowed . We note on p

. 12 of the permit that neither parameter is listed

. We reiterate our concern with

chlorinated byproducts discharged into the Kaskaskia River, both for their impact on downstream water supplies

and on wildlife .

We also reiterate our concern about the impact of global warming on drought and severe rain events

. We have

had both recently, since the public hearing

. We asked at the hearing if there had been any trend noted in the

7010 water flow and storm events . No one seemed to know

. We ask that you use the very most updated

information in your calculations and adjust for any trends noted

. We remind you that this plant would operate 7

days a week, 24 hours a day, for decades

. That's a lot of water

.

Mr

. Mosher explained at the public hearing that he did not agree that the water withdrawal permit issued by IDNR

was beneficial for the Kaskaskia River so he put in additional conditions on the water withdrawal

. We agree that

the water withdrawal permit is not beneficial for anyone except Peabody officers and shareholders

. While we

appreciate that you have put in additional conditions, we urge you to deny this permit because of the

potential adverse impacts to the river, Illinois citizens, wildlife and habitat and because of the many reasons

stated above and in our previously submitted comments .

Page 1 of 2

1/9/2006

---

Thank you for your consideration of our comments

.

Kathy Andria

American Bottom Conservancy

614 N . 7th

East St. Louis, IL 62201-1372

(618) 875-9960

abc@prairienet.org

Ted Horn, Chair

Kaskaskia Group of the Sierra Club

1/9/2006

Page 2 of 2

---

Marie Herndon

From:

Kathy Andria [

abc@prairienet .org]

Sent:

Friday, June 10, 2005 5

:22 PM

To :

james

.day@epa .state . il .us

Cc :

abc@prairienet.org

Subject

:

PSGS IL 0076996

Attachments

: Kathy Andria .vcf

Mr. Day

: I tried calling you several times today and left a message for you to call me

. I also called Bill Hammel

and was unable to reach him

. I have sent several emails containing public comment on the Prairie State NPDES

today

. Several people told me they were going to request an extension, but I was not sure if an extension had

been granted .

If there are any problems with our submittal of comments, or if you have indeed extended the public comment

period, please let us know as soon as possible . Thank you

.

Kathy Andria

American Bottom Conservancy

614 N

. 7th

East St

. Louis, IL 62201-1372

(618) 875-9960

abc(a)prairienet.orq

1/9/2006

EXH G

Page 1 of 1

---

Marie Herndon

From:

Kathy Andria [a bc@prairienet

.org]

Sent:

Friday, June 10, 2005 6 :10 PM

To:

james .day@epa

.state .il .us

Cc:

abc@prairienet .or g

Subject :

PSGS IL 0076996

Attachments:

PSD Permit Comments 7 .27 .04 .doc

Mr. Day

: Attached are comments filed by ABC and others on the PSD air permit for consideration under the

water permit decision

. Also, how will the water withdrawal from the Kaskaskia River by

Prairie State impact the

proposed Dynegy expansion at Baldwin?

Kathy Andria

American Bottom Conservancy

614 N . 7th

East St. Louis, IL 62201-1372

(618) 875-9960

abc@prairienet.org

1/9/2006

EXH H

Page 1 of 1

---

Marie Herndon

From : Kathy Andria [abc@prairienet

.org]

Sent :

Monday, June 27, 2005 11 :33 AM

To :

James .Day@epa

.state .il .u s

Cc :

bill .hammel@epa .state

.il.us; beth.unser@epa .state .il.us; abc@prairienet .or g

Subject : FW : PSGS IL 0076996

Mr. Day

: Just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that Southern Illinois is now officially in drought condition

and the water levels in the Kaskaskia River are characterized as "very low ." We believe the Agency should take

this situation into consideration with regard to the Prairie State water withdrawal and the NPDES permit

. Thank

you for your consideration of this request .

Kathy Andria

American Bottom Conservancy

614 N . 7th St .

East St Louis, IL 62201

(618) 875-9960

abc@prairienet.org

1/9/2006

EXH I

Page 1 of 1

---

Marie Herndon

From : Kathy Andria [abc@prairienet

.org]

Sent :

Saturday, August 13, 2005 9

:04 PM

To :

James . Day@epa .state

.il .us; bill . hammel@epa

.state .il.us; beth.unser@epa

.state .il.us

Cc:

'Kathy Andria'

Subject

: PSGS NPDES Kaskaskia River closed due to low water levels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Thu, Aug

. 11, 2005

Drought lowers river water levels, forces barges to lighten loads

BY JIM SUHR

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS -

As the Midwest's worst drought in 17 years continues to lower inland rivers, Larry Daily and other

barge

bottom

operators

lines .

shake their heads at sunny skies and hope for rain

-- lots of it -

to buoy their cargos, spirits and

"We were supposed to have scattered thunderstorms here today, but I'm looking at nothing but blue skies right

now," Daily, president of Alter Barge Line Inc

., said from his business in Bettendorf, Iowa

.

The summerlong drought has squeezed Alter's fleet of 300 barges and six towboats

. Because of lower water

apiecelevels

in

--

to

the

shed

Mississippi

enough weight

River,

to

Alter

clear

has

shallow

had to

spots

trim payloads

in the last

by about

two weekssix

inches

.

per barge

- or about 100 tons

He figures the lighter loads stand to cost his company about $300,000 per month

.

"But we're moving," he said optimistically as his crew continue to transport everything from corn and soybeans to

cement,

Minn .

steel products, coal and fertilizer up and down the Mississippi, largely between St

. Louis and St . Paul,

aground

Near where

beginning

the Ohio River

on Sundayhooks

.

up

Those

with

vessels

the Mississippi

have since

near

been

Cairo

cleared

on Illinois'

and that

southern

stretch

tip,

has

several

reopened

barges

on a case-ran

by-case

Paducah,

basis

Ky.

with barges allowed to pass if they sit high enough, said Coast Guard Lt

. Anthony Baird in

"That's not necessarily a typical trouble area there," Baird said

. "The last time we saw low water this severe or

extreme was in 1997, then previously in 1988 ."

Commercial traffic on the Mississippi ekes on, though any further drop in the water level may make shipping

troublesome, according to the Army Corps of Engineers

. The Corps is charged with maintaining a navigational

channel at least nine feet deep and 300 feet wide on the river

.

A Coast Guard advisory Tuesday recommended that deep-draft barges -

those with the heaviest loads - be

repositioned

moved out of the

channel-marking

Upper Mississippi

buoysRiver

.

as soon as possible

. Mariners also are urged to be vigilant about

The Corps has been scrambling to keep the Mississippi open, hustling its 247-foot-long dredger up the river to

lower the bottom of St . Louis' harbor

. The work was expected to be completed today

.

A commercial dredge hired by the Corps recently reopened the Kaskaskia River in Illinois and has been sent

EXH J

1/9/2006

Page t of 3

---

south to go to work near Cape Girardeau, Mo .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

©

http2005

://wwwBelleville

.bellevilleNews-Democrat

.co m

and wire service sources

. All Rights Reserved .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted on Sat, Aug . 13, 2005

Low river may hurt barge traffic

Operators can only pray for more rain

BY WILL BUSS

News-Democrat

The

river

summer's

commercedrought

.

has caused the Mississippi River to recede and could soon diminish the St

. Louis area's

U .S

. Army Corps of Engineers St

. Louis District Public Affairs Officer Alan Dooley said river levels are

approximately 1 .3 to 1

.4 feet below normal, but elevations are still navigable for the time being .

"It doesn't sound as serious right now," Dooley said

. "Things right now are manageable ."

But if it doesn't rain soon, barge traffic could be limited or halted .

From its dock on the Missouri shoreline, just south of the Jefferson Barracks Bridge, Bussen Terminal has not had

to make many adjustments .

"We haven't experienced too many problems, yet," said Bussen Terminal Manager Dave Merz

. "There are some

restrictions on other loading barges ."

Merz said the corps is supposed to dredge the river near Bussen Terminal to help alleviate the problem .

Dooley said the corps is dredging along 10 miles of the confluence of the Ohio River to the Mississippi River,

south of Cairo, near the Illinois and Kentucky border.

He said the main problem is the river's two main sources : The Mississippi Watershed that feeds the river from

lakes and streams upriver and the Missouri Watershed, which flows into the river from the Rocky Mountains

. He

said the two water systems have been under drought conditions for the past five years

.

"Those lakes are down 20 and 30 feet," Dooley said

. "What we have here in essence is the same (drought)

conditions from 1988-89, except this time there is much less water in reservoir lakes ."

By comparison, Dooley said the drought of 1988 ultimately forced the Mississippi's levels to drop to 5 feet below

normal level . In 1940, another drought year for the St

. Louis area, the water level fell to 6 .2 feet below .

Page 2 of 3

1/9/2006

---

For now, barges are able to navigate with loads that travel as deep as 12 to 13 feet below the water level, he said

.

"That's heavily loaded," he said . "This is very efficient . This is like having a bus and every seat filled with standing

room only."

However, barge operators may soon have to reconfigure barge tows

. Dooley said heavier barges may have to be

placed toward the center of the river while only lighter tows may be permitted closer to the riverfront . Barge

passage may also be restricted, if not prohibited

.

In the meantime, Dooley hopes the coming winter will bring enough precipitation to replenish the river .

"You need for it to stop being so dry," he said

. "The only answer is you need significant snowfall back in the

Rocky Mountains, in the Dakotas, the upper parts of Western Minnesota and Iowa to contribute to the run off to

streams, creeks and rivers and eventually down to the Mississippi River ."

Contact reporter Will Buss at wbuss@bnd .co m or 345-7822 ext . 24 .

------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2005 Belleville News-Democrat and wire service sources . All Rights Reserved .

http ://www.belleville.com

1/9/2006

Page 3 of 3

---

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Penni S. Livingston

IL Pollution Control Board

Attn : Dorothy Gunn

100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Dorothy

:

Enclosed you will find a Petition for Review of a Decision by the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency along with a check in the amount of $75

.00 for the filing fee .

LIVINGSTON LAW FIRM

Concentrating in Environmental Law

4972 Benchmark Centre

suite 100

Swansea, IL 62226

~ R ~~ INAL

(618) 628-7700

Fax(618) 628-7710

penni@livingstonlaw.biz

January 9, 2006

/jam

Enclosures

If you have any questions, please feel free to call our office

. Thank you .

Sincerely,

RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

JAN 1 1 2006

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board