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 an application to the Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) on January 20, 2009 for permit reissuance, 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.

The 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 reissues 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 the permit and is part of the existing fact sheet, which 

Ecology proposes to reauthorize for the discharge of TCM treated wastewater/stormwater

to Hanaford, Packwood and Mitchell Creeks. 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 previous fact sheet explains the basis for the discharge limitations 

and conditions of the reauthorized permit and remains as part of the administrative record

for the current permit.

This addendum includes Figure 1 which shows the boundary of the mining area and 

effluent monitoring locations. Figures 2, 3 and 4 have been revised with new information 

and they show the treatment 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 

reports as a part of TCM’s permit renewal application. Ecology evaluated these laboratory results 
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 2

against the surface water quality standards. Most pollutants were non-detects. The pollutants that 

were detected met the surface water quality standards. Ecology also conducted a reasonable 

potential analysis for the metal priority pollutants listed in Table 3 of appendix B of this 

addendum. This analysis showed that there is no reasonable potential that the Permittee will 

exceed the surface water quality standards for these metals. The new proposed draft permit 

requires the Permittee 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 Permittee 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 Code 

(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 Permittee a compliance schedule. This compliance schedule requires the Permittee 

to collect the background temperature and dissolved oxygen data for the receiving water bodies 

(Hanaford, Packwood and Mitchell Creeks). Background data will form one of the bases for the 

new limits for temperature and dissolved oxygen. During the meantime, the Permittee 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 Daily

Minimum

Monthly 

Averagea

Daily

Maximumb

Minimum 

Sampling 

Frequency

Sample Type

Temperature, °C N/A 18 18 Monthly 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, calculated 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/L1 Highest 7-DADMax, Temperature oC

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.

Outfalls: 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

16oC (60.8oF) or when water body’s 

temperature is warmer that the criteria of 16oC 

(or within 0.3oC (0.54oF) of 16oC) 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 0.3oC (0.54 oF).

Outfalls: 003, 004

17.5oC or when water body’s temperature is 

warmer that the criteria of 17.5oC (or within 
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 3

considered cumulatively may not cause the D.O. of that 

water body to decrease more than 0.2 mg/L

0.3oC of 17.5oC) 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 0.3oC.

1Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173-201A-200(d)(i)

2Water 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 reissue 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 rewriting a permit rather than reauthorizing it. Ecology assesses each permit that is 

expiring and due for reissuance and compares 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 rewrite and those it plans to reauthorize. Ecology considers all relevant comments and 

suggestions before it makes a final decision.

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 dates for reports and adjusts certain limits to conform to revised Washington 

Administrative 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 requirements 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 public notice the availability of the draft reauthorized permit at least 30 days before 

it reissues the permit [Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-220-050]. Ecology invites 

you to review and comment on its decision to reauthorize the permit (see Appendix 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 include 

the resultant changes to the permit and either address each comment individually or summarize 

the substantive comments and respond. Ecology sends a copy of the response to comments to all 

parties who submitted comments. Ecology will include the response 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 Notice 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 evaluation (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 listed 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 application
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 6

Table 1: Continued
Addendum 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: Continued
Addendum 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 002 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) μg/L 176 50 1

Total Antimony (Sb) μg/L <0.5 <0.5 0.5

Total Arsenic (As) μg/L 0.3 0.3 0.1

Total Barium (Ba) μg/L 56 49 1

Total Beryllium (Be) μg/L <0.1 <0.1 0.1

Total Boron (B) μg/L 1290 4490 50

Total Cadmium (Cd) μg/L 0.05 0.02 0.01

Total Chromium (Cr) μg/L <1 <1 1

Total Cobalt (Co) μg/L 2.5 <0.5 0.5

Total Copper (Cu) μg/L 1.5 0.9 0.2

Total Iron (Fe) μg/L 234 97 5
Addendum 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 002 RDL Outfall 004 RDL Comments

Total Lead (Pb) μg/L <0.2 <0.2 0.2

Total Manganese (Mn) μg/L 318 202 0.2

Total Mercury (Hg) μg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02

Total Molybdenum (Mo) μg/L 3 6 1

Total Nickel (Ni) μg/L 10 8 1

Total Selenium (Se) μg/L 0.2 1.3 0.1

Total Silver (Ag) μg/L <0.02 <0.02 0.02

Total Thallium (Tl) μg/L <0.05 <0.05 0.05

Total Tin (Sn) μg/L <5 <5 5

Total Titanium (Ti) μg/L 7 <5 5

Total Zinc (Zn) μg/L 26 8 5

Total Magnesium (Mg) μg/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 1
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 15

Figure 1: Centralia mine boundaries and effluent monitoring locations
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 16
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 17
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 18
Addendum 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 Environmental Justice 

Executive, April 1, 2010.

3) EPA Technical Support Document (TSD) for Water Quality –based Toxic Control, EPA/505/2-

90-001

4) Surface Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201A, 2006

5) Permit Renewal Application Submittals

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 06-10-100
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 20

APPENDIX D—REFERENCES

EARTHJUSTICE COMMENTS 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 enclosed. 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 projects 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 process. 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 Washington State’s surface water quality standards, WAC173-201A. In reviewing this memo (EPA’s memorandum of April 1, 2010) and laboratory reports 

submitted by TCM, Ecology concluded that the Permittee must obtain more data on the conductivity, 

sulfate and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the next permit cycle. The last permit did not have these 

requirements but this new permit requires the Permittee 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 Permittee 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 Field” 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 facility. 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 Mining: 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 currently occurring at the facility that affect or may affect effluent 

discharge.

Similarly, the Fact Sheet and Addendum provide an unclear description of the treatment
Addendum 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 diagrams 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 Counties 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, Ecology considers this site closed for mining and it is 

considered a reclamation site. Ecology has added 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 

outfalls 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 injection 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 occurs 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 drains to the main stem of the Chehalis 
Addendum 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 steelhead 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 Discharging 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 Permit 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 subsequent 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 Sheet or 

file of how violations will be avoided in the future. Indeed, the Addendum merely notes that the Permittee 

“has, for the most part, adhered to terms, conditions, requirements, and schedule of compliance of the 

expired permit.”

Third, the facility appears 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 requiring 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 Permittee would 

exceed the surface water quality standards. This reasonable potential analysis showed that there was not 

a reasonable potential that the Permittee 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.

The 2005 permit did not have a BOD monitoring requirement and therefore the Permittee 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 temperature 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 issued 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 Fraction

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

s
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 24

Date Parameter Units Fraction

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

s
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 25

Date Parameter Units Fraction

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

s
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 26

Date Parameter Units Fraction

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

s
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 27

The new draft permit requires the Permittee to monitor the TDS, sulfate, and conductivity, in addition to 

this, the Permittee is required to conduct the WET testing 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 established surface water quality standards for sulfate, TDS and 

conductivity. EPA’s memo dated April 1st, 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 

applicable to the Appalachian area of the United States. Ecology has taken into consideration this recent 

EPA memo by requiring this Permittee to do monitoring of these parameters. Another reason why limits 

are not currently being placed on these three parameters is because, Ecology does not have sufficient data 

to establish sulfate, TDS and conductivity permit limits on this Permittee.

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 analysis 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 data 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 maintain 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 water.

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 unless such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest. Tier II 
Addendum 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 applies 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 effluent 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 narrative 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 requirements 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 standards. 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 reasonable 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 arsenic, 

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 expressed 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 health. 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 estimate 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 Permittee 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 Permittee 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 facility. 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 page 13 of the draft fact sheet addendum, the concentration of copper of 

1.5 μg/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 μg/L is below the surface water quality standards. 

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 NPDES 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, Ecology 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 

accordingly. 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 conduct 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 Ecology 

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 significant 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 2016, Ecology will rewrite this permit’s fact sheet. 

In terms of inspections, Ecology 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 treatment 

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 currently 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 demonstrating 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 potential for copper levels of 1.5 μg/L, which are close to 

the 2 μg/L level that can adversely affect fish. Further, pH can affect the concentration of dissolved 
Addendum 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 copper 

concentrations could exceed 2 μg/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 reasonable potential that the Permittee would 

exceed the surface water quality standards. This reasonable potential analysis showed that there was not 

a reasonable potential that the Permittee 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.

Comment 11:

The Conservation Organizations also have concerns regarding sulfate levels. Washington does not have a 

numeric water quality standards for sulfates, therefore, the 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 reasonable 

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 shows 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 implications for 

aquatic ecosystem quality, discussed in EPA’s April 1, 2010 Guidance.

Response 11:

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

the Permittee 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 

surface water quality standards for sulfate, TDS and conductivity. EPA’s memo dated April 1st, 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 applicable to the Appalachian area of the United 

States. Ecology has taken into consideration this recent EPA memo by requiring this Permittee to do 

monitoring of these parameters. Another reason why limits are not currently being placed on these three 

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

limits on this Permittee.

Comment 12:

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

ensure that 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 limits that go into effect on January 1, 2015. There 
Addendum 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 not 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 Quality-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 adopted 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 Permittee 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 compliance 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 schedule 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 

information 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 characterizing 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 Permittee 

would meet the surface water quality standards, except for temperature and dissolved oxygen. 

Temperature and dissolved oxygen were an exception this recent analysis because there are new surface 

quality standards for these parameters. In order for this Permittee to meet these new standards, Ecology 

has given them a compliance schedule in order for the Permittee 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 compliance 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 for Variances from Water Quality Standards and for 

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 for 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 permitting 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 requirements 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 timelimited, 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 

use (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 should not allow the implicit variance that is currently part of the proposed Permit.

Response 13:

Ecology has not given this Permittee 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 Permittee 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 

conforms 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 14:
Addendum to the Fact Sheet

For NPDES Permit No. WA-0037338

Page 34

A Mixing Zone is Inappropriate for these Pollutants and for 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 of 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 pollutants 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 173-201A400 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 draft 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 respectively. 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 acronyms 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 the 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 numbers 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 would 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. Additionally, 

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 permitted 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 confident 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 appear 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:

1Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, WAC, 173-201A-200(d)(i)

2Water 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 Permittee 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 Laboratories. 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 subsection 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 typographical 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 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.

Comment 10:

Page 22, S 11 B 2: TCM believes 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.