1 Site Visit Report Quindaro Power Station 3601 North 12 th 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 b etter understand the cooling water intake structure (CWI S) technologies in use at ty pical facilities, including the site

- specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies. EPA is also visitin g 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 Pl ant 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 employ s 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 awai ting 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, whil e Unit 2 te nds to be load

- following. The overall capacit y utilization rate (CUR) at Quindaro is approximately 76%

. The fuel source for Unit 1 (a cy clone blower) is crushed coal while the fuel source for Unit 2 is pulverized coal. B oth units utilize Powder River Ba sin coal from Wy oming

. Quindaro also has three combustion turbines onsite.2

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure Quindaro has one CWI S that provide s once - through cooling water for both generating units

. The CWI S is fitted with a trash rack and four standard (i.e., coarse mesh 3/8”) traveling screens (two for each generating unit). 1 Inaddition , 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. Facilit y representatives indicated they have had no issu es with the CWI S or screen operation. However, they indicated mud accumulation can occur. In addition, as necessary , Quindaro introduces warm water prior to the CWI S which effectivel y prevents icing. Itdoes not add biocides. Quindaro does not have regularl y scheduled overhaul or maintenance periods for the CWI S. Rather, it performs CWI S maintenance and rebuild on an as

- needed basis. The depth of the Missouri River is controlled by the Arm y Corps of Engineers. During low river depth conditions (winte r), Quindaro lack s an adequate cooling water suppl y 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 CWI S also withdraws cooling water for auxiliary cooling requirements so it withdraws wat er even when the generating units are not operating. By

design, Quindaro has strainers on its auxiliary cooling s ys tem. 5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information Quindaro collected impingement samples in 2005. During the sampling period, Quindaro condu cted 24 hour impingement sampling every other week for a y ear 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 mortalit y 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 w ell; a strainer w as located upstream of the circulating pump for Unit 1 and a strainer w as 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 w ater 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. Quin daro has not conducted an y 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 man y decommissioned units on site. 3 Inaddition, 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 currentl y on standby , but facility

representatives indicated there are no plans to bring it ba ck on line any

time soon , as a newer drinking water treatment plant is located upstream. This newer plant provides extensive treatment to enable water withdraw al s 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 uni que 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 plan s 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 b y the Kansas Cit y Board of Publ ic Utilities. It is a public entity owned b y Kansas City . As such, the cit y 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 th e 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 b y 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 b ottom and fly ash is hauled off

site and sold. The facility has a permitted landfill but it is not currentl y 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 way s 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 c ombined cy cle unit is less attractive because of the cost of n atural gas. In addition, facility

representatives noted that natural gas costs fluctuate increasing the uncertaint y a ssociated with the technology

. B PU considered purchasing power from other local facilities, but no capacit y is available. Finally, facility representatives noted B PU has some wind and h ydroelectric capacit y, but that the infrastructure to transmit such p ower does not exist due to a lack of dedicated transmission lines. Attachments Attachm ent A List of Attendees Attachment B Aerial Photo s Attachment C Site Visit Photos5

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 McDonnell6

Attachment B
-- Aerial Photos Please see DCN 10

- 6523A accompanying this document. Attachment C

— Site Visit Photos Please see DCNs 10

- 6523B through I accompan yi ng this document.