ADDENDUM TO THE FACT SHEET

FOR NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

PERMIT NO. WA 0037338 January 2011

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Facility : TransAlta Centralia Mining LLC

913 Big Hanaford Road Centralia, Washington 98531

II. APPLICATION REVIEW

TransAlta Centralia Mining, LLC (TCM) submitted a n application to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) on January 20 , 2009 for permit re issuance , and Ecology accepted it on March 6, 2009

. Ecology has sufficiently reviewed the application, discharge monitoring reports, and other facility

information. Ecology determines the following:

TCM has, for the most part, adhered to terms, conditions, requirements, and schedule of compliance of the expired permit

.

Ecology has up

- to

- date information on the TCM waste treatment practices, and the

nature, content, volume, and frequency of its discharge.

T he discharge meets applicable effluent standards and limits, water quality standards, and other legally applicable requirements.

III. PERMIT REAUTHORIZATION

When Ecology reauthorizes a discharge permit it essentially re issues the permit with the existing limits

, terms and conditions with only minor changes if necessary

. Since the issuance of the previous permit, Ecology has not received any additional information which indicates that environmental impacts from the wastewater discharge of this operation warrants a complete rewrite of the permit.

This addendum accompanies th e permit and is part of the existing fact sheet , which Ecology proposes to r eauthorize for the discharge of TCM treated wastewater /stormwater

to Hanaford , Packwood and Mitchell Creek s

. The previous fact sheet addressed conditions and issues at the facility at the time when Ecology issued the previous permit in May 3, 2005. The p revious fact sheet explains the basis for the discharge limitations and conditions of the reauthorized permit and remains as part of th e administrative record for the current permit

.

This addendum includes Figure 1 which shows the boundary of the mining a rea and effluent monitoring locations. Figures 2, 3 and 4 have been revised with new information and they show the treat ment system for the stormwater/process water generated at the facility.

On May 14, 2010, TCM submitted an electronic copy of the priority pollutant analysis laboratory

report s as a part of TCM’s permit renewal application. Ecology evaluated these laboratory resultsAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 2 against the surface water quality standards. Most pollutant s were non

- detect s

. T he pollutants that

were detected met the surface water quality standards. Ecology also conducted a reasonable potential analysis for the metal priority pollutant s listed in Table 3 of appendix B of this

addendum . This analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential that the P ermittee will exceed the surface water quality standards for these metals. The new proposed draft permit requires the P ermittee to conduct and submit the whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests with their

next permit renewal application. Ecology is requiring this WET test due to elevated sulfate and TDS sample results. The proposed draft permit also requires the P ermittee to monitor and report the conductivity, sulfate and total dissolved solids (TDS).

In addition to the changes discussed above, there will be minor changes to the discharge limits for

temperature and dissolved oxygen due to revised changes in Washington Administrative Cod e (WAC 173

- 201A , 2006 ) pertaining to surface water quality standards as it applies to this water

resources inventories area (WRIA 23 )

. Ecology will keep the current permit limit for these parameters as interim permit limits for four years

. During the proposed five year permit, Ecology has given the P ermittee a compliance schedule. This compliance schedule requires the P ermittee

to c ollect the background temperature and dissolved oxygen data for the receiving water bodies (Hanaford, Packwood and Mitchel l Creeks). Background data will form one of the bas e s for the new limits for temperature and dissolved oxygen. During t he meantime

, the P ermittee is required to comply with the interim permit limits (Table 1). Tables 1 and 2 show the interim and final effluent limits for temperature and dissolved oxygen respectively.

Table 1: Interim Temperature and dissolved oxygen limits

Monitoring Requirements and Effluent Limitations

OUTFALLS #001, #002, #003, #004, #005, #006, #008, #009, #010, and #011

Parameter D a ily

Minimum Monthly

Average a D a ily

Maximum b Minimum

S a mpling Frequency Sample Type

Te m p erature, °C N/A 18 18 M on t h ly Grab

Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L 6.5 N/A N/A Monthly Grab

a The average monthly effluent limitation is defined as the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, cal c ulated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the

number of daily discharges measured during that month.

b Daily Maximum is defined as the highest allowable daily discharge.

Table 2 : Final Permit Limits for Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature ( January 1, 2015)

Lowest 1

- Day Minimum

, Dissolved Oxygen (D.O), mg/L 1 Highest 7

- DADMax, Temperature o C 2

Outfalls: 001, 002, 005, 006, 008, 009, 010, 011
9.5 or when a water body's D.O. is lower than the criteria in Table 200 (1)(d) (or within 0.2 mg/L of the criteria) and that condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions considered cumulatively may not cause the D.O. of that water body to decrease more than 0.2 mg/L.

Outfall s: 003, 004
8

. 0 or when a water body's D.O. is lower than the criteria in Table 200 (1)(d) (or within 0.2 mg/L of the criteria) and that condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions Outfalls: 001, 002, 005, 006, 008, 009, 010, 011
16 o C (60.8 o F) or when water body’s temperature is warmer that the criteria of 16 o C (or within 0.3 o C (0.54 o F) of 16 o C) and that

condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions considered cumulatively may not

cause the 7

– DADMax temperature of that water body to increase more than 0.3 o C (0.54 o F).

Outfall s: 003, 004

1 7.5 o C or when water body’s temperature is

warmer that the criteria of 1 7.5 o C (or withinAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 3 considered cumulatively may not c ause the D.O. of that water body to decrease more than 0.2 mg/L 0.3 o C of 1 7.5 o C) and that condition is due to natural conditions, then human actions considered cumulatively may not cause the 7

– DADMax temperature of that water body to

increase more than 0.3 o C.

1 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173

- 201A

- 200(d)(i)

2 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173

- 201A

- 200(c)(i)

Ecology reviewed inspections and assessed compliance of TCM’s discharge with the terms and

conditions in the previous permit and determined that it should not rank the facility as a high priority for permit renewal. Ecology assigns a high priority for permit renewals in situations where water quality would benefit from a more stringent permit during the next five

- year cycle.

The permit reauthorization process allows Ecology to re issue permits in a timely manner and minimize the number of active permits that have passed their expiration dates. For planning permit reissuance purposes, Ecology follows a system of ranking permits based on the benefit gained by re writing a permit rather than reauthorizing it. Ecology assesses e ach permit that is expiring and due for reissuance and compare s it with other permits

. Ecology notifies the public

and seeks input after it has tentatively established the initial draft ranking of the permits it plans

to re write and those it plans to reauthorize. Ecology considers a ll relevant comments and suggestions before it makes a final decisi on.

Ecology carried over most of the discharge limits and conditions in effect at the time of expiration of the previous permit to this reauthorized permit with a few exceptions

. Ecology changed the

submittal date s for reports and adjusts certain limits to conform to revised Washington

A dministrative Code (WAC 173

- 201A)

. Ecology removed the completed report requirements

that do not require additional or continued assessment. It adjusted the dates for the other standard compliance and submittal requireme nts that it carried over from the past permit into this reauthorized permit. Ecology considered these reports necessary in the previous permit and no

information has come forward to cause it to reconsider

.

Ecology must p ublic notice the availability of the draft reauthorized permit at least 30 days before

it re issue s the permit [Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173

- 220

- 050]. Ecology invites you to review and comment on its decision to reauthorize the permit (see Appe ndix A

- Public

Involvement for more detail on the Public Notice procedures).

After the public comment period has closed, Ecology will prepare a response to comments
document that it will attach to this fact sheet addendum. The response to comments will in clude the resultant changes to the permit and either address each comment individually or summarize the substantive comments and respon d

. Ecology sends a copy of the response to comments to all parties who submitted comments. Ecology will include the res ponse to comments in this fact

sheet addendum.

IV. RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE

Ecology proposes to reissue this permit for five years.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 4

APPENDIX A

-- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION

Ecology proposes to reissue a permit to TCM. The permit includes wastewater discharge limits and other conditions. This fact sheet addendum describes the facility and Ecology’s reasons for reauthorizing the permit conditions.

Ecology placed a Public No tice of Application on June 16, 2010, and June 23, 2010, in the Chronicle to inform the public about the submitted application and to invite comment on the reissuance of this permit.

Ecology will place a Public Notice of Draft on November 8, 2010, in the Chronicle to inform the public and to invite comment on the proposed draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and

fact sheet addendum.

The Notice

–

Tells where copies of the draft Permit and Fact Sheet are available for public evaluatio n (a local public library, the closest Regional or Field Office, posted on our website.).

Offers to provide the documents in an alternate format to accommodate special needs.

Urges people to submit their comments, in writing, before the end of the Comment Period

Tells how to request a public hearing of comments about the proposed NPDES Permit.

Explains the next step(s) in the permitting process.

Ecology has published a document entitled Frequently Asked Questions about Effective Public Commenting which is available on our website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0307023.html

.

You may obtain further information from Ecology by telephone, 360

- 407

- 6280, or by writing to the permit writer at the address li sted below.

Water Quality Permit Coordinator Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office

P.O. Box 47775 Olympia, WA 98504

- 7775

The primary author of this permit and fact sheet is Aziz Mahar , P.E.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 5 Table 1: Laboratory report submitted with permit renewal applicationAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 6 Table 1: ContinuedAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 7 Table 1: Continued.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 8 Table 1: Continued.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 9 Table 1: Continued.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 10 Table 1: ContinuedAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 11 Table 1: Continued.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 12 Table 1: Continued.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 13 Table 2: Results of laboratory reports submitted with the permit renewal application.

Parameters Units Outfall 0 02 RDL Outfall 004 RDL Comments

Conventional
Cyanide + Thiocyanate mg/L 0.0012 0.0005 0.0015 0.0005
Misc. Inorganics mg/L
Bromide (Br) mg/L 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.1
Fluoride (F) mg/L 0.52 0.01 0.55 0.01

ANIONS
Nitrite (N) mg/L 0.006 0.005 0.011 0.005

Calculated Parameters
Nitrate (N) mg/L 0.37 0.02 1.46 0.02

Demand Parameters Biochemical Oxygen

Demand mg/L <10 10 <10 10 Chemical Oxygen

Demand mg/L 15 10 <10 10

Misc. Inorganics

Weak Acid Dissoc. Cyanide (CN) mg/L 0.0007 0.0005 <0.0005 0.0005 Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 3.7 0.5 2.9 0.5

Anions Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 440 5 690 50 Dissolved Sulphite (SO3) mg/L <5 5 <10 10

MISCELLANEOUS
Sulphide mg/L 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.005

Nutrients
Ammonia (N) mg/L 0.027 0.005 0.04 0.005 Nitrate plus Nitrite (N) mg/L 0.38 0.02 1.47 0.02 Total Nitrogen (N) mg/L 0.76 0.02 2.01 0.04 Total Phosphorus (P) mg/L 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.005

Misc. Organics

Phenols mg/L <0.001 0.001 <0.001 0.001

Calculated Parameters
Total Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 431 598 0.5
Total Metals by ICPMS
Total Aluminum (Al) μ g/L 176 50 1 Total Antimony (Sb) μ g/L <0.5 <0.5 0.5 Total Arsenic (As) μ g/L 0.3 0.3 0.1 Total Barium (Ba) μ g/L 56 49 1 Total Beryllium (Be) μ g/L <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Total Boron (B) μ g/L 1290 4490 50 Total Cadmium (Cd) μ g/L 0.05 0.02 0.01 Total Chromium (Cr) μ g/L <1 <1 1 Total Cobalt (Co) μ g/L 2.5 <0.5 0.5

Total Copper (Cu) μ g/L 1.5 0.9 0.2 Total Iron (Fe) μ g/L 234 97 5Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 14 Table 2: Results of laboratory reports submitted with the permit renewal application.

Parameters Units Outfall 0 02 RDL Outfall 004 RDL Comments
Total Lead (Pb) μ g/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2 Total Manganese (Mn) μ g/L 318 202 0.2 Total Mercury (Hg) μ g/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02
Total Molybdenum (Mo) μ g/L 3 6 1

Total Nickel (Ni) μ g/L 10 8 1 Total Selenium (Se) μ g/L 0.2 1.3 0.1 Total Silver (Ag) μ g/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02 Total Thallium (Tl) μ g/L <0.05 <0.05 0.05 Total Tin (Sn) μ g/L <5 <5 5 Total Titanium (Ti) μ g/L 7 <5 5 Total Zinc (Zn) μ g/L 26 8 5 Total Magnesium (Mg) μ g/L 29.7 39.2 0.05

Table 3 : Reasonable Potential Analysis against the Surface Water Quality Standards

State Water Quality
Standard Max

concentration at edge of...

Metal Criteria

Translator as

decimal Metal

Criteria

Translator

as decimal Ambient

Concent

ration (metals

as dissolve d) Acute Chronic Acute Mixing

Zone Chroni

c Mixing

Zone LIMIT

REQ'

D? Effluent

percentil

e value Max
effluent

conc.

measure d (metals

as total

recovera ble) Coeff

Variati

on # of

sam ples Multiplier Acute Dil'n

Factor Chronic

Dil'n

Factor

Parameter Acute Chronic ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L ug/L Pn ug/L CV s n

Arsenic (As) 1.00 1.00 360.00

00 190.0000 1.14 1.14 NO 0.95 0.224 0.30 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1

Cadmium (Cd) 0.99 0.99 2.0000 0.2500 0.19 0.19 NO 0.95 0.224 0.05 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1

Copper (Cu) 0.83 0.83 13.000

0 9.0000 4.72 4.72 NO 0.95 0.224 1.50 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1

Nickel (Ni) 0.99 0.99 470.00

00 52.0000 37.57 37.57 NO 0.95 0.224 10.00 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1

Selenium (Se) 1.00 1.00 20.000

0 5.0000 4.92 4.92 NO 0.95 0.224 1.30 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1

Zinc (Zn) 0.95 0.95 120.00

00 120.0000 93.34 93.34 NO 0.95 0.224 26.00 0.60 0.5

5 2 3.79 1 1Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 15 Figure 1: Centralia mine boundaries and effluent monitoring location sAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 16Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 17Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 18Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 19 APPENDIX C

-- REFERENCES

1) Code of Federal Regulation (40 CFR 434

- Coal mining point source category BPT, BAT, BCT

Limitations

2) Detailed Guidance Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environm ental Justice

Executive , April 1, 2010

.

3) EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for Water Quality

– based Toxic Control , EPA/505/2

- 90

- 001

4) Surface W ater Q uality S tandards, WAC 173

- 201A, 2006

5) Permit R enewal A pplication S ubmittal s

6) The Department of Ecology’s Water Quality Program Guidance: Implementing the State’s Temperature Standards through TMDLs and NPDES Permits, Revised June 2010, Publication

Number 06

- 10

- 100Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 20 APPENDIX D

— REFERENCES

EARTHJUSTICE COMME N TS RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 8, 2010

Comment 1:

On April 1, 2010, EPA published a memorandum entitled “Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive Order” (the “Guidance”), copy en closed. The Guidance lays out EPA actions to further clarify and strengthen environmental permitting requirements for Appalachian mountaintop removal and other surface coal mining projects, in coordination with federal and state regulatory agencies. The Guidance sets clear benchmarks for preventing significant and irreversible damage to watersheds at risk from mining activity. Although the Guidance focuses on Appalachian watersheds, the Guidance also contains principles applicable to surface coal mining p rojects generally. Thus, the Guidance should be fully considered by Ecology for application to the TransAlta Mining Facility. Notably, the addendum to the fact sheet appears to indicate that this Guidance was in fact considered during the permit renewal p rocess. See Addendum to Fact Sheet at 19, Appendix C (noting “National Environmental Policy Act, and Environmental Justice Executive Order, April 1, 2010”). However, the Addendum does not specifically explain how this Guidance was considered and applied to the TransAlta permit at issue, or alternatively, why it should not be applied to the Draft Permit.

Response 1:

Ecology reviewed and compared TransAlta Centralia Mining LLC (TCM) pollutants analysis database against the EPA’s memo of April 1, 2010, and W ashington State’s surface water quality standards, WAC

173

- 201A. In reviewing this memo (EPA’s memorandum of April 1, 2010) and laboratory reports submitted by TCM, Ecology concluded that the P ermittee must obtain more data on the conductivity,

sulfate an d Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the next permit cycle. The last permit did not have these requirements but this new permit requires the P ermittee to monitor these parameters. Ecology will further review the monitoring data to determine if a future limit is required for these parameters. In addition to this, Ecology is also requiring the P ermittee to conduct the whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing.

Comment 2:

The Draft Permit and Fact Sheet dated April 29, 2005 (“Fact Sheet”) and the Addendum to the Fact Sheet dated October 2010 (“Addendum”) disclose that several waste streams make up TransAlta’s wastewater discharges covered by this Permit. See Fact Sheet at 4, 17

- 18; Addendum 15

- 18. There are three mining fields (i.e. the “North Field,” “Central F ield” and “South Field”), which include at least nine large water bodies associated with coal mining pits. Addendum at 15

- 18. Notably, the Addendum contains very little narrative description of the activities currently occurring at the TransAlta mining f acility. The Fact Sheet, which was prepared in 2005, describes “ongoing mining” activities and coal washing activities, as well as reclamation activities. Fact Sheet at 4. The Fact Sheet also notes that the outfalls discharge “runoff from

the mined areas . However, the TransAlta coal mine has closed since the preparation of the 2005 fact sheet. 3 See Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, “Annual Evaluation Summary Report for the Regulatory Program Administered by the Office of Surface Min ing: Washington” Evaluation Year 2007 at 4, copy enclosed (noting that TransAlta’s President announced the sudden closure of the Centralia Mine on November 27, 2006). Thus, the Addendum provides an inaccurate and incomplete description of the activities cu rrently occurring at the facility that affect or may affect effluent discharge.

Similarly, the Fact Sheet and Addendum provide an unclear description of the treatmentAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 21 technology in place at the facility. The Fact Sheet describes “sedimentation ponds” and the use of “flocculation and sedimentation.” Fact Sheet at 4. Further, the flow diagrams in the Addendum suggest the use of a “polymer, ” but the exact nature of that treatment is unclear. Addendum at 16

- 18. Notably,

the Addendum and Fact Sheet contain no flow diagram that corresponds to Outfall 007. See Addendum at

16

- 18; Fact Sheet at 17

- 18. In addition, several of the flow diagrams that are present contain a symbol denoting “Proposed Suitable Treatment (if necessary).” It is unclear from the flow dia grams what that “proposed” treatment is, if it is in fact occurring, or if it is scheduled to be installed. There is no apparent case by case analysis of BAT demonstrated in the Permit, Fact Sheet, or Addendum.

Response 2:

Initially Ecology did not treat this permit as a reclamation site discharge permit due to the following statement contained in the permit renewal application submitted by TCM on April 17, 2009

.

“TransAlta Centralia Mining LLC (TCM) operates a surface coal mine Lewis and Thurston Counti es of the State of Washington. Portions of the North and Central Fields of the mine are in various stages of final reclamation while the south Field is in “Temporary Cessation of Operation” (TCO). TCO means that TCM has stopped mining operations but has the right to resume its mining operations in the future under an approved permit.”

Based on the discussion with the Office Surface of Mining (OSM) on November 30, 2010 and OSM annual evaluation report in 2007 for this site, Ec ology considers this site clo sed for mining and it is considered a reclamation site. Ecology has add ed a statement to the permit to this effect (Permit Special Condition S1, page 5 )

.

There is no outfall 007 in either the 2005 permit or the new permit. The sequence of numbering the

o utfalls excludes #7.

TCM applies the following procedure to treat the stormwater/process water before it is being discharged to Hanaford, Packwood and Mitchell Creeks.

“A twenty percent cationic polymer is applied to the storm water on an as needed basis. The polymer is metered using adjustable metering pumps. When in use, the metering pumps are adjusted manually based on the treatment success just below the polymer inj ection site and mixing apparatus. The basic treatment system utilizes a small water pump to circulate a small portion of the pond outflow such that the polymer can be injected into this stream and then is carried back to the outflow structure. Mixing occ urs through the use of spray bars and the fall of water though a concrete or metal structure. Bench tests indicate that the polymer's ultimate performance range is 1 to 2 ppm for storm water.”

Further details on a treatment of the stormwater/process water are available in the treatment document titled “TransAlta Centralia Mining LLC, Treatment System Operation for Sedimentation Ponds.” This document is available in the Ecology central filing system and could be reviewed by contacting with Ecology’s public disclosure office.

Comment 3:

TransAlta discharges effluent through eleven outfalls that ultimately flow into Waters of the United States. Draft Permit at Cover; Fact Sheet at 3. Outfalls 001

- 009 discharge to the Hanaford Creek System.

Fact Sheet at 3 . Outfall 011 flows into the Mitchell Creek System. It is unclear from the Fact Sheet, Addendum and accompanying site map, and Draft Permit into which waterbody Outfall 010 discharges. Hanaford Creek drains to the Skookumchuck River, which in turn drain s to the main stem of the ChehalisAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 22 River. Mitchell Creek is a tributary of the north fork of the Newaukum River, a tributary of the Chehalis River. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s website, Hanaford Creek has a

winter steelhe ad run and the Skookumchuck River has fall Chinook and chum salmon runs.

Response 3:

Outfall 010 discharges to Big Hanaford Creek. Ecology provides the following details on the outfalls, discharging ponds, and receiving water bodies.

Outfalls Dischargi ng Ponds Receiving Surface Water Bodies

001 5 Packwood Creek

002 6 Big Hanaford Creek

003 8 South Hanaford Creek

004 20 North Hanaford Creek

005 22 Big Hanaford Creek

006 34 Big Hanaford Creek

008 36 Big Hanaford Creek

009 45 Packwood Creek

010 38 Big Hanaford Creek

011 46 Mitchell creek

Comment 4:

There are a variety of pollutants in TransAlta’s effluent discharge streams, including toxic and conventional pollutants.

First, there are a variety of toxic pollutants present in TranAlta’s effluent in detectable amounts.

Addendum at 13

- 14; WAC 173

- 201A

- 240. These pollutants include arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Addendum at 13

- 14.

Second, in terms of conventional pollutants, TransAlta has recorded violations of Per mit conditions for Biological Oxygen Demand (“BOD”), Total Suspended Solids, Dissolved Oxygen, and pH during the previous 5 years. Notably, monitoring data shows violations of temperature and Dissolved Oxygen as recently as November 2008, which is subsequ ent to the closure of the coal mine. Although the Draft Permit does establish a compliance schedule for temperature and Dissolved Oxygen, and establishes interim and final limits for Dissolved Oxygen and temperature, there is no discussion in the Fact She et or file of how violations will be avoided in the future. Indeed, the Addendum merely notes that the P ermittee “has, for the most part, adhered to terms, conditions, requirements, and schedule of compliance of the expired permit.”

Third, the facility ap pears to have high levels of sulfates. See Addendum at 13 (noting sulfate concentrations of 440 mg/L at Outfall 002 and 690 mg/L at Outfall 004). The Addendum specifically notes “elevated sulfate” levels. Addendum at 2. Although the Draft Permit does re quiring monitoring for sulfates, and require Whole Effluent Toxicity testing, id., it does not establish an effluent limitation for sulfates nor discuss why one was not established.

Response 4 :Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 23 Ecology conducted a water quality criteria based reasonable potential analysis for the pollutants that were detected in TCM’s discharge, to determine if there is a reasonable potential that the P ermittee would exceed the surface water quality standards. T his reasonable potential analysis showed that there was not a reasonable potential that the P ermittee would exceed the surface water quality standard for the detected pollutants. Please see this analysis in Table 3, page 14, of the fact sheet addendum.

T he 2005 permit did not have a BOD monitoring requirement and therefore the P ermittee could not have had violations for this parameter in the past. Ecology has produced a table that shows the permit violation history for other parameters like DO and temper ature for the last five years. If any permit violation occurs, Ecology issues a warning letter to the Permittee and this requires them to investigate, resolve and report the problem and solution to Ecology. During the five year permit cycle, Ecology issu ed nine warning letters to TCM. These warning letters occurred infrequently and TCM was able to correct the problem within a short time frame. These problems have not persisted, so further action by Ecology was

not necessary.

Date Parameter Units Fractio n Addresse

d Monito

r Point DMR

Value Min

Limi

t Max

Limi

t Event Category Warning

Letter

date

3/1/2010 Dissolved

Oxygen Mg/L Not Applicable N 4 0.15 6.5 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 49.9 25 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 54.4 40 Effluent

Violation

s

1 /1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 104 50 Effluent

Violation

s 4/1/2009

1/1/2009 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 31.4 20 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 3 26.43 25 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 29.24 25 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 72.8 40 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 60.6 20 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 80.35 50 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2009 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 3 46.3 25 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 3 20.6 18 Effluent

Violation

sAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 24 Date Parameter Units Fractio n Addresse

d Monito

r Point DMR

Value Min

Limi

t Max

Limi

t Event Category Warning

Letter

date

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 4 20.8 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 8 19.5 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 8 19.5 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 4 20.8 18 Effluent

Violation

s 8/6/2009

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 5 21.4 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Dissolved

Oxygen Mg/L Not Applicable Y 2 6.47 6.5 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 2 20.4 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 3 20.6 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 6 20.3 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5 /1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 1 20.6 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 2 20.4 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5 /1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 6 20.3 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 1 20.6 18 Effluent

Violation

s

5 /1/2008 Temperature Degrees
C Measured Y 5 21.4 18 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 48 40 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 67.2 20 Effluent

Violation

s 3/13/2010

12/1/200

7 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 67.2 40 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Turbidity (Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 61.3 50 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Turbidity (Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 34.25 25 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Turbidity (Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 34.25 25 Effluent

Violation

sAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 25 Date Parameter Units Fractio n Addresse

d Monito

r Point DMR

Value Min

Limi

t Max

Limi

t Event Category Warning

Letter

date

12/1/200

7 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 31.2 20 Effluent

Violation

s

12/1/200

7 Turbidity (Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 61.3 50 Effluent

Violation

s

11/1/200

6 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 2 64.8 40 Effluent

Violation

s

11/1/200

6 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 2 39.5 20 Effluent

Violation

s 1/30/2007

11/1/200

6 Solids (Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 35.55 20 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2006 Dissolved

Oxygen Mg/L Not Applicable Y 9 0 6.5 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 10000 50 Effluent

Violation

s

2 /1/2006 pH (Hydrogen

Ion) Daily Min Standar

d Units Not

Applicable Y 9 0 6 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2006 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 10 65 40 Effluent

Violation

s 4/13/2006

2 /1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 10000 50 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2006 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 17900 40 Effluent

Violation

s

2 /1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 10 62.8 50 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2006 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 17900 20 Effluent

Violation

s

1 /1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 806.0

5 50 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2006 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 669.4

8 20 Effluent

Violation

s 3/27/2006

1/1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 28.5 25 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2006 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 4930 40 Effluent

Violation

sAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 26 Date Parameter Units Fractio n Addresse

d Monito

r Point DMR

Value Min

Limi

t Max

Limi

t Event Category Warning

Letter

date

1/1/2006 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 5848 50 Effluent

Violation

s

5/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 11.1 10 Effluent

Violation

s 07/25/205

5/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 11.1 5 Effluent

Violation

s

4/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 7.1 5 Effluent

Violation

s

3/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 7.8 5 Effluent

Violation

s

3/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 11.8 10 Effluent

Violation

s

2 /1/2005 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 6.875 20 Effluent

Violation

s 5/24/2005

2/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 8.59 5 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2005 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 11 9 40 Effluent

Violation

s

2/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 2 7.94 Effluent

Violation

s

1 /1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 10 8.59 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 18.8 Effluent

Violation

s 03/242005

1 /1/2005 Solids

(Residue) Mg/L Total suspende d (TSS) Y 9 27.1 20 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 9 18.8 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 10 8.59 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 9.27 5 Effluent

Violation

s

1/1/2005 Turbidity

(Nephelometric ) NTU Measured Y 11 9.27 10 Effluent

Violation

sAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 27 The new draft permit requires the P ermittee to monitor the TDS, sulfate, and conductivity, in addition to this, the P ermittee is required to conduct the WET t esting and submit the results to Ecology. These tests ensure that all toxic effects from pollutants are accounted for in the wastewater effluent. If these tests indicate that toxicity exists in the wastewater, then Ecology requires the Permittee to treat the wastewater and remediate the problem. These are new requirement in the proposed draft permit. The reasons why Ecology is not placing a specific limitation on sulfate in this permit is because Washington state and

federal current law does not have est ablished surface water quality standards for sulfate, TDS and conductivity. EPA’s memo dated April 1 st , 2010, “Detailed Guidance Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy

Ac t, and the Environmental Justice Executive”, provided guidance for limits on conductivity but it was applicable to the Appalachian area of the United States. Ecology has taken into consideration this recent EPA memo by requiring this P ermittee to do monit oring of these parameters. Another reason why limits are not currently being placed on these three parameters is because, Ecology do es not have sufficient data to establish sulfate, TDS and conductivity permit limits on this P ermittee.

Comment 5:

D. Antidegradation. The Fact Sheet, which is from 2005, summarily states:

The Department has reviewed existing records and is unable to determine if ambient water quality is either higher or lower than the designated classification criteria given in Chapter 173

- 201A WAC; therefore, the Department will use the designated classification criteria for this water body in the proposed permit. The discharges authorized by this proposed permit should not cause a loss of beneficial uses.

Fact Sheet at 9. This analys is is outdated. Because there is no discussion or supporting information regarding the antidegradation analysis for this Permit, it is impossible to discern whether the antidegradation analysis was properly made pollutant by pollutant, and whether real da ta on discharges in fact support the earlier conclusions.

Response 5 :

WAC

- 173

- 201A

- 300, 2006 states the following on the antidegradation requirements:

“The purpose of Washington's Antidegradation Policy (WAC 173

- 201A

- 300

- 330; 2006) is to:

Restore and mai ntain the highest possible quality of the surface waters of Washington.

Describe situations under which water quality may be lowered from its current condition.

Apply to human activities that are likely to have an impact on the water quality of surface wat er.

Ensure that all human activities likely to contribute to a lowering of water quality, at a minimum, apply all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART).

Apply three Tiers of protection (described below) for surface waters of the state.

Tier I ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected and applies to all waters and all sources of pollutions . Tier II ensures that waters of a higher quality than the criteria assigned are not degraded unle ss such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Tier IIAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 28 applies only to a specific list of polluting activities. Tier III prevents the degradation of waters formally listed as "outstanding resource waters," and applie s to all sources of pollution.”

TCM’s discharge is not from a new or expanded action, therefore, it falls under the Tier I designation. Ecology believes Tier I antidegradation requirements are met because TCM’s NPDES permit includes water quality based e ffluent limits that will maintain and protect existing and designated uses in the receiving water.

Comment 6:

Mixing Zones It is unclear whether the Permit includes a mixing zone. Although the permit writer indicated in a telephone conversation that there is not a mixing zone, Addendum Table 3, “Reasonable Potential Analysis,” expresses maximum concentrations of parameters for state Water Quality Standards in terms of the “acute mixing zone” and “chronic mixing zone.”Addendum at 14. There is no narra tive description of the reasonable potential analysis. Reading the Fact Sheet, Addendum, and the Draft Permit as a whole, the Conservation Organizations understand that this Permit does not allow a mixing zone. If this is incorrect, please clarify the req uirements and see mixing zone comments below.

Response 6 :

The proposed new draft permit does not authorize a mixing zone and the old permit did not have a mixing zone either. The reasonable potential analysis of Table 3 calculates the max concentration at the edge of the mixing zone. When there is a mixing zone, there are dilution factors (acute and chronic) which are factored into the max concentration limits which essentially give the permittee more allowance for meeting the surface water quality stan dards. Without a mixing zone which is the case with this permit, the max concentration limits are not adjusted with dilution factors. The maximum concentration estimates, at the edge of the mixing zone, in Table 3 are below the water quality standards. When we

assume a dilution factor of “1” , then it means there is no mixing zone. See the last two columns of Table 3 for the dilution factors. Appendix C of the draft fact sheet addendum cites an EPA technical document (#3) was used to conduct a reasonabl e potential analysis for the pollutants that were detected in the discharge against the surface water quality standards.

Comment 7:

WQBELs For toxic, priority pollutants discharged by TransAlta , the Fact Sheet and Addendum are confusing. It appears that TransAlta exceeds no

- detect analytical limits for: arsenic, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Addendum at 14. It appears that reasonable potential analysis was conducted by Ecology for arsen ic, cadmium, copper, nickel, selenium, and zinc. Addendum at 14, Table 3. However, the Addendum is devoid of any narrative description of the analysis that was performed, and, confusingly, the maximum concentration of Water Quality Standards are expresse d in terms of mixing zones. Id. As is discussed supra, Conservation Organizations understand that a mixing zone is not being employed here.

All of these pollutants are of significant concern, some for human health, but especially for aquatic ecosystem hea lth. For example, copper interferes with salmonids’ (and likely other fishes’) olfactory abilities which in turn affects predator avoidance and other functions upon which the fish depend on a heightened sense of smell. The National Marine Fisheries Service , based upon research it has participated in, advises that copper causes these adverse effects in salmon at levels as low as 2 ug/L, which level is more stringent than Washington’s numeric criteria for copper.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 29 Although Table 3 of the Addendum appears to e stimate the maximum effluent concentration of copper as 1.50 micrograms/L, variances in pH (the Draft Permit allows a pH range from 6

- 9) may affect dissolved copper concentrations. Accordingly, the permit should specifically set a limit for copper below 2 ug/L.

See Addendum at 13

- 14; Draft Permit at 6.

Response 7 :

The P ermittee was not required to meet the non

- detect limits for the specified parameters in the old permit. Therefore, it is an inaccurate statement that the P ermittee exceeds the non

- detect permit limits but for the parameters which were detected, Ecology conducted water quality based analysis. This is also stated in a fact sheet addendum of the draft permit (see page 2).

The proposed new permit does not authorize a mixing zone for this fa cility. Without a mixing zone, the max concentration limits are not adjusted with dilution factors. The maximum concentration estimates, at the edge of the mixing zone, in Table 3 are below the water quality standards.

Please also note that in Table 2 pa ge 13 of the draft fact sheet addendum, the concentration of copper of

1.5 μ g/L is not an estimate but is the actual laboratory sampling analysis result which was conducted on April 17, 2009. This result of 1.5 μ g/L is below the surface water quality stan dards.

Comment 8:

The Draft Permit Appears to Lack Full and Complete Analysis From the outset, it should be noted that the Draft Permit appears to lack a full and complete level of analysis. The 2005 Fact Sheet explicitly states that the site is a “major facility.” Fact Sheet at 4. Yet the Addendum states “Ecology has not received any additional information which indicates that environmental impacts from the wastewater discharge of this operation warrants a complete rewrite of the permit.” Addendum at 1. Further, the Addendum explains that Ecology “determined that it should not

rank the facility as a high priority for renewal,” and that it “assigns a high priority for permit renewals in situations were water quality would benefit from a more stringent permit during the next five

- year cycle.” Addendum at 3. Conservation Organizations understand these statements to mean that a lower level of review and analysis occurred in the review and drafting of the Draft Permit than with other permits, such as the TransAlta Generation, LLC coal

- fired power plant NPDES permit (Permit No. WA0001546).

Ecology has not stated any legal basis for an “expedited” or less rigorous level of permit review, nor in the distinction between a renewal and a “rewrite.” Conservation Organizations have been unable to ascertain any legal basis for such a distinction. Accordingly, the decision on the part of Ecology to engage in less than a full analysis appears arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

Further, there is no evidence of any recent inspections of the facility. The Fact Sheet indicates that the facility was last inspected on April 4, 1994. Fact Sheet at 5. There is nothing in the Addendum that indicates a subsequent inspection, and EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online system

indicates that this was the last date of a NPDES

- related inspection. If there has been any subsequent inspection, the results of that inspection should be included in the Fact Sheet and incorporated into the analysis for the Draft Permit. If there has not been such an inspection, one should be conducted before issuing a N PDES permit.

In light of the fact that this permit is a “major facility,” and the fact that this permit is physically connected through the pond 3E system to the coal plant facility, which appears to have been a “high priority” or “rewrite” permit, Ecolog y should conduct a full and thorough analysis of the instant Draft

Permit.Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 30 Response 8 :

Ecology is not required to rewrite the entire fact sheet every five year just because the permit says it is a “major facility.” Even though Ecology did not rewrite the entire fact sheet during this permit cycle, the permit was rewritten and all monitoring and compliance data was analyzed and addendums to the fact sheet were created. All requirements are discussed in the fact sheet addendum and the permit is adjusted

acc ordingly. Ecology compared and analyzed the database against the surface water quality standards. This analysis and evaluation is presented in the fact sheet addendum. Ecology also reviewed the EPA’s memorandum of April 2010 and has required TCM to cond uct the WET testing and additional monitoring for sulfate, TDS and conductivity. In this new permit it has additional requirements that were not included in the last permit. Just because Ecology does not rewrite the entire Fact sheet does not mean that Eco logy did not do a “rigorous” analysis. The requirements for rewriting a permit’s fact sheet depend on the number of significant changes which occur at the permit site between the 5 year cycle. Ecology typically reauthorized the permit when there are no sig nificant changes in the operation that guarantee the rewriting the fact sheet of the permit. Ecology only reauthorizes permits for one 5

- year permit cycle. In other words, in 201 6 , Ecology will rewrite this permit’s fact sheet.

In terms of inspections, E cology did conduct a sampling inspection on March 14, 2006 and non sampling inspection on June 3, 2005 during the five year permit cycle. In the next five year cycle, Ecology will conduct more than one inspection and one inspection will include sampling.

Comment 9:

The Permit Does Not Require BAT and AKART BAT and AKART must be required in the Permit regardless of the status of the receiving waters and the discharge’s effects on the water. The Draft Permit reflects no analysis or determination of best t reatment technologies or of all known and reasonable treatment technologies for the pollutants and waste streams at issue. Indeed, as noted supra in the discussion of waste streams, it is unclear from the Fact Sheet and Addendum what technologies are curre ntly in place, and what type of flocculation technology, if any, is used. See generally Fact Sheet, Addendum, and Draft Permit. Indeed, there is not even a flow diagram that corresponds to Outfall 007. Thus, Ecology has failed to carry out its duty of dem onstrating that BAT and AKART requirements have been met.

Response 9 :

The permit limits are based on best available technology, BAT, as described under federal law 40CFR 434. BAT does not require a discharger to monitor their wastewater for temperature and dissolved oxygen. Therefore, Ecology has implemented state surface water quality standards by placing monitoring requirements on temperature and dissolved oxygen. Ecology also conducted water quality based reasonable potential analysis for the priority pollutants. This process demonstrates adherence to AKART.

Outfall 007 does not exist and therefore a flow chart is not needed.

Comment 10:

The Permit Violates 40 C.F.R. 122.44(d) and WAC 173

- 220

- 130 The Draft Permit, Fact Sheet, and Addendum are devoid of narrative descriptions of how water quality standards are violated. It is possible that the discharge violates narrative water quality standards for copper given that the testing shows reasonable po tential for copper levels of 1.5 μ g/L, which are close to

the 2 μ g/L level that can adversely affect fish. Further, pH can affect the concentration of dissolvedAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 31 metals, and the Draft Permit allows a pH range from 6

- 9. Thus, it appears possible that coppe r concentrations could exceed 2 μ g/L in discharges with a lower pH.

Response 10 :

Ecology conducted a water quality criteria based reasonable potential analysis for the pollutants that were detected in TCM’s discharge, to determine if there is a reasonabl e potential that the P ermittee would exceed the surface water quality standards. This reasonable potential analysis showed that there was not a reasonable potential that the P ermittee would exceed the surface water quality standard for the detected pollut ants. Please see this analysis in Table 3, page 14, of the fact sheet addendum.

Comment 11:

The Conservation Organizations also have concerns regarding sulfate levels. Washington does not have a numeric water quality standards for sulfates, therefore, t he narrative standard applies to protect designated uses of Hanaford Creek and other downstream waters. 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d)(1)(vi) requires states to assess pollutants against narratives standards and designated uses, and if the pollutant has the reasona ble potential to cause a violation of the narrative standard, to set calculated effluent limits designed to attain the narrative standard. It is unclear to what extent Ecology has properly assessed sulfate against its

narrative criterion. The Addendum show s relatively high concentrations of sulfates. Addendum at 13. Further, EPA 2010 Guidance recommends using conductivity as a measure of water quality. As noted supra, EPA expects that the conductivity impacts of projects with predicted conductivity levels below 300 microSiemens/cm generally will not cause a water quality standard violation and that in

- stream conductivity levels above 500 microSiemens/cm are likely to be associated with adverse impacts that may

rise to the level of exceedances of narrative state water quality standards. Guidance at 12. Here, the Draft Permit, Fact Sheet, and Addendum contain no discussion of conductivity, nor explicit discussion of EPA’s recent guidance. Ecology should consider the conductivity dimension, and its implicat ions for aquatic ecosystem quality, discussed in EPA’s April 1, 2010 Guidance.

Response 11 :

The new permit requires the P ermittee to monitor the TDS, sulfate, and conductivity, in addition to this,

the P ermittee is required to conduct the WET testing and submit the results to Ecology. These are new requirement in the proposed new permit. The reasons why Ecology is not placing a specific limitation on sulfate in this permit is because Washington state and federal current law does not have established

surf ace water quality standards for sulfate, TDS and conductivity. EPA’s memo dated April 1 st , 2010, “Detailed Guidance Improving EPA Review of Appalachian Surface Coal Mining Operations under the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and the Environmental Justice Executive”, provided guidance for limits on conductivity but it was ap plicable to the Appalachian area of the United States. Ecology has taken into consideration this recent EPA memo by requiring this P ermittee to do monitoring of these parameters. Another reason why limits are not currently being placed on these three

par ameters is because, we do not have sufficient data to establish sulfate, TDS and conductivity permit

limits on this P ermittee.

Comment 12:

In terms of temperature and dissolved oxygen, Ecology fails to impose limits in the Permit sufficient to

ensure tha t water quality standards are met, in violation of 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) and WAC 173

- 220

- 130. Rather, Ecology sets interim limits for temperature and dissolved oxygen, allows a three

- year study, and only proposes final temperature and dissolved oxygen lim its that go into effect on January 1, 2015. ThereAddendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 32 is no need for a study. As noted supra, there is a history of noncompliance of this mining facility with temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. Ecology must set a limit now.

A compliance schedule may n ot be used in this case for some, if not all, pollutants. After July 1, 1977, NPDES permits must require immediate compliance for effluent limitations that are based on water quality standards adopted before July 1, 1977. For standards adopted after that date, Ecology may allow compliance schedules only if they have first clearly indicated in its water quality standards submitted to EPA that it intends to allow compliance schedules for meeting WQBELs. See EPA Memorandum “Compliance Schedules for Water Qua lity

- Based Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits,” May 10, 2007, copy enclosed, (citing In the Matter of Star

- Kist Caribe, Inc., 3 E.A.D. 172, 175, 177 (1990)). To the extent that any of the standards in question (including narrative standards) were adopte d prior to July 1, 1977, Ecology cannot allow a compliance schedule for TransAlta to meet WQBELs necessary to achieve or maintain those standards. For standards adopted after July 1977, Ecology must comply with the requirements for compliance schedules set forth in the EPA May 2007 Memorandum.

The study is decidedly not a “compliance schedule.” It is wholly inconsistent with requirements for compliance schedules. Under both federal and state permitting requirements, a compliance schedule must bring a P ermi ttee into compliance as soon as possible, but not later than applicable CWA statutory deadlines, and it must do so with interim deadlines requiring specific actions. 40 C.F.R. § 122.47; WAC

173

- 220

- 140. As stated by EPA in its May 2007 Memorandum, any com pliance schedule in an NPDES permit must be an “enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with a [water quality

- based] effluent limitation[“WQBEL”] as required by the definition of “schedule of compliance in section 502(17) of the CWA.” EPA May 2007

Memorandum, p. 2 (emphasis added.) EPA emphasizes throughout the memorandum that schedules of compliance must actually set and require compliance with the WQBEL. Id. Further, EPA sets out very specific findings before a compliance sch edule is warranted, none of which have been made here. Id. Finally, EPA is clear that compliance schedules cannot be used to wait for completion of TMDL studies or for the development of Use Attainability Analyses.

The provisions in the permit regarding a study are not a compliance schedule as they do not bring TransAlta into compliance with the requirement of the Clean Water Act to apply BAT and WQBELs or with state law to comply with AKART. Further, TransAlta has three years to complete a study of

inform ation that should have been developed and provided as part of TransAlta’s permit renewal application obligations. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that it takes three years to develop and implement a study that is primarily simply characterizin g TransAlta’s waste stream. Waiting for the study is akin to waiting for a TMDL or UAA. Ecology must amend the permit to provide for BAT and AKART and set actual WQBELs.

Response 12 :

Ecology conducted a water quality based reasonable potential analysis which showed that the P ermittee would meet the surface water quality standards, except for temperature and dissolved oxygen. Temperature and dissolved oxygen were an exception this rece nt analysis because there are new surface quality standards for these parameters. In order for this P ermittee to meet these new standards, Ecology has given them a compliance schedule in order for the P ermittee to evaluate the AKART to meet the new

limits. The compliance schedule in this permit provides a timeline for the Permittee to conduct AKART analysis and ultimately comply with the water quality standards. The background study for temperature and dissolved oxygen is part of the AKART. The complianc e schedule is consistent with the requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 301, 40 CFR 122.47

, WAC 173

-Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 33 220

- 140 and Ecology’s Water Quality Program Guidance on implementing the State’s Temperature Standards through TMDLs and NPDES Permits

.

Comment 13:

The Permit Violates Federal Requirements f or Variances f

rom Water Quality Standards a nd f or Downgrading of Water Quality

Because the Permit fails to include limits necessary to ensure that water quality standards are met in receiving waters, and because the Permit does not include a valid compliance schedule, the Permit allows a variance from water quality standards for at least the term of the Permit and will allow for the downgrading and failure to protect beneficial uses f or the term of the Permit. Given these circumstances, Ecology has failed to comply with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.1, 131.10(g), 131.10(h) and the EPA NPDES Permit Writers Manual and EPA Water Quality Standards Handbook.

Federal law and permitti ng requirements are clear on when a state may allow a variance from water quality standards or under what circumstances a state may allow a downgrading of a water body. EPA’s NPDES Permit Writers Manual, chapter 10 sets forth the procedures and requirement s for state or EPA permit writers when assessing a variance like the one that will effectively be in place for TransAlta in this Permit. Section 10.2.3 provides:

Water quality standards variances require similar substantive and procedural requirements as removing a designated use, but unlike use removal, variances are both discharger and pollutant specific, are time

limited, and do not forego the currently designated use of a water body. A variance is appropriate where

the state believes that the standard can be ultimately attained. By maintaining the standard rather than changing it, the state will assure that further progress is made in improving the water quality and attaining the standard. \

USEPA NPDES Permit Writers Manual, EPA 833

- B

- 96

- 003, Office of Water (Dec. 1996). See also USEPA Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition, EPA 823

- B

- 94

- 005a, Office of Water, 2.7 (updated July 2007).

Removal of a use or granting of a variance is subject to very specific conditions. To remove a designated

us e (or grant a variance from water quality standards) the state must adhere to 40 C.F.R. 131.10(g). There is no demonstration here that Ecology has applied the factors and done the analysis required for a variance from water quality standards for TransAlta . Moreover, given the factors required for such analysis, and given that technology standards have not been met in this Permit, Conservation Organizations assert that a variance (or a downgrading in the use) is not supported in this case and the

Permit sh ould not allow the implicit variance that is currently part of the proposed Permit.

Response 13 :

Ecology has not given this P ermittee a variance from federal law because federal law allows states to give dischargers a reasonable timeline to determine how they will comply with the new law and limits for temperature and dissolved oxygen. Ecology requires the P ermittee to complete the study within 3 years and in the fourth year of the permit cycle, new limits will be applied. Ecology’s compliance schedule

c onforms with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 301, 40 CFR 122.47

, WAC 173

- 220

- 140 and Ecology’s Water Quality Program Guidance on implementing the State’s Temperature Standards through TMDLs and NPDES Permits.

Comment 1 4:Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 34 A Mixing Zone i s Inappropriate f or t hese Pollutants a nd f

or Hanaford Creek As noted above, it is not clear that a mixing zone has been applied in this Permit. In the event a mixing zone is contemplated, Conservation Organizations object to allowance o f a mixing zone when TransAlta has not been required to fully apply BAT or AKART prior to being allowed a mixing zone. Conservation Organizations also object to any mixing zone for toxic and accumulative pollutants such as copper or mercury or ammonia or p ollutants that accumulate and express problems downstream such as nutrients. A mixing zone is also inappropriate where, as here, anadromous fish use the receiving water. Conservation Organizations further object to any mixing zone that fails to follow the constraints of WAC 173

- 201A

400 to meet the most restrictive combination of the following:

The mixing zone may not extend in a downstream direction for a distance from outfall 001 greater than three hundred feet plus the depth of the water over outfall 001, or extend upstream for a distance of over one hundred feet;

The mixing zone may not utilize greater than 25 percent of the flow, and The mixing zone may not occupy greater than 25 percent of the width of water body.

Response 14 :

The proposed new dr aft permit does not authorize a mixing zone.

Comment 15:Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 35 Response 15:

See responses to the comments 1 through 11.

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING COMMENTS RECEIVED ON 11/30/2010

Comment1:

The draft revised NPDES permit includes new monitoring requirements for Total Dissolved Solids, Sulfate and Conductivity. Monitoring of these 3 constituents is consistent with OSM’s currently approved surface water quality monitoring requirements for the Centralia Mine.

Response 1 :

Comments noted

Comment2:

The revised draft NPDES permit also includes new Stipulations #10 and #11 which require Acute Toxicity Testing and Chronic Toxicity Testing at outfall monitoring locations 2 and 4, associated with the sedimentation pond 6 and 20 systems respecti vely. OSM notes that both of these pond systems currently, or have in the past, received drainage from coal mine waste impoundments.

Response 2 :

Comments noted

Comment 3 :

OSM has only one suggested revision of the draft permit. OSM recommends that you revise Page 15 of the ADDENDUM TO THE FACT SHEET by labeling all of the effluent monitoring locations by their numerical identification, as depicted on the cover page of the Draft NPDES permit, instead of or in

addition to the acro nyms currently shown. For example, you would show the monitoring location from the Pond 20 series as #004 rather than or in addition to LNHC. OSM believes this revision may provide the casual user of the permit with an easier means of cross

- referencing t he discharge locations with the effluent limits and sampling frequencies shown in the tables on pages 6

- 8 of the Special Conditions section of the permit.

Response 3:

Figure 1, page 15, in the fact sheet addendum shows both the acronyms and numeric numbe rs for the effluent monitoring points.

TCM COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DECEMBER 6, 2010

Comment 1:

Page 4, S9: The word "Please" should be changed to the word "See".Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 36 Response 1 :

The word “Please” is changed to the word “See”.

Comment 2:

Page 4, Sl0: TCM requests that the "summer" period include the months of May through November and that such clarification be noted in the permit. Due to temperature restrictions, it is likely that TCM may not be discharging during the June

- October timeframe thus TCM woul d not be able to comply with the permit unless these months are allowed for summer testing.

Response 2 :

The summer WET testing requirement is changed from “summer” to “May through November”.

Comment 3:

Page 6, Table 1: TCM has reported flow data from the up gradient stream site for two prior permit cycles. To date, TCM has not used nor seen WDOE utilize this data to support permit renewals. There are no parameters at any outfalls that are tied directly to the flow value of the receiving waters. Additi onally, during events of 3" or greater TCM personnel will be concentrating on ensuring that discharges from the permitted outfalls are maintained while the creek at the proposed sampling location would build near flood levels with no influence from the per mitted area. Therefore, TCM requests that this monitoring and reporting requirement be removed from the permit.

Response 3 :

The next permit effective March, 2011 requires TCM to conduct background study on the temperature and dissolved for three years

. This flow monitoring at the upstream of Hanford Creek will assist in establishing a correlation between temperature and dissolved oxygen in Hanaford Creek

. This flow could be used to set the flow based temperature and dissolved oxygen limits in the future. Therefore, Ecology

will keep this flow monitoring requirements at least for the three years of the new permit’s compliance

schedule

.

Comment 4:

Pages 6 and 7, Table 2: The proposed permit states that for rainfall events greater than 1.5" in 24

- hours, Turbidity limits are to be based on background rather than using the empirical values established in the upper portion of the same Table 2. TCM is confiden t that under these circumstances that the empirical values can be met and request that the turbidity standard calculated utilizing the background or upgradient

stream value as described in Table 2 be removed.

Response 4 :

The storm event greater than 1.5 inches 24

- hour turbidity background data that TCM submitted to Ecology produces a more stringent turbidity limit than the numeric criteria. Therefore, Ecology will not remove the rainfall event based turbidity criteria.

Comment 5:Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 37 Page 7, Table 2: Footnote c. should be corrected to state the TPH limits are only applicable to outfalls 002 & 010 as agreed to previously.

Response 5 :

Footnote “c” is corrected and it states that the effluent limits are only applicable to outfalls 002 and 010.

Comment 6:

Page 7, the 2 nd Table 2: There are two consecutive tables labeled as Table 2. Need to correct the naming

convention. Also, there are footnotes indicated in the headings of this table but no footnotes are found.

TCM has noted what a ppear to be the correct footnotes are included in a similar table on Page 2 of the

Addendum to the Fact Sheet. Please add the footnotes in the appropriate location on Page 7 of the permit.

Response 6 :

Table 2 titled “Proposed Final Effluent Limits for Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen (January 1, 2015)

is renumbered as Table 3. Also footnotes 1 and 2 are added to Table 3. These two footnotes state the following:

1 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173

- 201A

- 200(d)(i)

2 Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173

- 201A

- 200(c)(i)

Comment 7:

Page 7, S2: The table in this section states that conductivity be measured using laboratory methods. TCM request that given the longstanding, established reliability with today's field monitors that TCM be allowed to report the field values as opposed to paying additional cost for laboratory results.

Response 7 :

Ecology has changed the conductivity test requirement from “grab sample” to “field test”. This requirement is in agreement with the Ecology’s policy. The conductivity testing procedure is stated on page 10 of the permit under the “laboratory accreditation” requirements. The policy states the following.

“The Permitte e must ensure that all monitoring data required by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) is prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173

- 50 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Accreditation of Environmental Laborato ries. Flow, temperature, settleable solids, conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen and internal process control parameters are exempt from this requirement.”

Comment 8 :

Page 19, S9: Subsections A through D need to be separated; they all run together with sub section A.

Response 8 :

S9, Subsections A through D are separated.

Comment 9 :Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA

- 0037338

Page 38 Page 20, SIO B 2: TCM believes that there is ty pographical error requiring "24

- hour composite effluent samples". TCM believes the requirement in this section should read "4 hour composite effluent samples".

Response 9 :

. It is not a typographical error but a standard practice which is stated in the EPA’s publication titled “Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality Ba sed Permitting for Toxic Pollutants, EPA 440/4

- 87, July

1987.” The 24

- hour composite sample means a series of individual samples collected over a 24

- hour period into a single container, and analyzed as one sample.

Comment 10 :

Page 22, S 11 B 2: TCM bel ieves that there is typographical error requiring "24

- hour composite effluent samples". TCM believes the requirement in this section should read "4 hour composite effluent samples".

Response 10 :

It is not a typographical error but a standard practice which is stated in the EPA’s publication titled “Permit Writer’s Guide to Water Quality Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants, EPA 440/4

- 87, July

1987.” The 24

- hour composite sample means a series of individual samples collected over a 24

- hour period into a single container, and analyzed as one sample.