BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN THE
MATTER
OF:
PROPOSED SITE
SPECIFIC
)
RULE
FOR
CITY
OF
SPRINGFIELD,
)
ILLINOIS, OFFICE
OF
PUBLIC
)
UTILITIES, CITY
WATER, LIGHT
)
R09-8
AND
POWER
AND
SPRINGFIELD
)
(Site Specific
Rulemaking
— Water)
METRO SANITARY
DISTRICT
)
FROM 35 ILL. ADM.
CODE
)
SECTION
3 02.208(g)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr. John
Therriault
Marie E. Tipsord
Assistant
Clerk
of the Board
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
100 West
Randolph Street
James R. Thompson
Center
Suite
11-500
100 West Randolph,
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(VIA
ELECTRONIC
MAIL)
(VIA FIRST
CLASS MAIL)
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that
I have today filed
with
the Office
of the Clerk
of
the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board PETITIONERS’
POST-HEARING
COMMENTS, copies
of
which
are
herewith served upon
you.
Respectfully
submitted,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS,
OFFICE OF PUBLIC
UTILITIES,
CITY WATER,
LIGHT AND POWER,
and
SPRINGFIELD
METRO
SANITARY
DISTRICT,
Date: January 29,
2009
By: Is! Katherine
D. Hodge
Their Attorney
Katherine
D. Hodge
HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN
3150
Roland Avenue
Post
Office Box 5776
Springfield,
Illinois 62705-5776
(217) 523-4900
THIS
FILING SUBMITTED
ON RECYCLED
PAPER
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
IN THE
MATTER OF:
PROPOSED
SITE SPECIFIC
)
RULE FOR
CITY
OF SPRINGFIELD,
)
ILLINOIS,
OFFICE
OF PUBLIC
)
UTILITIES,
CITY WATER,
LIGHT
)
R09-8
AND
POWER
AND SPRINGFIELD
)
(Site
Specific
Rule — Water)
METRO
SANITARY
DISTRICT
)
FROM 35
ILL. ADM. CODE
)
SECTION 302.208(g)
)
PETITIONERS’
POST-HEARING
COMMENTS
NOW
COME
the
Petitioners,
City of Springfield,
Illinois, Office
of Public
Utilities,
City
Water, Light
and Power (“CWLP”)
and
Springfield
Metro Sanitary
District
(“District”)
(collectively “Petitioners”),
by and
through their
attorneys, HODGE
DWYER
ZEMAN, and hereby
provide
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (“Board”)
with
the following
post-hearing comments.
I.
BACKGROUND
On August
29, 2008, Petitioners
filed with the
Board
a
Petition for
Site Specific
Rule
(“Petition”)
pursuant to Sections
27 and
28
of
the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”) (415
ILCS 5/27 and 5/28),
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
§
102.210 and
35 Ill. Adm.
Code
§
102.202
to
establish an
alternative water quality
standard for boron
other than that
found
at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code
§
302.208(g)
(“Section
302.208(g)”). As part
of their initial
filing,
Petitioners
also filed motions
requesting the
Board
to waive the requirement
for
200
signatures
on
its
proposal and to
expedite consideration
of its request
by, among
other
things, ordering
immediate
publication
of the
rules for first notice under
the Illinois
Administrative
Procedure
Act (“APA”)
(4
ILCS
100/1-1,
et
seq.).
On September 16, 2008, the
Board
issued its First Notice Opinion and Order
accepting the proposal for hearing and granting Petitioners’ Motion to Waive
Requirement to Submit 200 Signatures and Motion for Expedited Review.
On September 19, 2008, the Hearing Officer issued a Hearing Officer Order,
which
scheduled
a hearing in the matter for November
3,
2008, at
10:00 a.m., in
Springfield (“November 3, 2008 Hearing”).
On
September 22, 2008, Petitioners filed Petitioners’ Statement Addressing
Section
102.2 10(c) in response to the Board’s request for filing of the same.
On October 20, 2008, Petitioners submitted pre-filed testimony of the following
witnesses to be presented at the November 3, 2008 Hearing: Dave Farris, Gregg Finigan,
Doug
Brown, Don Schilling, William Brown, Deborah Ramsey and Jeff Bushur.
On
October 29, 2008, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (“Illinois
EPA”) filed
the Pre-Filed Testimony of Robert Mosher, in which Robert Mosher
discussed
Petitioners’ proposed Site Specific Rule and Illinois EPA’s basis for agreement
with the
same.
The November 3, 2008 Hearing was held in Springfield, with representatives
of
Petitioners, Illinois EPA and Prairie
Rivers Network
(“PRN”) in
attendance.
In response
to
questions at hearing, the Board
requested
that
both Petitioners
and
Illinois
EPA file
additional
information
in support of
the proposed Site Specific Rule.
On November 21, Petitioners filed
Petitioners’
Post-Hearing Document Submittal
in
response to the Board’s request at the
November
3, 2008 Hearing, and also as stated
in
the
November 6, 2008 Hearing Officer Order (“November 6, 2008 Order”), for additional
information. On December 3, 2008, Petitioners filed Petitioners’ Additional Post
2
Hearing
Document
Submittal,
which consisted of an additional report that
Petitioners
voluntarily submitted to
the Board
after providing the same to PRN.
On
November 24, 2008,
Illinois EPA filed Illinois EPA’s
Post-Hearing
Document
Submittal
in response to the Board’s request for additional information
at the November
3,
2008 Hearing, and also as stated in the November
6,
2008
Order.
On December 5, 2008, PRN filed Pre-Filed Questions
Regarding
R2009-008
(“PRN
Pre-Filed Questions”), which PRN sought to have Petitioners
address at the
hearing scheduled for December 16, 2008 (“December 16, 2008
Hearing”).
On
December 12, 2008, Petitioners filed Petitioners’ Motion Directed
to the
Hearing Officer to Strike Pre-Filed Questions or to Clarify (“Motion to Strike”)
and
Petitioners’
Motion Directed
to
the Hearing
Officer to Exclude Witnesses of PRN
(“Motion to
Exclude Witnesses”). These motions were
addressed during the December
16, 2008
Hearing, during which representatives of Petitioners, Illinois
EPA
and PRN
were in attendance. As discussed in more detail below, with regard to Petitioners’
Motion to Strike, while the Hearing Officer agreed with Petitioners’ interpretation
of the
Hearing Officer’s
directive,
as stated
during
the November 3, 2008 Hearing and in
the
November 6,
2008 Order, PRN
was
allowed to ask
its
questions in order to build as
complete a record as
possible for the Board. With regard
to Petitioners’ Motion to
Exclude
Witnesses, the Hearing Officer found that Petitioners’
objection was moot
as
PRN did not
present a witness
at
the December
16,
2008
Hearing. Thus, the Hearing
Officer did not need
to address
the
Motion to Exclude
Witnesses any further.
The
December
16,
2008
Hearing
was
also
held
in Springfield, with
representatives of
Petitioners, although
not the full panel of witnesses present for
the
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
November 3, 2008
Hearing, representatives
of
Illinois
EPA
and
PRN in
attendance.
As
discussed in more
detail
below,
Petitioners’ Motion to
Strike and Motion to
Exclude
Witnesses were
addressed
at hearing.
Also
at
hearing,
Petitioners addressed as many
of
the PRN Pre-Filed Questions as was possible with the witnesses available at hearing.
The remainder of the questions are answered in full below.
II.
APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR PROMULGATION OF THE
PROPOSED
SITE
SPECIFIC RULE
Section 27(a)
of the Act
provides the Board with the appropriate standard
for
promulgation
of
substantive regulations under the Act, including site specific rules:
the Board shall take into account the existing physical conditions, the
character of the area involved,
including the character
of
surrounding land
uses,
zoning classifications, the nature of the existing air quality, or
receiving body of
water, as the case may be, and the technical feasibility
and economic reasonableness of
measuring or
reducing the particular type
of
pollution.
415
ILCS 5/27(a).
The Board has acknowledged
the applicability of this
standard
in many of its
previous cases regarding site
specific
relief. For example,
the
Board’s Opinion and Order
in
In the Matter of:
Petition of Acme Steel Company and LTV Steel Company From
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 302.211 AS No. 94-8 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd. July
7,
1995), although
specifically
discussing an adjusted standard, stated the following with regard to Section
27(a):
The
result of either an adjusted standard or a site-specific rule proceeding
is the same (i.e., relief from a
particular rule).
In both a general
rulemaking proceeding and a site-specific rulemaking proceeding, the
Board, pursuant to Section 27 of the Act, is required to take the following
factors into
consideration: the existing physical conditions, the character
of
the area involved, including the character of surrounding land uses,
zoning
classifications, the nature
of
the existing air
quality,
or receiving
body
of water, as the case may be, and the technical feasibility and
4
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
economic
reasonableness
of measuring
or
reducing
the particular
type
of
pollution.
(See specifically,
Section
27(a).)
In
the
Matter
of: Petition
of Acme
Steel
Company
and LTV Steel
Company
From 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
302.211
AS
No.
94-8, 1995
Iii. ENV
LEXIS
686,
3 (Ill.Pol.Control.Bd.
July
7,
1995).
In
addition,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Illinois has
also spoken
as
to
the
Board’s
duties
under
Section
27(a)
of
the Act.
In the case
of Granite
City
Division
of
National
Steel
Company,
et al.
v.
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
155 Ill. 2d
149, 613
N.E.2d
719
(1993),
the
Supreme
Court
of
Illinois stated
the
following:
section 27(a)
does not
impose specific
evidentiary
requirements
on
the
Board,
thereby
limiting
its authority
to
promulgate
only
regulations
that it
has
determined
to be
technically
feasible and
economically
reasonable.
Rather,
section
27(a)
requires
only
that
the
Board consider
or take
into
account the
factors set
forth
therein.
The
Board
must
then use
its
technical
expertise
and
judgment
in balancing
any
hardship that
the regulations
may
cause to dischargers
against
its statutorily
mandated
purpose
and
function
of
protecting
our environment
and public
health.
Granite
City Division
of National
Steel
Company,
et
al.
v. Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
155
Ill.
2d 149, 183,
613 N.E.2d
719, 734-35
(1993).
Therefore,
in this
case, the Board
should
utilize the
standard
set forth in
Section
27(a)
when determining
whether
to
promulgate
Petitioners’
proposed
Site Specific
Rule.
Petitioners
urge
the
Board
to approve
the
Site Specific
Rule
consistent
with these
Post-
Hearing
Comments
and
its
obligations
under
Section
27(a) of the
Act.
III.
THE PROPOSAL
As explained
more
fully
in Petitioners’
proposal,
during
the November
3,
2008
Hearing
and during
the December
16,
2008
Hearing,
through this
proceeding,
Petitioners
are
seeking a
Site Specific
Rule to
establish
an
alternative
water
quality
standard
for
boron
from the
point of discharge
at
Outfall
007
from
the District’s
Spring Creek
Sanitary
Treatment
Plant
(“Spring Creek
Plant”)
to the
Sangamon
River,
to its
confluence
5
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
with the Illinois River, and in the Illinois River 100
yards downstream from the
confluence with the Sangamon River. The general use
water quality standard for
boron,
which is set forth in Section 302.208(g), is 1.0
mg/L. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
§
302.208(g).
While the
Board’s effluent
regulations require,
at Section 304.105, that discharge
[from
the
District]
not cause an applicable water
quality standard to be exceeded, the
Board has
not
adopted
an effluent standard for boron.
Similarly, Illinois EPA has not imposed
an
effluent
limit for boron at Outfall
007
in
the District’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit.
See 35 Ill. Adm. Code
§
304.105.
The proposed Site Specific Rule for an alternative
water quality standard for
boron
is
requested to enable the District’s Spring Creek
Plant to accept a pretreated
industrial effluent stream from CWLP ‘ s power station. Operation
of the air pollution
control systems at CWLP’s
power plant
causes elevated concentrations
of boron in a
plant effluent stream
that is proposed
to be transferred to the District’s Spring Creek
Plant. CWLP’s
power plant is a critical power supply
for the City of Springfield
(“City”)
and
surrounding communities. The proposed site specific
water quality standard for
boron is
necessary to enable CWLP to operate its power
plant
in compliance with its
NPDES
Permit and State and Federal air pollution regulations.
Petitioners’ Petition and
testimony
offered at the hearings demonstrated
that
treatment to the general
boron
water quality standard of 1.0 mg!L is neither
technically
feasible nor economically reasonable for the portion of the Sangamon
River to which the
District’s Spring Creek Plant discharges, to its confluence
with
Salt
Creek, and in the
Illinois River 100 yards downstream of its confluence with
the Sangamon River. The
Petition and testimony offered at the hearings also demonstrated
that
alternatives to the
6
proposed Site Specific
Rule would have significant economic impact on
CWLP
and its
customers
(including
City residents) and that its grant is not expected to
harm the aquatic
life in the waters
downstream of the District’s Spring Creek Plant discharge
or have a
negative impact on the
current
use of
the receiving waters.
IV.
DISCUSSION
A.
November 3, 2008
Hearing
The following information was
presented
at
the
November 3, 2008 Hearing in
direct testimony and in response to
questions
of
the Board and PRN.
Petitioners presented
seven witnesses at hearing: Dave Farris,
CWLP’s
Environmental Health and
Safety Manager; Gregg Finigan, CWLP’s Superintendent
of
Production; Doug
Brown, CWLP’s
Projects Director; Don Schilling, a Senior Associate
Chemical
Engineer with Bums
& McDonnell (“Burns”) in Kansas, City, Missouri,
testifying
on behalf of CWLP; William Brown, a
Senior Project
Manager with
Crawford,
Murphy & Tilly, Inc. (“CMT”) in
Springfield,
testifying on behalf of the District;
Deborah Ramsey, a
Chemical Engineer with Hanson Professional Services, Inc.
(“Hanson”) in Springfield,
testifying on behalf of CWLP; and Jeff Bushur, an
Environmental Biologist
with
Hanson, testifying on behalf of CWLP.
Also
present
at
hearing for CWLP and available to answer questions were Bill
Murray, CWLP’s
Regulatory Affairs Manager, and Sue Corcoran, an Engineer in
CWLP’s
Environmental Health and Safety Office. In addition, Carl Weilert, of Bums,
was
also available to answer
questions
on behalf of CWLP. Present at hearing for
the
District and available to
answer questions were Gregg Humphrey, the Director and
Engineer of the
District;
Jeff
Slead, Operations Supervisor at the District’s Spring
Creek
7
Plant;
John
Drake,
of CMT; and Justin Reichert, the District’s attorney. Present at
hearing for
Illinois EPA
and available to answer questions was Robert Mosher, Manager
of the Bureau of Water, Water Quality Standards Unit. Finally, present at hearing
to ask
questions of Petitioners and Illinois EPA were Traci Barkley and Stacy
James of PRN.
1.
CWLP’s Facility Operations
CWLP owns and operates
two
power stations, referred
to as
the
V.Y. Dallman
Power
Station (“Dailman”) and the Lakeside Power Station (“Lakeside”),
and a potable
water treatment plant at 3100 Stevenson Drive in Springfield. Pre-Filed Testimony
of
Dave Farris, In Support of Proposed Site Specific Rule at 2. These plants generate
electricity for the residents and businesses in the City and provide potable water to
the
City and
surrounding
communities.
Approximately 186 people are employed
at
Daliman and Lakeside, and an additional 19 people
are employed at the potable water
treatment plant.
j
The facilities are staffed twenty-four hours per
day,
seven
days per
week. Id.
Dallman has an electric generating capacity of 352 megawatts and is comprised
of
three coal-fired units: Units 31, 32 and 33.
The Daliman units were placed into
service in 1968,
1972
and 1978, respectively. Id.
Units 31 and 32 are identical, each
having 80
megawatts of generating capacity.
Ici.
The cyclone boilers in Units 31 and
32
operate at
1,250 psig and 950°F.
Unit 33 includes
a
tangentially
fired boiler and has
a generating
capacity of 192
megawatts.
Unit
33 operates at 2,400 psig and 1,000°F.
Id. Each of the
three Dailman units
is
equipped
with a flue gas desulfurization
system
(“FGDS”) that
removes
over 90 percent of the
sulfur
dioxide from the unit’s flue
gases.
1c1
Selective
Catalytic
Reduction (“SCR”) air pollution control systems for nitrogen
8
oxides
(“NO”)
removal were added
to
all
three
Daliman Units in 2003. Id. CWLP
currently
operates the SCRs during
the
ozone season (May 1 through September
30)
to
remove approximately 90 percent of
NO
from its air emissions at the Daliman units.
Id.
at 2-3. The SCRs will begin year-round operations in July 2009, to assist in control
of
the
mercury emissions. Id. at 3.
Lakeside began operation in 1935. Id. Originally, there were eight boilers
and
seven
turbine generators at Lakeside. Id. Only two boilers and two turbine generators
are
still in operation.
Boilers 7 and 8 are identical 33-megawatt cyclone coal-fired
units.
Boiler 7-Turbine 6 went into operation in 1959, and Boiler 8-Turbine
7 began
operation in 1964.
Both units
operate at 850 psig and 900°F. Id. Lakeside will
be
retired in the near
future. Id.
Total
coal consumption at the CWLP facility averages 1.1 million tons
per year.
Id. The
ash handling practices at CWLP are typical for a coal-fired power plant.
Id.
Bottom ash and fly ash from all existing units are sluiced to ash ponds. Id. The raw
lake
water used for sluicing is obtained from the
once-through
cooling
water systems for
generator condensers.
Id. Three separate ash transport
systems serve Dallman Units 31,
32 and 33, and
Lakeside. Id.
CWLP
operates two ash ponds. Id. Typically, the Dallman fly ash and
bottom
ash sluice water is
pumped to the north ash pond, which is commonly known
as the
Dallman Ash Pond.
Daliman Ash Pond also receives wastewater
treatment plant
sludge and leachate
collected from the scrubber sludge landfill adjacent
to the ash ponds.
Id.
The south ash
pond, known as Lakeside Ash Pond, has an
earthen berm dividing it
into an east and
west portion. Id. The Lakeside
fly
ash and
bottom ash sluice water is
9
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
normally discharged to the west portion of the Lakeside Ash
Pond.
RI.
The east portion
of
the pond, referred to as Lakeside East Pond, receives lime
sludge from the filter plant
and
miscellaneous water streams from Daliman, including
the FGDS effluent water. RI.
Flow rates
into
the
ash ponds vary, but depend principally
upon the generating units in
service. Id.
A new
electric generating unit, referred
to as Dallman Unit 4, is currently under
construction. Id. at
4. The Dailman Unit 4 will include
a coal-fired boiler with a rated
capacity of about
2,440 million Btu/hour and
a
steam turbine-generator
with a nominal
capacity of
250 megawatts.
jçj.
The new boiler will be equipped
with
low-NO
combustion technology and the following air pollution control
systems:
SCR, a fabric
filter,
wet flue gas desulfurization, and a wet electrostatic precipitator. Id. Dallman
Unit
4 will utilize a dry ash handling system.
JçL
CWLP’s potable water
treatment plant has
a capacity of 48 million gallons
per
day (“MGD”). Id. A
conventional lime-softening/filtrationldisinfection
process is
employed to
produce potable water. RI. Five clarifiers and 12 filters
in the treatment
process
remove sediment and particulate matter from the raw lake water. Id.
Thickened
sludge
from the clarifiers and backwash water from the filters is discharged to ash
ponds
located
north of Spaulding Dam. Id. The volume of sludge and backwash water
discharged to the ash pond system varies and is dependent upon production volume
and
raw
water characteristics. Id. During periods of warm weather, powdered activated
carbon (“PAC”)
is added to the incoming lake water for control of various pesticides
and
herbicides.
The PAC also assists with taste and odor control. Id. The majority
of the
PAC is
removed in the clarifiers and disposed in the ash ponds. RI.
10
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
Lake Springfield,
a 4,224-acre
reservoir
constructed
in
1934
by impoundment
of
Sugar
Creek
with
Spaulding
Dam,
supplies
the cooling
water
for the
CWLP complex,
which
is also
the
primary
source
of
potable
water
for the
City and
surrounding
communities.
jj
The
two
major
streams flowing
into
Lake
Springfield
are Sugar
Creek
and
Lick
Creek,
which
drain
into
the lake’s upper
end.
Id. The majority
of the
consumptive
use
of
lake
water for
the CWLP
complex
is ash
sluicing
water, accounting
for 3.9
million
gallons
of lake water
usage per
day. Id.
at 4-5.
Supernatant
from
the
two
ash
ponds,
which
receive
a variety
of materials,
including
miscellaneous
water
streams
from
Dalirnan
and
Lakeside
and
the FGDS
effluent
water, flows
into
a clarification
pond,
which
also
provides
settling
and
neutralization,
before
it discharges
into
Sugar
Creek
under
a
NPDES
permit
issued
by
Illinois
EPA. Id.
at 5.
2.
The District’s
Spring
Creek Plant
Operations
and
NPDES
Permit
The
District
owns and
operates
the Sugar
Creek Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
(“Sugar
Creek Plant”)
and
the Spring
Creek Plant
in Springfield.
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
William
Brown,
In
Support
of Proposed
Site
Specific
Rule
at
2. The
Sugar
Creek
Plant
was
put
into service
in 1973,
and
treats wastewater
and
storm water
from
the southeast
and
eastern
sections
of the
City and
adjacent
service
areas.
Id. The
Spring
Creek
Plant
was
constructed
in 1928, with
major
improvements
in
the
1930s.
Id.
It
handles
wastewater
and
storm water
flows from
the
southwest,
west and northern
parts
of
the City
and
surrounding
service areas.
Id. The
last
major
improvements
to increase
the capacity
of the
Spring Creek
Plant were
constructed
in 1975.
Id.
The population
served
by the
Spring
Creek
Plant from
2000
U.S.
Census
data
was
90,300
and increased
just over
one
percent
per year
on average
for the
previous ten
years.
11
It is
an
activated
sludge
treatment
plant
that
provides
treatment
and
removal
of
biological
oxygen
demand
(“BOD”),
total
suspended
solids
(“TSS”),
ammonia
and
bacteria,
and
consists
of the
following
main
unit
processes:
1.
Screening
for
large
solids
removal;
2.
Grit removal
for removing
heavier
sand
and
grit
particles;
3.
Primary
clarifiers
for removing
solids
and
biological
matter;
4.
Aeration
tanks
for
the main
biological
treatment
process;
5.
Secondary
clarifiers
for removing
the remaining
fine solids
particles
(activated
sludge
is
returned
from
these
clarifiers
to the
aeration
tanks);
6.
Disinfection,
performed
on
a
seasonal
basis
from
May
through
October;
7.
Anaerobic
sludge
digestion
to stabilize
primary
and secondary
waste
sludge,
which
is
then stored
(biosolids
are land
applied
when
weather
permits);
and
8.
Excess
flow
clarifiers
to provide
primary
treatment
during
high
flow
storm
events.
Id.
at
2-3.
The
Spring
Creek
Plant,
which
discharges
its effluent
into
the Sangarnon River at
the confluence
of
Spring
Creek
and
the Sangamon
River,
flows
into a
72-inch
diameter
concrete
pipe
and
is conveyed
approximately
5,990
feet
before
discharging
into
the
Sangamon
River.
Id. at
3. The
72-inch
outfall
sewer
was
constructed
in 1973.
Id. The
7-day
10-year
low
flow
in the
Sangarnon
River upstream
of
the
Spring
Creek
Plant
discharge
is
54.8
cubic
feet per
second
(“cfs”)
or
35.4
MGD.
Id.
The
7-day
low flow
observed
by
the
Illinois
State
Water
Survey
(“ISWS”)
per
its
2002
map
of
the
Spring
Creek
Plant
discharge
is 17.5
cfs
or
11.31
MGD.
Id. The
Spring
Creek
Plant
has
a
12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
seasonal disinfection exemption that only requires disinfection
for
the months
of May
through
October.
Ich
The Spring Creek Plant operates 24 hours per
day, seven days per week, and
is
staffed
by
seven full-time operators from 7 a.m.
to 11
p.m.
Id. There is a separate
maintenance crew on site eight hours per day,
five days per week. Id. It has an average
design
capacity of 20 MGD.
Monthly flows
in
2004
through 2006 have ranged from
11.8 MOD
to peak flow of over
50
MGD.
j
The design
maximum
flow of the Spring
Creek
Plant for complete treatment is currently
50
MGD, which is greater
than the 2005
peak of
49 MOD, but 49 MOD puts the Spring Creek Plant at
98
percent
of its
rated
maximum capacity. Id.
On average, the discharge of the Spring Creek Plant is less than the 7-day 10-year
low flow
of the
receiving stream,
the
Sangamon River,
which is 54.8 cfs or 35.4 MGD.
Id. at 4. A
Spring Creek Plant
7-day
low flow of 11.31 MOD
has
been
used
for
calculating
the boron concentration under the scenario for the proposed Site Specific
Rule.
This flow rate is based on the 7-day low flow presented on the 2002 ISWS
map,
the
latest available. Id. Daily effluent flows as low as 9.29 MGD were observed
during
an atypically
dry
September
2007.
Id.
The
requirement for complete treatment
of flows to the Spring Creek Plant is
detailed in the
District’s NPDES permit (No. 1L0021989),
which expires July 31, 2009.
Id.
The District
anticipates
there
will
be
changes in
the current NPDES permit upon
renewal. Id. By
July
31, 2009, its current
expiration
date, construction of a new
treatment
plant
should
be underway, which will
require
modifications to the NPDES
permit due to the
increased hydraulic
capacity.
1c1.
The District has given consideration
13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
for the
reduction
of ammonia
nitrogen
and
total
phosphorus
to meet Illinois
EPA
requirements
in
their
future
treatment
facilities.
IcL
Based upon
the 2006 plant influent
data,
the
carbonaceous
BOD5
(“CBOD
5
”)
concentration
ranged
from 157 to 214
milligrams per
liter
(“mg/L”)
with
an average of
172 mg/L. jç
The
CBOD
5removal after
primary,
secondary
and
tertiary
treatment is
about 98
percent, for an
average effluent
5
CBOD of approximately
3
mg/L.
Id.
The TSS
concentration
has a range
from 132 to
307 mg!L
with
an
average
of
198 mg/L
for 2006.
Id. With
a removal rate
of over 96 percent,
the
discharge
to
the
receiving
stream had
only 7.3
mg/L of TSS
on average. Id.
Although
not designed for
nitrification, through
operational adjustments
to the
Spring
Creek
Plant,
the District has
been able to meet
its seasonal NPDES
permit
requirements
for
ammonia
nitrogen.
j
at 5. Data
from 2006 shows a
reduction in
ammonia
from an
influent value
of 12 mg!L to 1.38
mg/L in the
tertiary effluent, which
is
over
88
percent
removal.
At the
present
time, ammonia nitrogen
loading is at the
Spring
Creek Plant’s
maximum
capacity, but
recommended plant
improvements will be
designed to
provide ammonia
nitrogen
removal.
Id.
Total
phosphorus
removal is not currently
regulated by the
Spring
Creek
Plant’s
NPDES permit, so
influent
and effluent data
values are not
available,
but plant
expansion
recommendations
will take
into account phosphorus
removal
requirements expected
in
the
next permit
renewal cycle.
Id.
The
temperature of the
wastewater
leaving the Spring Creek
Plant
varied
from
a
low
of 50°F to a
high of 78°F
in 2006. jç.
Effluent leaves the Spring
Creek
Plant
at a
pH
between
6.4 and
8.0,
on average.
Id.
14
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
A current
plant
influent
boron concentration
of 0.25 mg/L
was used as
background to
calculate the
new concentration with
the FGDS
wastewater included
in the
flow
stream.
RI. Based on the 7-day
low
effluent
flow of 11.31 MGD
per ISWS,
combined with
the FGDS wastewater
at
0.27 MGD
of added flow, and
a
boron
concentration
of
450 mg/L, the
maximum boron
concentration
of the
Spring Creek
Plant’s effluent
would be 11.0 mg!L.
It is
anticipated
that
the boron
will
not be
significantly
affected
by
or adversely
affect the
Spring Creek Plant’s
treatment
process,
and
therefore
the
effluent
boron
concentration is
expected to mirror the
influent
concentration.
RI. Thus, the
Spring Creek Plant’s
effluent
maximum
boron
concentration
is estimated to be
11.0 mg/L. Id.
at 5-6. The
boron
concentration
downstream
in the
Sangamon
River is estimated
to be
approximately
4.5 mg/L under
this
scenario. Id.
at 6.
The Spring
Creek
Plant
consistently
meets NPDES regulated
parameters.
Id.
Pumping
the CWLP FGDS
wastewater
to the Spring Creek Plant
is not expected
to have
any
effect
on the Spring
Creek Plant, other
than the increase
in boron concentration
in
the
effluent.
Id. While granting
this Site Specific
Rule
will not reduce, with
any level of
certainty,
the need for the
previously-granted
11.0
mg/L
adjusted standard
for
boron,
rather,
granting this
Site Specific Rule
may
enable CWLP
to meet compliant
levels in
Sugar
Creek. Id.
15
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
3.
CWLP’s
Prior
Relief
from
Boron
Water
Quality
Standard
In
a
renewal
to CWLP’s
NPDES
permit
issued
in 1991,
Illinois
EPA
placed
a
boron
limit
on
discharges
from
the clarification
pond.
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
Dave
Farris,
In
Support
of Proposed
Site
Specific
Rule
at 5.
On
May
4, 1994,
CWLP
filed
a
petition
with
the Board
seeking
an
adjusted
standard
from
the
Board’s
water
quality
standard
for
boron
that
was,
at
that
time,
found
at 35
III. Adm.
Code
§
3 02.208(e).
Id.
On
December
1,
1994,
the
Board
granted
CWLP
an adjusted
standard
for
boron
of 11.0
mg/i
for wastewater
discharges
into
Sugar
Creek
(OutfaIls
003
and
004)
with
downstream
decreases
in the receiving
waterways
until
compliance
was reached
with
the
general
water
quality
standard
of
1.0 mg/L.
j
The adjusted
standard
included
an
alternative
water
quality
standard
for
boron
at
the
point of
discharge
from
the
District’s
Spring
Creek
Plant
(Outfall
007)
to
100
yards
downstream
of the
confluence
of
the Sangamon
River
with
Spring
Creek.
Thus,
an alternative
water
quality
standard
for boron
already
applies
to
portions
of
the surface
waters
at issue
in
this
matter.
Id.
From
1994,
when
the
adjusted
standard
was
granted,
until
May 2003,
CWLP
operated
within
general
compliance of its
NPDES
permit
(No.
1L0024767).
Id.
However,
beginning
in
May
2003,
CWLP
began
experiencing
boron
exceedances
(above
11.0 mg!L)
at Outfall
004,
coinciding
with
the testing
and
start
of SCR
air
pollution
control
systems.
at
5-6.
4.
CWLP’s
Boron
Mitigation
Efforts
Historically,
CWLP
has
been
able to
operate
while
meeting
the
adjusted
boron
standard
in
Sugar Creek.
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of Gregg
Finigan,
In
Support
of
Proposed
Site Specific
Rule
at
3. However,
since
SCR
air
pollution
control
systems
for removal
of
16
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
NO
were added
to
Daliman’s
three
coal-fired
units in 2003,
CWLP
has
had
difficulty
complying
with
the
adjusted
standard
for boron
in Sugar
Creek. Id.
Apparently,
trace
ammonia
concentrations
from SCR
operation
results in increased
boron
solubility
in
CWLP’s
Daliman
Ash
Pond,
increasing
boron
levels to CWLP’s
clarification
pond.
RI.
The
increased
boron
levels
from the
Dallman
Ash
Pond are
below the
adjusted
standard,
but
when
the
boron content
of the FGDS
blowdown
is
added
to the
clarification
pond,
the
boron
concentration
at
Outfall
004
exceeds
the adjusted
standard
in
Sugar
Creek. RI.
Although
trace
ammonia
concentrations
are
also
found in
the gas stream
to the FGDS,
the
effect on
the boron
concentration
in
the FGDS
blowdown
cannot be
quantified
since
many
other operational
variables
within
the
FGDS
process
result
in
a wide range
of
boron
levels in
the blowdown
stream.
Id.
Conversion
to a dry
fly
ash
system
will not
eliminate
this
high boron
FGDS
effluent,
since
it is
generated
by
the air pollution
control
equipment
(FGDS
treats
the flue
gas product
of burning
coal) and
is
not
associated
with
the fly
ash
disposal
system. Id.
Prior
to April
of 2003, Outfall
004
showed minimal
excursions
beyond
the
adjusted
standard of
11.0 mg/L
boron
limitation.
Id.
at 4.
In
April
2003, CWLP
put into
service
three
SCR systems
for
NO
removal
at Dallman
(on
units 31,
32 and
33).
Laboratory
personnel
were
monitoring
the
ammonia
concentrations
(ammonia
slip) in
the
ash
systems
and
in
the
Dallrnan
Ash
Pond
as
part
of
the
process
control
for
the
SCRs.
Id.
In
addition,
the
chemistry
staff
was responsible
for
the
NPDES
monthly
monitoring.
RI.
Bi-monthly
samples
for boron
analysis
from
Outfall
004 were
taken
to Prairie
Analytical.
Id.
17
By May 2003, it was
noticed
that
the boron concentration
at Outfall 004 was
increasing
to
nearly the 11.0 mg/L
limitation.
Id.
Later,
in
May, 2003, the boron
concentration
at
Outfall 004 exceeded the adjusted standard limitation, at about the same
time the last SCR
went
into service. Id. At that point, CWLP was fairly certain
that the
increase in boron
levels was a direct result of the operation of the SCRs, since the
increased levels
coincided
with the start-up of each SCR unit. Id. Research was
done on
boron solubility
and
a
direct connection was found with ammonia having an affinity
for
boron
compounds, forming more chemically stable ammonia borohalogens. Id.
In
August and September of 2003, CWLP began investigating the cause of the
boron
increase
by
checking all of the
ash ponds, the clarification pond,
and Outfall 004
wastewater streams, as well as the
incoming streams to these bodies to determine
the
origin of the increased boron
concentration. Id. at 4-5. This study was done in
conjunction with Hanson
(then known as Hanson Engineering). Id. During this
extensive study of
all of the wastewater streams
feeding
into
Outfall 004 to Sugar Creek,
it was detennined
that the boron levels in
the Dallman Ash Pond
had increased, but
not to
the levels
that would have exceeded the
adjusted
standard of 11.0 mg/l. Id.
However,
CWLP
was able to identify that the
FGDS blowdown effluent stream contained excessive
amounts of boron, from 16.4 to 837
mg/L. Id. This effluent was found to be 250,000
400,000 gallons per day being
sent
to
the filter plant sludge ponds, which subsequently
discharge
supematant to the
Clarification pond, which flows to Outfall 004. Id.
This FGDS blowdown stream
was
present prior to the operation of the
SCR
systems. jç
The increased boron
concentration
in the Dailman Ash Pond, which
is the
major
flow contributor to the
Clarification pond and Outfall 004, resulting from
the
18
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
operations
of the SCRs
and
the ammonia
effect
on boron solubility, increased the boron
level to the Clarification pond enough that
the FGDS
blowdown stream boron levels
could not be diluted, even though it was only 10 percent of the ash pond flows. Id.
Accordingly, while this proposal will not eliminate CWLP’ s need for the adjusted
standard, it is the most reasonable approach for CWLP to meet it hereafter. Id.
5.
Overview of CWLP’s Consideration of Alternatives and
Alternative Technologies
Over the past decade, CWLP,
together with
Burns,
has investigated numerous
alternatives to
comply with
the
general water quality standard for boron in wastewater
discharged
from
its power plant and determined that pumping its FGDS wastewater
stream to
the District’s Spring Creek Plant for treatment is the only technologically
feasible and economically reasonable alternative to address the boron exceedance
problem in the wastewater stream. Pre-Filed Testimony of Doug Brown, In Support of
Proposed Site
Specific Rule
at
2; Technical Support Documentfor Site-Specic Boron
Standardfor the
Springfield Metro Sanitary District Spring Creek Plant, Sangamon
County, Illinois
(“TSD”), attached as Exhibit 1 to the Petition.
a.
Conversion to Dry Ash Systems
CWLP considered conversion to a dry ash system; however, the FGDS
wastewater proposed for transfer to the District’s Spring Creek Plant is generated by the
air
pollution control system and would not be eliminated by modifying the power plant
ash
handling system, although CWLP’s new Dallman Unit 4 will include dry fly ash and
bottom
ash handling systems. Pre-Filed Testimony of Doug Brown, In Support of
Proposed
Site Specific Rule at 2-3.
19
i.
Dry
Fly
Ash
In 2005,
Burns
estimated
that the installed
equipment
cost to
convert all
of
CWLP’s existing
Dailman units to dry fly ash would be
$10.2
million.
at 3. With
added
operational costs due to additional equipment and operations,
along
with collected
ash disposal,
Burns calculated the 2005 net present value of conversion to dry fly ash as
$19.5
million,
with a 2008 net present value of
$24.5
million, for a cost of
$368
per
electric service
customer.
Id. However, conversion to dry fly ash would not address the
boron generated by
the air pollution control systems at issue.
IcL
ii.
Dry Bottom Ash
Burns also found that conversion of CWLP’s
Units 31 and 32 to a dry
bottom ash
system
is not feasible, and
that while conversion
of
Dallman Unit 33 is technically
feasible, due to space
limitations, lack of industry experience and negative cost-benefit
ratio, converting
Dallman Unit 33 is not favored. Id.
b.
Treatment
Options
CWLP
also considered
treatment
options for
the removal
of
boron from FGDS
wastewater,
which contains
high concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids,
such
that
less-expensive
removal options that might otherwise be typical, would be ineffective
in this
case, but could
nevertheless range from
$6.1
million to
$9.2
million for capital
costs
and
from
$0.80
million per year to
$14
million per year in annual operating and
maintenance costs, such
that the present value of the treatment alternatives range from
$22
million
to
$254
million. Id.
20
i.
Brine Concentrator
Followed by Spray
Dryer
CWLP
evaluated use of
a
brine concentrator
(“BC”) followed
by
a spray dryer.
Such
technology
is comprised
of
mechanical
evaporators that separate
and recover water
from
the
wastewater solution.
çj
The most
commonly used BCs
use a vapor compressor
to
provide
a self-sufficient supply
of steam
to heat up
the wastewater
slurry. RI. at 3-4.
The heated
wastewater
evaporates
and generates
steam
that is compressed
and used
for
reheating
the wastewater slurry,
which is then
recirculated in
a
vertically
mounted
tube
bundle.
at 4. Due to high
concentrations
of total dissolved solids
(“TDS”) and
chlorides,
the
materials that
come
in contact
with
these higher concentrates
are normally
made
from
high-grade
stainless steels and the
tubes from titanium,
and are
very
expensive.
Id. In
addition,
the vapor compressor
and the slurry
recirculation
pumps
consume
a
significant
amount of
electricity.
Id. The concentrated
bleed would
then
be
fed into
a
spray dryer,
where it
would
be completely dried
to a solid form for
disposal,
in
a
chamber where hot
air
containing
combusted natural gas
would be injected,
leaving
behind
the solids. Id.
Bums concluded
that
to accommodate
periodic
maintenance,
and possible
variation
in the
incoming wastewater
flow
rate,
dual
trains of the BC/spray
dryer
units
would be needed,
each designed for
50
percent
of the maximum capacity
required.
Id.
Burns
initially
opined
that boron
removal using
dual train BC/dual train
spray
dryers
had
a
capital cost of
$8,222,000
and an
annual operating
cost of
$798,539.
Id.
ii.
Reverse Osmosis
Followed
by
Crystallizer
and
Spray
Dryer
CWLP also
considered
reverse osmosis (“RO”)
followed by crystallizer
and
a
spray
dryer.
The RO process
was considered as
an alternative to the
first
stage
21
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
treatment, with mechanical evaporation
to
concentrate the
wastewater.
Id. In this case,
however,
due
to the high concentrations
of
dissolved constituents
in the FGDS blowdown
stream, high
recovery is impossible
due to the
osmotic
pressure and the pressure
limitation of
commercially
available RO membranes. Id. Burns concluded that,
because
of the
constituents
in this FGDS blowdown, including high suspended solids,
pretreatment would be necessary before the wastewater could be treated
by
an RO
system. Id.
To address the problems caused by these constituents, it was determined, for
example,
that
when concentrated
in the RO system at
neutral or
acid
pH, silica
concentrations may exceed its solubility and
cause a
scaling problem on
the RO
membranes, and that boron may crystallize to form boric acid, a waxy substance
that
could also foul up the RO membranes. Id. at 5. Thus, following the lime soda
softener,
Burns considered a HERO system (a patented high efficiency RO system design).
Id.
But, HERO is still an RO system, so its recovery is
limited
by
the osmotic
pressure. Id.
Due to
the limitation
of the recovery of
the HERO, the size of the crystallizer
is
much larger and
more expensive
than
the spray dryer included after the BC.
Ich
However, the cost of the HERO is generally less than that of a BC and consumes less
electricity, but also has some disadvantages. Id. The BC option is more favorable
than
the
HERO
because it involves fewer components to operate. Id. Also, the chemical
consumption as well as solids removal (requiring disposal) of the lime/soda softener
is
significant. jcj.
Finally, the energy consumption of the crystallizer is much higher
than
that of
the
spray
dryer.
jçI.
Burns opined that boron removal in FGDS water using
a
22
lime/soda
softener
followed
by dual train HERO
systems had a
capital cost of
$6,120,000
and an annual
operating
cost of
$1,118,649.
Id. These values
represent 2005
dollars.
IcL
iii.
Boron Pilot Project
In
December 2005, based
upon Burns’
recommendation,
CWLP
entered
into a
contract
with
Aquatech to
provide
a
Zero Liquid
Discharge plant
for the treatment of
FGDS
wastewater,
consisting
of two
BCs followed
by spray dryers,
to treat the
blowdown
from the FGDS
system at CWLP’s
plant. Id. The process
energy
would be
developed
by
four vapor
compressors that
would
consume
550 horsepower
each.
Id. The
concentrated
saltwater
would be sent to a gas-fired
spray
dryer that would convert
the
solution
into a
powdered
salt. Id. at 5-6. The
solid
salt
would not be included
with the
Aquatech
system,
but
instead would be taken
to a
landfill.
at 6. Ninety percent
of the
evaporated
water would
be
condensed
and could be recycled
in various plant processes.
Id.
In February 2006,
while CWLP
and Bums began
working with
Aquatech
on
the
engineering, it was
discovered that
the Aquatech system
would have
to be supplemented
with a
pretreatment
system to remove
suspended
solids
from
the system,
to prevent scale
from forming in
the evaporators and
preheaters.
Id. This led to the design
of a
pretreatment
clarifier system to remove
the suspended
solids, expected
to consist mainly
of a clarifier and
sand filter tanks.
The pretreatment
system would
be used to
separate the solids
and
return them
to the
scrubber
for reuse. At that
point in the project,
CWLP
retained CMT
for
the pretreatment
system. Id.
23
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
In April 2006, after months
of evaluation,
the system had grown
to
the
extent that
the
annual
natural gas costs would be a considerable expense,
and it was difficult
to
find
a feasible location for the boron removal plant. Id.
In September 2006, as the engineering progressed, it
became apparent that
the use
of a BC/spray dryer system to treat the FGDS blowdown was
a unique application
of this
technology, such that the relative inexperience in this application
translated into design
changes as engineering of the system progressed.
Bums and
Aquatech encountered
issues that required significant changes in the project on a fairly regular
basis, because
the technology was unproven, and a BC had not been used to treat an
FGDS wastewater
stream. Id. There was relatively little expertise in this area, such that the design
changed
as it was engineered, and the project was considered a pilot project. Id. For example,
the
equipment, typically used for cooling tower blowdown treatment
in combustion turbine
power plant applications, was a much different application due
to
the
heavier dissolved
solids loading present in the FGDS wastewater stream. RI. at 6-7.
CWLP initially investigated processing one to two bags an hour to dispose
of the
waste byproduct material out of the spray
dryer,
but soon leamed that the material
densities were such
that the number of bags to unload increased
to 20 bags every 10
minutes. RI. at 7.
CWLP then considered a conveyor and truck
trailer removal
arrangement,
requiring excessive costs in trucking and landfill
fees, due to the increase
in
volume of the waste
byproduct.
Moreover, the byproduct
would be considered
a
special waste
according
to
chemical analysis
of
the projected
waste byproduct. Id. The
byproduct was also
hydroscopic, meaning it
would
quickly
soak up moisture in an
open
24
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
environment, turning into
a
sticky, mud-like substance, posing
yet additional issues with
trucks
and landfills, that had not
yet been
addressed.
Id.
Additionally, the original
scope of
work
and the associated cost increased several
times, and became too
high
to proceed with the proposed BC system. Id. At the time the
system was abandoned, the capital cost had risen to
$40
million and the annual operating
and maintenance cost had risen to
$3.7
million. RI. It was realized that the original
Burns report had
significantly
underestimated
the capital and operating costs of the BC
option, by as much as
4
to 5
times.
How
to dispose of the solid waste generated
by
the treatment
system was never resolved.
IcL
During the design of the pretreatment system, CMT was informed
of the problems
surrounding the BC option. Id. In September 2006, CWLP decided to pursue alternate
options
because of the dramatic cost increases and the design and operating issues
encountered.
CWLP asked Burns to conduct a study on using evaporation ponds in
conjunction with the
BC option, or without them.
at
7-8. The study
indicated
that it
was
not feasible to use
this method without forced evaporation methods, which
would be
too
costly in
conjunction with the costs to build the ponds. Id. at
8.
In December 2006,
CMT
provided CWLP with a preliminary study on using the District’s Spring Creek
Plant
as an
alternate option. Id.
iv.
Electrocoagulation
In
response to a request from Illinois EPA in the spring of 2007, CWLP evaluated
boron
removal
using electrocoagulation (“EC”), a method of treating wastewater with
electricity to
cause contaminants
to
become destabilized and precipitate, consisting
of
metallic
electrode plates separately by thin annular spaces, which dissolves the
25
electrodes. Id. The
dissolved metal ions react with contaminants creating precipitates
that are removed by
filtration. Id. Metal plates
of aluminum are
the
most effective for
boron removal. Id.
Contaminant
reduction occurs via
flocculationlprecipitation and adsorption. Id.
Adsorption occurs when
contaminants
electrostatically adhere to the flocculated solids
and are removed along with
the
precipitates. Id. But adsorption of boron on aluminum
flocculants has been reported
to
be only 20 percent of available boron, when adsorption
is
not inhibited by other
contaminants
such as chlorides and sulfates, both of which exist in
the FGDS wastewater in
high concentrations.
Id.
Targeting
boron
specifically for removal
by EC
in the FGDS wastewater is
difficult because
boron
is known to exist in at least six pH dependent species in water,
such that 50 to 60
percent of the boron will be in the boric acid form, which is difficult
to
remove by
most
available technologies. Id. Further, competing reactions from other
FGDS wastewater constituents may
dramatically
lower
boron removal.
Id.
Burns was hired by
CWLP to produce
a
letter of recommendation on the
EC
option.
jç
at 9. CWLP
supported the efforts with
a
small scale test on-site with
a local
supplier of EC
equipment.
Burns opined that removal of boron in FGDS wastewater
would require a
capital cost of
$9,207,000
and annual operating costs
of$14,074,000,
concluding that
economically,
EC is not recommended for FGDS wastewater due
to high
capital and
operating costs relative to low boron removal efficiencies, based on
assumptions
extrapolated from studies performed on wastewater much different
from the
FGDS wastewater.
Ici
Here, boron removal efficiency cannot be predicted due
to lack of
verified boron
removal efficiencies
in high boron and high TDS wastewater,
such that
26
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
boron
removal
efficiency is expected to
be dramatically
decreased from theoretical
estimates due to competing reactions in the
EC
process. Id. The on-site tests were
stopped by the supplier due to his equipment being damaged
by
the aggressiveness
of the
FGDS
wastewater. Id. The tests were unable to show any reliability of boron removal.
Id.
c.
Alternative Coal Source
CWLP also evaluated the use of western coal in place of Illinois coal.
Id. In
Burns’ Phase II SO
2 Compliance Study Report, dated October 1998, switching the
CWLP
coal supply from Illinois coal to Power River Basin (“PRB”) coal was evaluated.
Id.
PRB coal, mined in the western United States, is low-sulfur, low-boron coal, as compared
to coal mined
in
Illinois.
RI.
Because CWLP
does
not have any reliable way to receive
rail-delivered coal to the plant, and the plant site is not large enough for unit train
coal
deliveries, major modifications would be required to enable limited rail unloading
of
PRB coals. Id. Two alternatives to on-site rail delivery were identified by CWLP
during
this
study, both involved unloading the
trains
at an off-site facility and trucking the coal
to
the CWLP plant.
Modifications would include retrofitting existing hammer mills
to accommodate
the finer grade
PRB coal, and installation of dust control
systems,
including
enclosures of
truck dump
operations to reduce dust emissions during unloading operations.
Id. at 10.
Test burns revealed
that
installation of a limestone storage silo and
feed system would
also be needed.
j
Burns
also
identified 13 areas
of concern for operation of existing
equipment
and systems to burn
PRB coal, including,
for example, the capacity of the
forced
draft and the
induced
draft
fans, the coal
feeder, the bowl mill and the exhauster,
27
potential cyclone
modifications
and addition of cyclone slag flux agents, as well as
modifications to the ash
handling
systems. Id. Burns also noted that certain factors
associated
with PRB coal combustion, such as increased gas flow, ash particle size
and
fly
ashlbottorn ash split have influence on precipitator performance, such that it may
make
it
impossible for CWLP to achieve continuous air compliance under all operating
conditions
burning PRB coal in the existing plant.
Id.
After considering
the
Phase II 2
SO Compliance Study Report, CWLP decided to
add a FGDS
to Dailman Units 31 and 32. Id. Factors cited by CWLP in support of
this
decision
include: 1) lowest cost long-term solution; 2) economic benefits for the City
and
the
State of Illinois,
such
as burning Illinois coal, creating 100 coal mine related jobs,
creating over
$10
million in annual
coal sales, and
creating 200
to
250
construction
related
jobs; 3)
CWLP has successfully operated and maintained a FGDS on Unit
33 for
19
years;
4) gypsum byproduct sales would be
$3,000,000
per year; and 5) the State
of
Illinois
had budgeted
$12.5
million in Cost Sharing Funds to benefit Illinois jobs. Id.
Further, CWLP cited the following disadvantages of using PRB coal: 1) over
$10
million
leaving
Illinois annually; 2) shipping delays;
3)
major railway
modifications; 5)
boiler
modifications;
and
6)
concerns
about
explosive dust. Id. at 11.
CWLP’s
decision to continue
to
burn Illinois coal is atypical of the utility
industry. Id.
Although Illinois has an abundance of bituminous coal, only
13.5 percent,
or 7.5
million tons,
of the coal used
by
Illinois utilities and industrial
users in
2005
was
mined
in Illinois,
according
to the
Office
of Coal
Development.
Id.
28
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
6.
Proposed
Solution
and Economies
Thereof
The District
has contracted with
CWLP to accept
the FGDS
wastewater
stream,
at
a
cost to CWLP of
$100,000
per month,
provided that
its acceptance
does not
upset
normal
plant operations.
Pre-Filed
Testimony of Doug
Brown, In
Support of
Proposed
Site
Specific Rule
at
11.
CWLP intends
to treat the
FGDS
waste
stream with
conventional
pretreatment
processes
for
solids removal
prior
to pumping
the
wastewater
to the
District’s Spring Creek
Plant. Id.
While laboratory
jar tests
have shown
in some
instances
that
a
small percentage
of the
boron
in the
wastewater
can
be removed
with
solids
settling, the jar test
results
have
not been
consistent;
thus,
CWLP is not claiming
any
boron removal
by
this
treatment
for
purposes
of
calculating boron
concentrations
in
this
proceeding. Id.
CWLP proposes collecting
the
FGDS waste stream in
a 250,000 gallon
influent
holding
tank.
Içj
This tank
will provide about
22
hours of holding
time for
the
wastewater stream,
anticipated
to be approximately
187 gallons
per minute
(“gpm”).
Id.
Wastewater collected
in the influent
holding
tank
will
be fed
to a
ClariConeTM
solids
contact clarifier
with a 240 gpm
capacity.
Operation
of the patented
ClariConeTM
has
been
demonstrated
at over
300
installations
nationwide. Id. Mixing,
tapered flocculation
and
sedimentation all take
place within
a completely hydraulically
driven
vessel. Id. The
ClariConeTM
maintains
a
dense, suspended, rotating
slurry blanket
that provides
solids contact,
accelerated floc
formation and
solids capture.
j4
at
11-12.
The
conically shaped
concentrator
maximizes
the
slurry discharge concentration
and allows
plant
personnel to visually
monitor slurry
29
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
discharge. Id. at 12.
The large mass of retained slurry and unique helical
flow pattern in
the
ClariConeTM
prevent short-circuiting and resists process upsets.
Id.
As part
of this project, a pumping station would be constructed
near the Scrubber
Building
at
the
CWLP plant. RI. All sump and
pump
materials
will be corrosion
resistant.
A forcemain would be constructed from the pumping
station to a sanitary
sewer
in the Spring Creek Plant sub-area, generally southwest
of Bergen Park in the
City.
Id. Standard sewer forcemain construction will
be
used.
Id.
It is anticipated that up to four air release valves will be required.
Id. Sealed
and
lined vaults will be used to minimize
odors and corrosion. RI. Lining of the receiving
manhole and sewer is anticipated. Id. CWLP will install, operate
and maintain one
or
more chemical feed sites or stations as deemed necessary
by
the District
to control odors
and
corrosion.
Id.
The pumping
of the FGDS wastewater stream to the District’s Spring Creek
Plant
will have a capital cost significantly lower than
options
investigated
by CWLP. Id.
The
estimated capital cost of the pretreatment
system,
including
the pipeline to transfer
the
pretreated FGDS wastewater and chemical feed system(s) to control
odor to the plant,
is
$15.5
million. Id. The annual operating and maintenance
(“0
& M”)
cost of such
treatment, which is estimated to be
$1.6
million, is also anticipated to
be
significantly
less
than the other treatment options. RI. While some costs may remain fixed, other
0 & M
costs will likely escalate. Id. Using a
$10,000
per year escalation factor,
a pretreatment
life of 30 years, and an interest rate of 8 percent, this equates
to a present value of
$36,100,000,
a present value per electric service of
$544.
Id. at
12-13.
In addition, the
30
pumping station will occupy significantly
less
space than other alternative technologies
and no special or hazardous waste would
be
generated.
Id. at 13.
The construction of the
ClariConeTM
and
pumping station is
currently in progress
with an estimated completion date of
March 2009.
The engineering design of the
District forcemain
by
CMT was estimated
to be completed in December 2008. Id.
Construction is estimated to start
in April 2009 and end by August 2009. Id. The
bidding
and construction schedule
is dependent upon approval of this petition for the site
specific rule.
jçj
The City Council will not authorize bidding
or award for construction
without Board approval here. Id.
Dallman Unit 4 is currently being constructed. Id. The project is
87
percent
complete. Id. It is
estimated
that
the unit will fire on coal for the first time around
the
summer of 2009.
Iç
CWLP’s
designs have always included the Daliman Unit 4 FGDS
blowdown
quantity.
[çj.
Kiewit Black
& Veatch
(located in
Springfield) have estimated
the flow
of the Daliman Unit 4 FGDS blowdown to be
70
gpm as
a
maximum and
36
gpm as a
daily average. Id.
7.
Calculations Supporting the Proposed Site Specific Rule
The proposed
site
specific water quality standard for boron would include an area
of
dispersion with
boron concentrations
ranging between
4.5 and 11.0 mg/L from the
District’s Spring
Creek Plant
Outfall 007 to 182
yards
downstream in the Sangamon
River; 4.5 mg/L in
the Sangamon
River from 182 yards downstream of the confluence
of
Salt
Creek with the
Sangamon
River, a distance of 39.0 river miles; 1.6 mg/L in the
Sangamon River
from
the confluence of Salt Creek with the Sangamon River to the
confluence of the
Sangamon
River
with the Illinois River, a distance of 36.1 river miles;
31
and 1.3 mg/L in the Illinois
River from
the confluence
of the Illinois
River
with
the
Sangamon River to
100
yards
downstream
of
the
confluence of the
Illinois
River with
the
Sangamon River. Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
Deborah
Ramsey,
In Support of Proposed
Site
Specific Rule
at 3.
The
proposed
site specific
water
quality
standard is
based
on a 7Q10 low-flow
of
54.8
cfs
having
a boron concentration
of 2.0 mg!L
in the Sangamon
River
upstream
of
Spring Creek
and a 7-day low flow
of 17.5
cfs
from the District’s
Spring Creek Plant
having
a boron
concentration of 11.0
mg/L.
The 2.0 mg/L concentration
in the
Sangamon River is
based on the adjusted
standard
granted
to CWLP
in
1994. Id.
The
increase in the Sangamon
River
flow
at Spring
Creek is mainly due to
discharge
from
the
District’s Spring Creek
Plant.
Based
on the foregoing,
the tems
of the proposed
site
specific rule, as set forth
in the TSD and
the Petition, were
developed.
Id.
8.
Characteristics
of the
Receiving
Streams
The
Sangamon River
watershed comprises
about
5,419 square miles,
all of
which
lie in the
central
part
of Illinois.
Pre-Filed
Testimony
of
Deborah Ramsey,
In Support
of
Proposed
Site Specific Rule at
4.
Practically
all of the
area
is tillable and, for
the most
part, is cultivated.
Id. The Sangarnon
River
originates in central
McLean County,
east
of
Bloomington,
flowing
such that
it is joined
by Salt Creek, its largest
tributary,
and
then
joins
the
Illinois
River north of
Beardstown.
Id. The total length
of the Sangamon
River
is about
250 miles. Id. The whole
length
of
the Sangamon River
is characterized
by a
series of
pools and shoals, including
five impoundments
in its
basin. Id. Lake
Decatur
is
the
only
lake located
directly
on the Sangamon
River
and
is
also
the deepest
portion
of
the river.
Id.
32
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
A
field survey
conducted by
Hanson in October
2007 to
characterize
the general
features
of
the Sangamon
River
downstream
of the CWLP
plant
discharge
showed
it to
be a low
gradient, meandering
stream. Id.
Results of this
field
survey
were
as follows.
The lower
section,
below
the confluence of
the Salt Creek,
appears to have
been
channelized
in the
past
and has scoured out
a
wider floodway
in the sandier
soils.
Three structures
were
identified in the survey
that
create
riffle areas that are
a
source
of
oxygenation
for
the
Sangamon
River
during
low flow: a
former darn
immediately
upstream
of the
Spring
Creek confluence
in the City, and
two
rock
check
dams
located
near Petersburg,
Illinois.
Id. According
to the Illinois Streamfiow
Assessment
Model,
prepared
by
the ISWS
in 2007, the
mean flow at the
confluence with
Spring Creek was
2,120 cfs
for the base
period
from
1948 to 1997. Id.
During high flow
periods, stream
discharge can exceed
7,000 cfs
at
this location.
Id.
There are
eight NPDES permitted
discharges
to the Sangarnon
River from
the
confluence of
the South Fork of the
Sangamon
River to the
Illinois
River. Id. These
NPDES
discharges
include: Clear
Lake Sand and
Gravel Company;
Lincoln Place
Mobile
Home
Park; Riverton
Sewage Treatment
Plant; Illinois
Department of
Transportation,
Interstate
55,
Sangamon County
North; SMSD,
Spring
Creek
Plant;
Pleasant
Plains
Water
Treatment
Plant;
Petersburg Sewage Treatment
Plant;
and
Petersburg Water
Treatment
Plant. Id. at
4-5. Other generally
known uses
of the
Sangamon
River
include
aquatic life habitat
and recreation (boating,
fishing,
swimming).
Id.
at 5.
The
reach of the
Sangamon River at issue
in this site
specific
rulemaking
is not
reported as
used
for irrigation of
agricultural land,
golf courses,
nurseries,
etc.
Id.
33
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
Water
quality
data including boron concentrations in the Sangamon River from
Illinois EPA for 1999
through 2004 for three
of
the monitoring stations on the Sangamon
River upstream and
downstream
of the confluence of
Spring Creek were reviewed. Id.
Stream
discharge volumes
in
cfs from the United States
Geological Survey National
Water
Information System were also reviewed. RI. The
station at Riverton (closest
downstream of the existing CWLP NPDES discharge
location) had
the
highest
total
boron
concentrations over the four-year period. Id.
While total boron exceeded
1.0 mg/L
in nine
percent of the
sampling
events at this station,
no boron value exceeded the
adjusted
standard
of 2.0 mg/L
of
boron. Id. The
mean boron concentration at Riverton
was
0.394
mg/L over the
five-year
period
from 1999 to 2004. Id.
The
condition of four stream segments of the Sangamon River at issue show that
all four are
included on Illinois EPA’s 2006 list of waters
where
uses are
impaired,
the
Section 3 03(d)
List: the Sangamon River from the
South Fork of the Sangarnon
River to
Spring
Creek (E-26), the Sangamon River from
Spring Creek to Richiand Creek (E-04),
the
Sangarnon River from Richland Creek to
Salt Creek (E-24), and the Sangamon
River
from
Salt Creek to the
Illinois River (E-25). Id. All four segments are identified as
impaired for the
designated use of fish consumption; a potential cause of fish
consumption
impairment is polychlorinated biphenyls from an unknown
source.
Id. at 5-
6.
Three segments
are identified as impaired for the designated use of
primary contact
recreation. Id. at 6. A
potential cause of primary contact recreation
impairment
is fecal
coliform from an
unknown source. Id. Stream segment E-26 is identified as impaired for
the
designated use of
aquatic life; potential causes of aquatic life impairment are boron,
nitrogen, phosphorus,
silver, TDS and TS
S. Id.
Potential sources of these impairments
34
are
industrial
and/or
municipal
point
source
discharges, on-site treatment
systems, runoff,
channelization,
crop production,
dams or
impoundments,
and streambank
modifications/destabilization.
Id.
9.
Investigation of
CWLP’s FGDS Blowdown
A current
Spring
Creek
Plant influent boron
concentration
of
0.25
mg/L was used
to
calculate the new
concentration
with the FGDS wastewater
included in
the
flow steam.
Pre-Filed Testimony
of
Deborah
Ramsey, In Support
of Proposed
Site Specific
Rule
at 6.
Based
on the 7-day
low
effluent
flow of 11.31 MGD
per ISWS, combined
with
the
FGDS
wastewater at
0.27
MOD
of added
flow and a boron
concentration
of 450 mg/L, the
maximum
boron concentration
of the
Spring
Creek Plant effluent
would
be 11.0 rng/L.
Id. It is
anticipated that the boron
will not
be significantly affected
by nor adversely
affect the
Spring Creek Plant’s
treatment process
and therefore the
effluent
boron
concentration
is expected to
mirror the influent
concentration. Id.
Thus, the Spring
Creek Plant’s
effluent
maximum boron
concentration is
estimated to be 11.0 mg/L.
RI.
The
boron
concentration
182 yards
downstream in the Sangamon
River
is estimated
to
be
4.5
mg/L
under
this scenario.
Id.
The Spring Creek
Plant is
reported to consistently
meet its NPDES regulated
parameters.
Id. Pumping
the
CWLP
FGDS wastewater
to the Spring Creek
Plant
is not
expected
to
have any
effect on
the
Spring Creek Plant, other
than the increase
in
boron
concentration
in the effluent.
Id. at 6-7.
Reduction of the
boron concentration
in the
wastewater
stream anticipated
for
discharge
by
the District,
in comparison to
the
concentration
in CWLP’
s
discharge,
will not make its removal
by the District
any more
feasible
or
economically
reasonable
than
the
removal
alternatives
studied by
CWLP. Id.
35
at 6.
While granting
of
this
Site Specific Rule will not reduce, with any level of certainty,
the
need for the
previously-granted 11.0 mg!L adjusted standard for boron in Sugar
Creek,
rather, granting of this site
specific rule should enable CWLP
to
meet
complaint
levels
in Sugar Creek, as was
typical
prior to
operation of the
SCR. Id.
The
CWLP
power
plant
is a crucial power supply for the
City.
Id. No
adverse
effects
are
anticipated
to the
aquatic life of the Sangamon River or
the Illinois River
as a result of
the
proposed
site
specific boron water quality standard; thus,
the proposed site
specific
boron
water
quality
standard is justified. Id.
10.
Toxicological Effects of Boron
Hanson reviewed
existing
literature documenting boron’s effects on various biota,
although the
primary focus of the TSD regarding potential effects from boron concerns
freshwater
biota. Pre-Filed Testimony of Jeff Bushur, In Support of Proposed Site
Specific Rule
at 5. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency classifies
boron
as a Group
D element, meaning that
there
is no human and animal evidence of boron
carcinogenicity.
Id. In
mammals, while exposure to excessive boron may result in
reduced
growth rate, loss
of body weight, and eye irritation, one study found no overt
signs
of toxicosis
in one mammal species exposed to
120
mg/L of boron, nor at 300 mg!L
of
boron when
consumed via drinking water.
Toxic
effects of boron
in birds
have
been
exclusively
studied in ducks and chickens,
with results of chronic feeding
studies
using
mallards
demonstrating that diets containing 13
mg
of
boron
per kilogram of feed
weight
produce no
adverse effects.
Içj
While boron rapidly accumulates in mallard
tissues,
it also is
rapidly eliminated. Id. at 5-6. Afier boron was removed from the
36
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
mallards’
diet, it
was
completely cleansed from
the liver and blood within one day. Id. at
6.
Regarding tolerance ranges for some species of fish, one researcher studied the
effects of boron compounds upon rainbow trout and guppies, and determined these
compounds to be relatively non-toxic using 24-hour bioassay procedures. Id. In
mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), which are native to Illinois, using 96-hour bioassay
procedures,
no mortalities were observed in concentrations of boric acid up to 1,800
mg/L (315 mg B/L).
One study indicated that 30 and 33 mg/L of boron are “safe”
levels for game fish
species
such as the largemouth bass and bluegill, though one study
reported an 11-day
lowest-observed-effect concentration of 12.17 mg/L
of boron for
freshly
fertilized eggs of largemouth
bass. jç
One study found the lowest-observed-
effect
concentrations for embryo-larval stages of channel catfish ranged from 1.0 to 25.9
mg
B/L, depending on water hardness and boron compound administered, although
a
British Columbia literature review study of boron
considered these
low
concentration
toxicity levels to be outliers.
[çI
Studies have found that amphibians respond to boron at concentrations similar
to
those for
fish.
While some boron compounds were found to be more toxic to
embryos
and larvae than to adult amphibians, no effects occurred on embryos of Fowler’
s
toad
(Bufofowleri) until 53 rng/L of boron was applied, while leopard frog (Rana
pipiens)
embryos suffered 100 percent lethality or teratogenesis in water treated with
boron
compounds
at
levels of 200 and
300
mg!L of boron, respectively. Id.
Regarding plant life, boron is essential for the growth of plants.
Id. However,
excess
boron is known to be phytotoxic.
Id.
Studies have shown that optimal growth
in
37
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
plants
occurs
at 2
to 5 mg!L,
while
toxic
effects
are evident at 5 to 12 rng/L. Id.
However,
some species, such as citrus, stone fruits, and nut trees, are more sensitive.
Id.
at 6-7. No use of irrigation, however, has been reported for the reach of
the Sangarnon
River at issue in this site specific rulemaking. RI. at
7.
While toxic effects
have been
observed in aquatic plants at various concentrations, one blue
green alga exhibited no•
adverse effects with respect to cell growth or organic constituents
at 50 mg/L of boron
and significant adverse effects at greater than 100 mg/L over
a
72-hour
exposure. Id. A
British Columbia study found a lowest-observed-effect-level for growth
of
inhibition
on
a
green alga of 12.3 mg B/L. Id.
Boron effects on aquatic life are
highly
species specific and vary depending
on its
life stage
and
environment. Id. Studies show
that early stages are more sensitive
to
boron than later ones, and that administering boron in natural
water is less toxic than in
reconstituted lab water. Id. Of the species and life stages investigated,
the early life
stages of rainbow trout, not present in the Sangamon River, appear to be most sensitive
to
boron. RI. Boron in natural water courses was found to be substantially less toxic
to
trout embryo-larval
stages
than in
reconstituted lab
water. Id. Wild, healthy trout in
surface
waters
containing 13 mg!L of boron have
been
reported.
Id. A 20-day no-
observed-effect concentration of 18 rng/L of boron for rainbow
trout embryos has also
been
reported.
Hanson has provided a table summarizing
our literature search as
it
pertains
to
aquatic life in the Sangamon and Illinois Rivers
at page 5-7 of the TSD. Id.
A
British Columbia government
study
considered
two
related
studies which found low
concentration boron
toxicity
levels
for
a variety of aquatic species to be outliers since
the
results could not be reproduced by
other studies.
Id. Similarly, it has been suggested
that
38
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
the low-level
effects observed
in reconstituted
laboratory water
may
not accurately
predict
the
effects
under natural
water
exposure conditions.
at 7-8. And,
it is
unlikely
that boron
is
bioconcentrated
significantly
by
organisms
in water. Id. at
8.
As noted
above, CWLP was granted
an
adjusted
standard for
boron
in 1994. Id.
Hanson’s Technical
Support Document
for
Petition
for Adjusted Boron Standards
for
Sugar Creek and
the Sangamon River
(March
1994)
(“1994 Hanson TSD”),
which
was
attached as Exhibit
2 to the Petition in
this
proceeding,
presented scientific
evidence
showing no detectable
degradation to Sugar
Creek
receiving
discharges having
boron
levels as high as
18 mg/L of boron. Bushur
Pre-Filed Testimony
at 8. The
1994
Hanson
TSD
demonstrated
the toxicological effects
of boron at varying
concentrations
on the
biological
community of an
aquatic ecosystem.
Id. Overall,
the results
indicate
that the
Sangamon
River biological
community
would not be observably
affected
by the
anticipated
maximum boron
concentration
of
4.5
mg/L
downstream,
or
by
the maximum
boron
concentration of 11.0
mg!L in the area of
dispersion.
Id. Likewise, the Illinois
River
biological community
would not be observably
affected
by the anticipated
maximum
boron
concentration.
Id.
To
summarize,
based
on the reviews of
existing toxicity studies,
documents
and
reports,
and the
1994 Hanson TSD,
no adverse
effects are anticipated
to the aquatic
life
of the
Sangamon
River or the Illinois
River as a
result of the proposed
site-specific
standard.
Id.
11.
Illinois
EPA Testimony
Prior
to the Petitioners’
initial filing with
the Board, CWLP
submitted draft
proposals
to
Illinois
EPA
for
review and comment.
Prefiled Testimony
of Robert
Mosher
39
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
at 1. CWLP met with Illinois
EPA
staff on several occasions
to
discuss boron treatment
and removal options.
at
1-2. Illinois EPA
is
in agreement with
Petitioners
that
the
Site Specific Rule is necessary, will cause no adverse impact
to the environment, and
meets the requirements
of
Sections 27 and 28
of the Act.
at 2. Illinois EPA has
reviewed the
findings
of
CWLP and agrees that
boron cannot be removed without
significant
monetary
and
energy expenditures
that
are not technically feasible or
economically reasonable. Id.
at 4. Illinois EPA also
agrees that the boron concentrations
discharged will
not
cause aquatic life
toxicity in
the
Sangamon River.
Id. Moreover,
human
health will not
be
endangered because the boron in the Sangamon River
will be
diluted below any estimation of drinking water concern before it reaches the nearest
public water supply intake, which is located approximately 185 miles downstream
of the
District’s discharge. Id.
B.
Information Included In Post-Hearing Document Subniittals
During
the November
3, 2008 Hearing, both the Board and PRN requested
additional
infonnation from Petitioners and Illinois EPA in support of the proposed
Site
Specific Rule.
Petitioners included the
following
information in Petitioners’ Post-Hearing
Document Submittal:
1.
Studies
and evaluations that
were
referenced in
the TSD and in the
pre-filed testimony of Petitioners, including:
a.
Burns’ Phase II 502 Compliance Study Report;
b.
Burns’ New Generation Project Water Study;
c.
Sargent and Lundy, LLC’s
City
Water Light
&
Power
Dallman & Lakeside Station Water Conservation Study;
and
40
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
d.
Burns’ Letter to Douglas Brown, CWLP, regarding
Boron
Removal Using Electrocoagulation.
2.
Data
summarized
by CMT that CWLP
supplied
to
the District to
demonstrate anticipated constituents in CWLP’ s FGDS wastewater
stream;
3.
The Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement
between CWLP
and
the
District;
4.
A
summary in
table
format of boron mitigation options considered
5.
Coordinates for
the
affected stream segments; and
6.
A
corrected version of Table 6-2 of the TSD.
Illinois
EPA included the following information in Illinois EPA’s
Post-Hearing
Document
Submittal:
1.
Ambient water quality
monitoring
and intensive basin survey data
for total boron within Sugar Creek, segment EOA-0 1, from 1999
through 2007;
2.
Ambient
water quality monitoring and intensive basin survey data
for
total boron within the
Sangamon River, segment E-26, from
1999
through 2007; and
3.
Discharge Monitoring Report data for
CWLP Outfall 004 from
January 2002 through
September 2008.
This
additional information, together with the testimony of
Petitioners and
Illinois
EPA
at hearing,
clearly
supports
Petitioners’ proposed Site Specific Rule.
C.
December
16,
2008 Hearing
On
December
5,
2008, PRN filed twenty-nine (29) Pre-Filed Questions, which it
sought
to have
Petitioners and Illinois EPA answer during the December 16, 2008
Hearing.
On
December
12, 2008,
Petitioners filed their Motion to Strike and their
Motion
to Exclude
Witnesses.
In
the Motion to Strike, Petitioners stated that the PRN
41
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
Pre-Filed
Questions failed
to comply with
the Hearing
Officer’s directive,
as stated
at
the
close of
the November
3,
2008
Hearing
and in the November
6, 2008 Order.
See
Petitioners’
Motion
to Strike at 1 (Dec.
12, 2008). Petitioners
stated in their
Motion
to
Strike that during
the November
3,
2008
Hearing, the
Hearing Officer’s intent
for
scheduling the December
16, 2008 Hearing
was to fulfill
the statutory obligations
of
Section 27(b) of the
Act and to address
the
Board’s
request made to the Department
of
Commerce and Economic
Opportunity
to conduct
an
economic impact study.
Petitioners
also stated in their
Motion to Strike that
the other purpose
for the December
16, 2008
Hearing was to address
any questions on
the additional
material filed by Petitioners
and
Illinois EPA
after
the
November 3, 2008
Hearing. Thus, Petitioners
argued
that the
scope
of the
December 16, 2008
Hearing was
limited to those issues
only,
pursuant
to the
Hearing
Officer’s directive,
as
stated at
the close of the November
3,
2008
Hearing and in
the
November
6, 2008 Order.
At hearing, although
the Hearing Officer
agreed
with
Petitioners’ interpretation
of
her directive,
PRN
was allowed
to ask its questions
in order
to build as complete a
record
as possible
for the Board.
Petitioners’
full team
of witnesses that were
present at the November
3, 2008
Hearing
were
unable to attend the
December 16,
2008 Hearing due
to
scheduling
conflicts
and
their previous understanding
that the
December 16, 2008
Hearing
was
to be
held
for
the limited
purposes of
addressing economic
issues and questions
on
the
additional material
only.
Nevertheless, CWLP’s
Bill Murray, Dave
Farris
and Doug
Brown
were
available to
answer
questions on behalf
of CWLP, and
the District’s Gregg
Humphrey
was
available
to
answer questions on
behalf
of
the District.
42
While
Petitioners’
witnesses
addressed
a majority of
the PRN
Pre-Filed
Questions
during
the
December
16, 2008 Hearing,
they were not able to
address every question
at
that
time. For
those
questions that Petitioners
committed
to
answering in their Post-
Hearing
Comments,
the
following answers
are
provided:
PRN Pre-Filed
Question No. 1
—
As
originally filed, Question
1 specifically stated
that it was derived
from
review
of
the
Final Environmental Impact
Statement
(“ElS”) for
the
proposed
dam and
reservoir
also known as
Hunter Lake. PRN
stated in Question 1 that
the
EIS
for the proposed
Hunter
Lake
project
references
that
nearly
3.3
MGD
are lost
from
CWLP’s
unlined ash ponds
due to evaporation
and seepage into the ground,
from
which PRN
assumes
that
the seepage
would
drain toward groundwater
and
Sugar Creek
and would contribute
to increased boron.
From this assumption,
PRN
inquired
whether
such
seepage from the ponds
is causing violations
of
applicable
groundwater
standards,
and if so, why the
ponds
are not
lined.
The
EIS for the Hunter
Lake project
is not in the record of
or in evidence
in
this
regulatory proceeding
and the assumptions
drawn are based on
crude
estimates
developed
for
another purpose. CWLP
is neither aware
of any such
seepage or
that groundwater
is impacted by the ash
ponds, and
has
no
quantitative
or
qualitative
data
or analyses
of same. The
ash ponds were designed
and
constructed
consistent with
standard
industry
practice
at the time,
and CWLP
knows of
no
regulation
or other law requiring
that the ash
ponds
be
lined
retroactively.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question
No.
4—
Question
4
requested data characterizing
the quality of
the groundwater
beneath
and adjacent to
the ash ponds.
As stated above, CWLP
does
not collect
such
data
for this
purpose.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question
No. 9—
Question 9
asked what must be added
or removed to
prevent corrosion.
As
previously stated in
the
record, the
pipes, tanks and towers
on the CWLP
controlled
portion
of the project are being
constructed of materials
to
accommodate
the
characteristics
of
this waste stream, such
that corrosion is not
an
issue.
43
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question No.
10—
Question 10
asked what treatment, besides dilution, could be expected
from
the Spring Creek Plant’s process for
the pollutants
present in the FGDS
wastewater. Boron, chlorides,
sulfates and some other inorganics will pass
through
the Spring Creek Plant with little
or
no reduction in concentration. The
metals will likely oxidize in the aerobic
digesters and end up in the sludge. This
was
confinried
by the
District’s Jeff Slead, based on current analyses of the
Spring Creek Plant’s
wastewater
and
sludge.
PRN Pre-Filed
Question
No. 11 -
Question 11 asked how
the District’s Spring Creek Plant will be able to
meet the proposed
adjusted standard of 11 mg/L for boron when sufficient water
may not be available for dilution,
using a severe drought as one example, and
as
another
example,
a
set of speculative conditions that are not
in evidence
in the
record of this proceeding
involving
future reductions through water conservation.
The
proposed Site Specific Rule utilizes 7Q10 as
determined
by
the ISWS in
the
calculation, and thus, is
based upon demonstrated drought conditions and utilizes
actual
inflow rates reflective of
water conservation practices and reductions
already
made. Asking Petitioners to assume facts not in the record in
proposing
a
water quality standard,
such
as
the example PRN presents, would be speculative,
at best.
Nevertheless, the District
has submitted a permit application to Illinois
EPA that
requests an increase in the Spring Creek Plant’s rated
capacity
and
effluent flow, which
implies that they are not anticipating a sustained reduction in
base flow.
Petitioners have reviewed
effluent flows from the Spring Creek
Plant
over a period from
2004 through 2007. Monthly flows in these four years ranged
from
11.8 MGD to a peak flow of
over
50
MGD. Modeling for the proposed
Site
Specific Rule was
performed using a Spring Creek Plant effluent flow of 11.3
MGD, which is the 7-day
low-flow period through the Spring Creek Plant. This
is
typically the minimum number used by
Illinois EPA in developing permit
limits. During the 2007
drought, daily effluent flows from the Spring Creek Plant
as low
as 9.29 MGD were observed in
September 2007. Assuming low flows
were to occur while
CWLP was discharging the proposed 450 mg B/L stream to
the
Spring Creek Plant, CWLP
would reduce the flow rate of the proposed plant
effluent
proportionally during the period when the District flow was low.
PRN Pre-Filed Question No.
12—
Question 12 asked for
explanation of how the holding tanks’ capacity
of
22 hours
would be sufficient to meet
NPDES
permit limits and
water quality
standards. The question appears to
assume that 100 percent of the proposed
CWLP
discharge would be directed to the holding tanks, when
in fact,
the pumps
conveying the stream have a variable
speed drive
so
that the pump rate can be
44
varied.
For example, assume
that the Spring
Creek Plant flow
drops to 9.29
MGD
as
it did in
September
2007. CWLP can
reduce
the
flow
of the proposed plant
effluent
stream
to 80 percent
of the normal
187 gprn rate;
that is, pumping
about
150
gprn
and
retaining
about 37 gprn. Then,
a
250,000 gallon
holding tank would
have
about 4.7 days of capacity.
History
of Spring Creek
Plant operations
shows
that
low flows
observed
during drought conditions
do
not
last for several
consecutive
days, hence the
7-day
low flow
number of 11.3 MGD.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question
No.
14—
Question 14 asked
for explanation
of how the proposed
adjusted standard
for
boron
would
be protective
of catfish residing
in
the segments
for which the
adjusted
standards would be
applied. As
discussed in
Section
5.4 of the TSD,
Birge
and
Black (1977) reported
chronic toxicity
effects on
channel catfish
embryos at
concentrations
below
the
proposed
adjusted
standards. However,
no
adverse effects
are
anticipated
from the proposed
adjusted
standards for the
following
reasons. The Ministry
of
Water,
Land and Air
Protection of British
Columbia
considered
the
Birge and Black study
as
an outlier
since no
other
studies
could reproduce the
same results.
Reconstituted
water was used as
the
experimental
medium
in the Birge and
Black study and not
natural waters,
which
several
studies found to
be substantially
less
toxic when
used as the experimental
medium.
The 2003 catfish
survey
of
the Sangamon
River at Riverside
Park/Rochester
section
by
the Illinois
Department of
Natural Resources (“IDNR”)
reported a
robust catfish
population
in light of the
2.0 mg B/L adjusted
standard.
In addition,
low-flow
in the Sangamon
River typically
occurs
during
the late
summer
and fall
months, while catfish
spawn
from
May to July with fry
hatching
in about
one week.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question
No. 15 —
Question 15
asked for
identification
of
the location and length
segments of
the
river
proposed
for the adjusted
standard that
have
been
surveyed
for aquatic
plants and a description
of
the nature
of the
area
where macrophyte
surveys were
conducted.
As
discussed in
Section 3.1.2, page
3-5 of
the TSD,
Hanson
conducted
a field
survey by
canoe
of three
areas
of the Sangamon
River on
October
30,
2007,
to
characterize
the general
features
of the Sangamon
River.
These areas included
from the
boat launch
at
Riverside Park to about
1000 ft
downstream
of
the confluence of
Spring Creek and
the Sangamon
River (about
1
mile), about 1,000
ft north
of the
Illinois
Route
123 bridge at Petersburg
to about
1,000
ft
south
of the bridge (about
2,000 ft), and
from about 500
ft northeast of
the
Illinois
Route
97
bridge at
Oakford to about 500
ft southwest
of the bridge
(about
1,000
ft).
The river flow was
low
during
the
field
visit
with an
approximate 70 cfs
discharge at
the
Riverton
U.S.
Geological Survey
Gage
Station.
Although
the field survey
was
a
general
characterization
of the river
and
not
specifically
for
the
purpose
of conducting a
macrophyte survey,
no aquatic
macrophytes
were observed within
the
river flow.
45
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question
No.
16—
Question
16 asked
whether,
beside
the survey
conducted
at Illinois
EPA’s
AWQMN
stations,
including
E-24, E-25
and E-26,
any
additional
information
was
reviewed
in terms
of
the presence,
identification
and
density
of plants
within
the Site
Specific
Rule segment.
IDNR’s
Division
of
Ecosystems
and
Environment
was
contacted
for information
regarding
threatened
and endangered
species
and natural
areas of
the Sangamon
River
from
its confluence
with
the
South
Fork of the
Sangamon
River
to the
Illinois
River (Section
3.2.5 and
Appendix
C of
the TSD).
Reported sensitive
plant
resources
within
approximately
one
mile of the
Sangamon
River were
the
blazing
star, decurrent
false
aster, and
prairie spiderwort;
all
whose habitat
is not
riverine.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question No.
17—
Question
17 asked
for a description
of the
types of
habitat
that
are
available
for fish
residing
in the affected
segments
of
the
Sangamon
River.
In
general,
the Sangamon
River
provides
riverine habitat
in the
form of
pools
and
shoals.
Intermittent
riffles
typically
occur during
periods
of low
flow,
as
was
observed
during
Hanson’s
field
survey
on October
30, 2007.
IDNR reported
during
fishing
surveys in
2003 that
the Lower
Sangamon
River provides
submerged
logs,
brush
piles and
deep
pools along
the
stream
margins.
PRN Pre-Filed
Question
No. 18—
Question
18 asked
whether
a wetland
survey had
been completed
for
segments
within
and
adjacent
to
Spring
Creek
and the
Sangamon
River
for which
the adjusted
standard
is proposed,
and whether
any wetlands
had
been identified
in
those
segments.
Hanson did
not
conduct any
wetland
surveys
of
the Sangamon
River or Spring
Creek
during
the
preparation
of the TSD.
Based
on the U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
National
Wetlands Inventory
mapping,
wetland
areas
generally occur
in the
adjacent
riparian
and
floodplain
areas
of the
Sangamon
River. These
areas
consist
mostly
of temporarily
or
seasonally
flooded forested
wetlands.
Other wetland
types
depicted
generally
include temporarily
or
seasonally
flooded
emergent and
scrub/shrub
wetlands.
Further
discussion
can
be
found
in
Section
3.1.2,
page
3-5 of
the TSD.
PRN Pre-Filed
Question
No.
19 —
Question
19 asked
whether
the agencies,
including
the
ISWS,
Illinois
State
Geological
Survey,
Illinois EPA,
IDNR,
Illinois Department
of
Agriculture,
U.S.
Army Corps
of Engineers,
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
and several
University
of
Illinois
extension
units, were
asked
about
existing
irrigation
as a
use
or the potential
for
future
irrigation.
Hanson
requested
information
from the
above-listed
agencies
on all known
water
uses (discharges,
water
intakes,
46
irrigation, etc.) of
the Sangamon River from its confluence with the South
Fork of
the
Sangamon
River to its confluence with the Illinois River.
PRN
Pre-Filed Question No. 26 —
Question 26 was generally addressed by CWLP’s Doug Brown in both his
Pre-Filed Testimony and testimony at
hearings. PRN’
s additional question at the
December
16, 2008 Hearing, extrapolated from a report discussing alternatives
to
delivering PRB coal to the City’s
generating station,
attempting to connect the
discussion
in that report on that issue to another report that discussed the technical
and
economic feasibility of converting
all of the
City’s ash handling systems from
wet to dry methods.
The extrapolation or attempted connection cannot be made
because the issues and
considerations are separate
and
distinct.
PRN
Pre-Filed
Question No. 29—
Question 29 asked of
the cost to decommission the ash ponds, based
upon
an
apparent assumption that groundwater is impacted by the ponds at that
location,
so as to
reduce boron levels in Sugar Creek to below 1 mg/L.
CWLP
has
not conducted such an assessment to
identify what
steps or costs would be
required or
incurred to decommission the ash ponds. Thus, any estimates would
only be unreasonably
speculative, at best.
V.
SITE SPECIFIC
RELIEF FROM SECTION 302.208(g) IS PROPER
As is evident
from
the above discussion, Petitioners have worked closely with
each other and
Illinois EPA over the course of the last
several
years to address CWLP
‘5
boron issue.
Throughout this proceeding, and as
summarized
in the Boron Mitigation
Options Table
filed as Attachment 0 of
Petitioners’ Post-Hearing Document Submittal,
Petitioners
have
demonstrated that
treatment
to the general boron water quality standard
of 1.0
mg/L is neither technically
feasible nor economically reasonable for the portion
of
the Sangamon
River
to which the
District’s
Spring Creek Plant discharges, to its
confluence
with Salt Creek, and in the
Illinois River 100 yards downstream of its
confluence with
the Sangamon River.
Petitioners have also demonstrated
that
alternatives
to the
proposed Site Specific
Rule
would have significant economic
impact
on CWLP
and
its
customers (including City
residents)
and
that
its
grant
is not expected to
47
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, January 29, 2009
* * * * * PC #5 * * * * *
harm the aquatic life in
the
waters downstream of the District’s Spring Creek Plant
discharge or have a negative impact on the current use of the receiving waters. Thus,
site
specific relief from Section 3 02.208(g) is proper.
VI.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
Petitioners propose a Site
Specific
Rule
that provides
as
follows:
Section
303 .XXX
Springfield
Metro Sanitary District
Spring
Creek
Treatment Plant Boron Discharge
The general use water quality standard for boron set forth in Section
3
02.208(g) shall not apply
to waters of
the state that receive discharge
from Outfall 007 of the Spring Creek Treatment Plant located at 3017
North 8th Street, Springfield, Illinois, owned by the Springfield Metro
Sanitary
District.
Boron levels in such waters
must
meet
the water quality
standard for boron as set forth in this section:
1.
11.0 mg!L in an area of dispersion within the Sangamon
River from Outfall
007
to 182 yards downstream from the
confluence of Spring
Creek
with the
Sangarnon
River;
2.
4.5 mg/L from 182 yards downstream of the confluence of
Spring Creek with the Sangamon River to the confluence
of
Salt Creek with the
Sangamon River,
a
distance
of 39.0
river miles;
3.
1.6 mg/L from the confluence of Salt Creek with the
Sangamon
River
to
the confluence of the Sangamon River
with the Illinois River, a
distance
of 36.1 river miles; and
4.
1.3 mg!L in the Illinois River from the confluence of the Illinois
River
with
the
confluence of the Sangamon
River to 100 yards
downstream of the confluence of the Illinois River with the
Sangamon River.
VII.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, based upon all the evidence that has been presented to the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, the
requirements
of
Sections 27
and 28 of the Act (415 ILCS
5/27
and 5/28), 35 Ill. Adrn. Code
§
102.210 and 35
Ill.
Adm. Code
§
102.202 have been
48
satisfied in this
proceeding.
City
of
Springfield,
Illinois, Office
of
Public
Utilities,
City
Water, Light
and
Power and
Springfield
Metro Sanitary District,
therefore,
respectfully
request
that
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board adopt the proposed
Site
Specific
Rule.
City of
Springfield,
Illinois,
Office of Public
Utilities,
City Water,
Light
and
Power
and
Springfield Metro
Sanitary
District also respectfully
ask the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board to
expeditiously
proceed
to APA second
notice in this
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY
OF SPRINGFIELD,
ILLINOIS,
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC UTILITIES,
CITY WATER,
LIGHT
AND
POWER,
and
SPRINGFIELD
METRO
SANITARY
DISTRICT,
Date:
January 29,
2009
By: /5/
Katherine D.
Hodge
Their
Attorneys
Katherine
D.
Hodge
HODGE
DWYER
ZEMAN
3150
Roland
Avenue
P.O.
Box 5776
Springfield,
Illinois
62705
(217)
523-4900
CWLP:002/Fil/Post-Hearing
Comments
49
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I, Katherine D.
Hodge,
the undersigned,
certify
that I
have served the attached
PETITIONERS’
POST-HEARING
COMMENTS,
upon:
Mr. John Therriault
Assistant
Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution
Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Joey Logan-Wilkey,
Assistant
Counsel
Division
of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
1021 North Grand
Avenue East
Post
Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276
joey.loganwilkey@illinois.gov
Albert F. Ettinger,
Esq.
for
Prairie
Rivers Network
do Environmental Law
and
Policy
Center
35 East Wacker
Drive
Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois
60601
aettinger@elpc.org
via electronic mail on January
29, 2009; and upon:
Matthew Dunn,
Chief
Environmental Bureau
Office of the Attorney
General
69 West Washington Street, 18th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Bill
Richardson, Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois
Department of Natural
Resources
One Natural Resources
Way
524
5.
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62702-1271
Marie E. Tipsord
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson
Center
100
West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Michael D. Mankowski
Assistant Attorney
General
Office of the Attorney General
500 South
Second Street
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
By: /5/ Katherine D. Hodge
Katherine
D. Hodge
by
depositing said
documents in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Springfield,
Illinois
on January 29, 2009.
CWLP:002/Filings/ NOF-COS — Post-Hearing Comments