1

Site Visit Report

Quindaro Power Station

3601 North 12th Street

Kansas City, KS 66104

March 3, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 

316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that reflect the best technology

available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing 

power plants and manufacturing facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is

visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling 

water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at typical facilities, including 

the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection 

and performance of CWIS technologies. EPA is also visiting facilities to better 

understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 

316(b) compliance. Quindaro was selected for a site visit due to its location on a 

large freshwater river.

2.0 Facility Description

The Quindaro Power Plant is owned and operated by the Kansas City Board of 

Public Utilities (BPU) and is located in Kansas City, Kansas along the Missouri

River. The facility is located on approximately 200 acres. The Quindaro Power 

Plant employs approximately 100 people.

Cooling and process water withdrawals from and wastewater discharges to the 

Missouri River are regulated under NPDES permit number KS0080942 which 

expired on December 31, 2008. Quindaro submitted its NPDES permit 

application in a timely manner and is awaiting renewal of its permit by the state.

 

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

The Quindaro Power Plant has two generating units. Units 1 and 2 have a 

generating capacity of 145 MW and 83 MW, respectively. Unit 1 is a baseload 

unit, while Unit 2 tends to be load-following. The overall capacity utilization rate 

(CUR) at Quindaro is approximately 76%. The fuel source for Unit 1 (a cyclone 

blower) is crushed coal while the fuel source for Unit 2 is pulverized coal. Both 

units utilize Powder River Basin coal from Wyoming. Quindaro also has three 

combustion turbines onsite.
2

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

Quindaro has one CWIS that provides once-through cooling water for both 

generating units. The CWIS is fitted with a trash rack and four standard (i.e., 

coarse mesh 3/8”) traveling screens (two for each generating unit).1In addition,

four circulating water pumps (one per screen) provide 70 MGD each of cooling 

water to each generating unit, for a total design intake flow (DIF) of 280 million 

gallons per day (mgd). The through-screen velocity is 4.4 feet per second (fps). 

The screens rotate either on a timer or when the pressure differential across the 

screen reaches a specified amount allowing for cleaning with a high pressure 

spray that flows into a debris trough which discharges to the Missouri River. 

Facility representatives indicated they have had no issues with the CWIS or 

screen operation. However, they indicated mud accumulation can occur. In

addition, as necessary, Quindaro introduces warm water prior to the CWIS which 

effectively prevents icing. It does not add biocides. Quindaro does not have 

regularly scheduled overhaul or maintenance periods for the CWIS. Rather, it 

performs CWIS maintenance and rebuild on an as-needed basis.

The depth of the Missouri River is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

During low river depth conditions (winter), Quindaro lacks an adequate cooling 

water supply for both units. In an effort to boost water intake during low flow 

conditions, Quindaro installs additional temporary pumps to supplement cooling 

water intake.2 Quindaro indicated that the supplemental pumps solved their low 

water level issue. They noted little problem with their operation, but that sand is 

sometimes an issue with the supplemental pumps.

Quindaro’s CWIS also withdraws cooling water for auxiliary cooling 

requirements so it withdraws water even when the generating units are not 

operating. By design, Quindaro has strainers on its auxiliary cooling system. 

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

Quindaro collected impingement samples in 2005. During the sampling period, 

Quindaro conducted 24 hour impingement sampling every other week for a year 

for a total of 24 sampling events. 

In total, Quindaro impinged 91 fish accounting for 14 species during the sampling 

events. Freshwater drum accounted for 45% of the impinged fish. Based on these 

sampling results, Quindaro estimates its annual impingement mortality to be 

1,360 fish (or approximately 1,100 if gizzard shad are removed from the count). 

 

1 The circulating water was originally screened by strainers as well; a strainer was located upstream of the 

circulating pump for Unit 1 and a strainer was downstream of the pump in Unit 2.

2 The emergency pumps use only a fixed screen and are not designed for fish protection. The pumps 

transport water to the existing screenwell, where water passes through the traveling screens.
3

This figure has not been adjusted to account for moribund species such as gizzard 

shad.

Quindaro has not conducted any entrainment or ambient sampling, but indicated 

that various other organizations have conducted ambient sampling of the Missouri 

River.

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

Quindaro has many decommissioned units on site.3 In addition, the site houses a 

former municipal drinking water treatment plant which encompasses a significant 

portion of the site acreage. The Quindaro drinking water plant is currently on 

standby, but facility representatives indicated there are no plans to bring it back 

online any time soon, as a newer drinking water treatment plant is located 

upstream. This newer plant provides extensive treatment to enable water 

withdrawals from the Missouri River to be utilized for drinking water. Facility

representatives indicated that space would not be a constraining factor if cooling 

towers were required because of land associated with the unused operations. 

Quindaro indicated that, due to their somewhat unique ownership, the major 

impediment to cooling towers would be funding. See Section 10.0.

7.0 Debris Handling

Quindaro does not have significant problems with debris loading. Facility

representatives noted an increased level of debris against the screen during high 

river levels, but did not indicate this additional level of debris impacted 

operations. Also see Section 4.0.

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

Quindaro has no current plans for re-powering or upgrades. However, facility

representatives noted that existing power generation capacity and demand are 

very tight. 

9.0 Cooling Ponds

There are no cooling ponds on site.

10.0 Ownership

Quindaro is owned by the Kansas City Board of Public Utilities. It is a public 

entity owned by Kansas City. As such, the city government controls its rates and 

expenditures with the goal being that revenues raised equal to production costs 

 

3 The current facility is the third generation power plant at the site. BPU is celebrating its 100 year 

anniversary soon. Five units onsite have been mothballed since the 1930s.
4

(i.e., no profit). All capital funds are funded through bonds which must be 

approved by an elected board of officials.

11.0 316(a)

Quindaro indicated they have no 316 (a) issues.

12.0 Ash Handling

All of Quindaro’s bottom and fly ash is hauled offsite and sold. The facility has a 

permitted landfill but it is not currently utilized.

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

EPA did not collect any information on air emissions controls at this site.

14.0 Additional Information

While Quindaro completed an impingement study and a technology feasibly

evaluation study for the 2004 Phase II rule, it did not reach any conclusions as to 

how it had planned to comply with the rule.

Quindaro discussed its consideration of ways to increase power production at the 

site to meet the demand. While the facility has no current plans for expansion or 

upgrades, it determined the lowest cost solution would be to add a new coal unit. 

A combined cycle unit is less attractive because of the cost of natural gas. In 

addition, facility representatives noted that natural gas costs fluctuate increasing 

the uncertainty associated with the technology. BPU considered purchasing 

power from other local facilities, but no capacity is available. Finally, facility 

representatives noted BPU has some wind and hydroelectric capacity, but that the 

infrastructure to transmit such power does not exist due to a lack of dedicated 

transmission lines.

Attachments

Attachment A List of Attendees

Attachment B Aerial Photos

Attachment C Site Visit Photos
5

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA Headquarters

Jan Matuszko, EPA Headquarters

Jamie Hurley, EPA Headquarters

John Dunn, EPA Region VII

Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

Patrick Cassidy, Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Michael Yarnevich, Kansas City Board of Public Utilities

Kira Bluebaum, Burns and McDonnell

Gregory Howick, Burns and McDonnell
6

Attachment B--Aerial Photos

Please see DCN 10-6523A accompanying this document.

Attachment C—Site Visit Photos

Please see DCNs 10-6523B through I accompanying this document.