IN THE MATTER

AMEREN ASH POND CLOSURE RULES

(HUTSONVILLE

PROPOSED 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 840.101

THROUGH 840.144

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

R09-21

(Rule making

- Land)

John

T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

Persons included on the

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

Suite 11-500

100

West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois

60601

PLEASE

TAKE NOTICE that we have today filed the attached,

RESPONSES TO

PREFILED QUESTIONS OF PRARIE RIVERS NETWORK,

with the Office of the Clerk

of the Pollution Control Board.

Joshua

R. More

Dated: September 22,

2009

Joshua R. More

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Amy Antoniolli

SCHIFF HARDIN

LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

---

In the Matter of:

)

)

AMERENASHPONDCLOSURERULES

)

(HUTSONVILLE POWER STATION)

)

PROPOSED: 35 ILL. ADM. CODE PART

)

840.101 THROUGH 840.144

PREFILED QUESTIONS OF PRAIRIE RIVERS NETWORK

NOW COME Ameren Energy Generating Company ("Ameren"), by their respective

attorneys, and in response to the questions filed

by Prairie Rivers Network on September 1,

2009. Prairie River Network's questions and Ameren's responses are presented below.

Questions from

Ameren's Statement of Reasons:

Question 1:

Why is the site-specific rule proposed as Subchapter j, Part 840 and

Subpart A rather than as another subpart under Subchapter

i: Solid Waste and Special Waste

Hauling, as the dry ash management and disposal

of coal combustion waste is (Part 816:

Alternative Standards for Coal Combustion

Power Generating Facilities Waste Landfills)?

Response:

The placement of the proposed rule as a separate subpart within the Solid

Waste Regulations is consistent with the direction provided through a march 5, 2009 Order

issued by the Pollution Control Board ("Board"). (Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the Board's

March 5, 2009 Order).

Question 2:

Since Ash Pond D is as close as 100 feet to the Wabash River, and the

impoundment is unlined,

have you determined how much loading of coal ash pollutants

(sulfates, dissolved salts, boron, metals, etc) may be leaching into the river itself? Have these

---

background concentrations been considered when considering the addition of the water from the

groundwater trench collection system to the Outfall serving Pond B under the

NDPES permit?

Response:

Yes. Loading calculations for various constituents have been calculated

and are included in the Technical Support Document

("TSD") as appendices to the Risk

Assessment (Chapter 7).

Question 3: P.

14. "The City of Hutsonville's public water supply wells draw

groundwater from the deep alluvial aquifer approximately one mile south

of Ash Pond D."

Can you please describe what effort has been made to determine whether these wells are

experiencing any impact from Ash Pond D's operation?

Response:

Ameren installed temporary wells across the river in Indiana and along

the river south

of the plant (located between Pond D and the City of Hutsonville's water well

intake point). Water quality sampling from these wells complied with Class I Groundwater

Quality Standards

as do samples from illLthe deep wells located on Ameren's property. Since

sampling from all of the deep wells performed over the course of a decade reflects compliance

with water quality standards and groundwater flows toward the Wabash River, there is no reason

to believe that Hutsonville's drinking water wells are impacted from Pond

D.

Questions from pre-filed testimony of Michael Bollinger

Question 4:

P. 4. "Ameren believes that Pond D contains in total nearly a million

cubic yards

of ash with approximately one-third of this volume lying below the water table.

Ameren anticipates that

as part of final closure additional materials, including ash may be

needed to establish a final slope and grade

of this impoundment." Why is Ameren adding

material to the Pond D site, instead

of removing it for final placement in a lined and permitted

2

---

location?

Response:

As part of closure, fill material will be needed to create the proper slope

and grade

of the impoundment. The plant property is fully utilized and consequently fill

material is not available. Coal combustion material

("CCB") stacked and dewatering within

Pond A is readily available and may be a cost-effective option. However, Ameren has not

decided whether it will use additional coal combustion material for such purposes.

If such

material is used, it would

be placed well above the water table, covered with a synthetic capping

material, and isolated from precipitation or groundwater. The amount

of CCB authorized for

use in this manner is limited

by slope and grade restrictions contained in the rule. When placed

and used in this manner, the CCB would not have an adverse environmental impact.

If CCB

from

Pond A is not used for Pond D cover or other beneficial use purposes, then it would most

likely be left within Pond A, which is a lined facility, and not transported to a landfill.

Question 5:

P. 5. "Existing regulations addressing waste, waste hauling and landfills do not

sufficiently address the closure

of surface impoundments such as Hutsonville wherein the ash

material is intended to remain in

place." This is an assumption on behalf of the applicant. What

other options have been considered?

Response:

Ameren has been trying to seek regulatory approval to close this ash pond

for years and this rulemaking follows an earlier proceeding where relief was sought from certain

landfill regulations. The Board ultimately ruled in that

Petition for Adjusted Standard

proceeding

(AS 2009-01), that the proper procedural mechanism was for either a site specific or

general rule and that a new subpart should be created. A copy

of that Board order is attached as

Exhibit

1. The Board also noted the inapplicability of landfill regulations during the time when

3

---

the pond was pennitted and used as a water treatment device.

Question 6:

P.S. "More importantly existing landfill regulations impose requirements that

cannot

be met given the fact that ash ponds that pre-date modem landfill requirements are designed and

regulated during their active service

as water treatment facilities in connection with the management of

coal combustion waste associated with coal-fired plants." Please explain further how use during their

active service prevents existing landfill regulations from being applied and met at the end

of an ash

impoundments active life.

Response:

See Exhibit 1 and Ameren's Petition for Adjusted Standard, attached

hereto as Exhibit 2. Those documents contain a summary

of the issues and difficulties

surrounding the closure

of ash impoundments that pre-date landfill regulations and modem

design requirements.

Question 7:

P.8. "Water quality data from the deep alluvial aquifer consistently

demonstrates compliance with Class I standards and we believe that the vertical migration

of

groundwater is restricted by a confining layer between the upper migration zone and deep alluvial

aquifer. What leads you to this conclusion?

If a confining layer were not preventing vertical

movement

of the water, can you estimate how long the contaminated water would take to travel to the

groundwater well's sampling point?

Response:

Water quality at the site has been extensively studied over the last twenty-five

years and sampling results consistently demonstrate that wells installed at various depths within

the lower zone

of the underlying aquifer are in compliance with Class I Groundwater Quality

Standards or have nominal impacts and thus water conditions at depth are stable.

Question 8:

P.

10. "It is unlikely that the removal of such a large volume of material is

4

---

technologically feasible. The saturated ash alone would require unconventional excavation

techniques, such as dredging or mechanical sluicing and dewatering prior to transport to an off-site

waste management

facility." Why couldn't the dredged material be placed in a lined landfill on the

Ameren property or on adjacent fannland (purchase land polluted by leachate) similar to the more

recently placed coal ash waste?

Response:

There is no available land at Hutsonville to construct a landfill and

surrounding property is fully utilized for agricultural purposes.

The cost of removal of such a

large quantity

of saturated and sodden ash is both exorbitant and technically infeasible at this

site.

Question 9:

P. 13. "Ameren also proposes to use, if necessary, coal combustion waste

from

Pond A as part of that final grading and slope." Please describe the material characterization

and leachate testing that will conducted to ensure that use

of this material will not contribute

additional pollutant loading to the site.

Response:

CCB that would be used as part of closure is similar if not identical to the

material already located in Ash Pond D. See response to Question 4 regarding placement which

will mitigate additional pollutant loading.

Question 10:

P. 16. "Under the proposal, no groundwater quality standards apply within

Zones A and B." Please explain how this would affect the protection of existing uses and the

application of the groundwater nondegradation standard.

Response:

This concept has been abandoned in favor of an approach proposed by the

Agency which applies Class I Groundwater Quality Standards in the upper zone

of the

underlying aquifer off-site, and nondegredation standards in the lower zone of the underlying

5

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2009

---

aquifer off-site. The applicable groundwater standards on-site are the measured constituents if

they exceed Class I Groundwater Quality Standards.

Question from pre-filed proposed amendments from

IEP A:

Question 11:

Section 840.114 Groundwater Monitoring Program. (a) "The owner and

operator

of Ash Pond D must monitor ...... 35 TIL Adm. Code 620.410(a) and (d) except radium-226

and radium-228." Why are these two constituents excluded?

Response:

This question appears to be directed to the Agency.

Question 12:

Per Section 3.135 (a) (9) (B), "CCB shall not exceed Class I Groundwater

Standards for metals when tested utilizing test method

ASTM D3987-85. The sample or samples

tested shall be representative

of the CCB being considered for use." Why isn't this requirement

referenced under Section 840.124?

Response:

This question appears to be directed to the Agency.

Question 13:

Why doesn't the additional use of coal combustion byproduct require an

independent approval pursuant to Section 3.135 of the Act, according to IEP A's suggested edits to

Section 840.124?

Response:

While this question appears to be directed to the Agency, Ameren

responds as follows. The proposed rule contains sufficient limitations on the quantity and

placement

of CCB that can be used in this manner and therefore no additional authorization is

necessary to ensure protection

of human health and the environment. In addition, the movement

of such material is consistent with prior authorizations from the Agency.

Questions from pre-filed testimony

of Stephen Nightingale, IEPA:

Question 14:

We appreciate your request on behalf of the Agency for a moratorium on

6

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2009

---

additional site-specific rules for closure of coal combustion waste surface impoundments. Can you

tell us why, given the fact that new federal rules regarding the management

of coal combustion

wastes are likely forthcoming, the Agency is not requesting that Ameren's Hutsonville

Pond D

activities also be placed

on hold?

Response:

While this question appears to be directed to the Agency, Ameren

responds as follows. Ameren believes that such a moratorium is both inappropriate and is an

action that can only be considered and undertaken

by the Illinois General Assembly

Specifically, the right to seek a site-specific rule is set forth in the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act and as such, a moratorium can only be imposed through legislative action and not

through a Board order. . Ameren, therefore, opposes such request and opposes the granting

of

any such moratorium Furthermore, the closure of ash ponds under a regulatory program, such

as the proposed site-specific rule, is protective

of human health and the environment, and is both

economically reasonable and technically feasible for Ameren to implement. Lastly, we believe

it is important to note that in Mr. Nightingale's testimony, and presumably

in support of the

Agency's request for a moratorium, Mr. Nightingale identifies a number

of Ameren

impoundments (25) that he suggests

may be the subject of site-specific rulemaking. In reality

and in the near short-term, only a handful

of Ameren facilities have impoundments that have or

will

be taken out of service and would be subject to site-specific closure similar to Ash Pond D.

Question 15:

IfUSEPA re-determines coal combustion waste to be "hazardous"

in

nature

per RCRA, would Subchapter

C, Part 724 regulations governing standards for hazardous waste

treatment, storage and disposal facilities be sufficient

to govern the closure of Ameren's Hutsonville

Pond D?

7

---

Response:

While this question appears to be directed to the Agency, Ameren

responds as follows. Until

USEP A proposes and enacts rules governing coal combustion waste,

we do not know how such material will be characterized or whether such characterization and

rules will

be applicable to ash ponds similar to Ash Pond D. The promulgation and enactment

of implementing rules could take years. The Company believes that final closure of

impoundments when they are no longer permitted as water treatment devices is both prudent and

environmentally responsible.

Dated: September 22,

2009

Kathleen C. Bassi

Joshua R. More

SCHIFF HARDIN

LLP

6600

Sears Tower

233 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5500

fax: 312-258-5600

Respectfull y submitted,

AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY

by:

UP.

one of its attorneys

8

---

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that on this 22

nd

day of September, 2009, I have served

electronically the attached,

RESPONSES TO PREFILED QUESTIONS OF PRARIE

RIVERS NETWORK,

upon the following persons:

John T. Therriault, Assistant Clerk

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

James

R. Thompson Center

Suite

11-500

100

West Randolph

Chicago, Illinois

60601

and by first class mail, postage affixed upon persons included on the

A TT ACHED SERVICE

LIST.

Joshua

R. More

Kathleen

C. Bassi

Amy Antoniolli

SCHIFF HARDIN

LLP

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600

Chicago, Illinois 60606

312-258-5500

Fax: 312-258-5600

Joshua R. More

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 22, 2009

---

Tim Fox, Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

1

00 West Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

foxt@ipcb.state.il.us

Virginia Yang

Department

of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271ral

Virginia.yang@illinois.gov

Tracy Barkley

Prairie Rivers Network

1902 Fox Drive, Suite G

Champaign, Illinois 61820

(R09-21)

John J. Kim, General Counsel

Kyle Nash Davis

Mark Wight

Division

of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

1 021 North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

john.j .kim@illinois.gov

Matthew

J. Dunn, Chief

Office of the Attorney General

Environmental Bureau, North

69 West Washington Street, Suite

1800

Chicago, Illinois 60602