\. *,*' St. Louis County (WPCP)

AmerenUE-Meramec

MO-0000361 MO-000043

.{t4{:$

It€l cxmrhan, Coverntr ' stcPhen M' Ivlahfsl' Distor

OF NATURAT RESOURCES

.'- DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

10805

St. Louis Regional Office

Sunset Office Drive, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63t27-n38

614) 301-7100

FAX 614) Nr-7r07

June 29, 200O

Mr. Bob Wusder

Ameren Services

One Ameren Plaza

1901 Chouteau Avelrue

P.O. Box 66149, MC 602

St. Louis, MO 6315C6149

Dear Mr. Wussler:

On Jnne 23,2000, an inspection was made of the waste'water, storowater, and cooling water

discharges from the AmerenUE Meramec and Rush Island Power Plants in St. Louis and Jefferson

Counties.

The findings sfthe inspection and corresponding c-omm€Nlts are attached. Ifyou have any

question regarding tliJ report, please contact me at the St. Louis Regional Office at (314) 301-

7100.

Sincerely,

srfilurs REGIoNAL oFFIcE

W5\J*{

Paul T. Schell

Environmental Specialist

PTS/bkk

Enclosure

WPCP

Mr. Mchael Smallwood, Ameren Services

Nick Von Feldt, Ameren Services

& MCrcEO Pffi

c:
AmerenUE Rush Island power plant

100 Big Hollow Road

Festus, MO 63028

NPDES Permit Number MO-0000043

INTRODUCTION:

On June 23,2000, an inspection was conducted of the wastewater outfalls and wastewater

treatment plant located at the Rush Island Power Plant in.Iefferson County, Missouri.

Mr' Michael Smallwood, Mr. Nick Von Feldt, and Mr. Bob Wussler represented the facility. Mr.

Paul Schell represented the MDNR.

The investigation included a review of the Department's files to assess the State Operating permit

compliance status and covered the one-year period immsdfalsl, preceding the inspection. The

facility has a valid State Operating Permit (MO-0000043) with an expiratlon date of August 26,

2004.

FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

The discharge monitoring reports for the non-contact cooling water effluent (Outfall 001) show

that the effluent was in compliance with the permitted limits for the period rwiewed. At the time

of the inspection the effluent had the same appearance as the receiving waters. Observation of the

receiving river revealed no visible adverse effects of the efiluent.

The discharge monitoring reports for the ash pond discharge (Outfall 002) indicate that the

effluent was in compliance with the permitted limits for the period reviewed. At the time of the

inspection, the effluent appeared clear and did not appear to have an adverse effect on the

receiving river.

The discharge monitoring reports for the wastewater treatment facility (Outfall 003) show that the

effluent met permit limits during the period being reviewed. At the time of the inspection, there

was some floc and floating scum in the clarifier. The efiluent appeared clear with no malodor and

did not appear to have an adverse effect on the receiving river at the time of the inspection.

The discharge monitoring reports for the storm water drain (Outfall 004) indicate that the efiluent

was rneeting permitted limits during the period reviewed. This outfall no longer has a permit limit

for this permit cycle. The company has elected to use Best Management Practices (BNrp) There

was no discharge from this outfall at the time of the inspection.

R{\t prepare4 Rr:

\furSJ,.(

Paul T. Schell

Environmental Specialist

out", G bQ f a^oo r>
APPENDIX 7

DATA INPUT SIEaT FoR WQIS

INSPECTTONS

acility I D

Permit Number

Facility Name

66t

' t/V0 - 00000q5 ourrarr z 00l, 002, oag / oo't, DW

, h'*'tt^"tE - ft,al*Ur'-.,r/

LegaI

city

Deecrip NF/y.eec.5.T31N,&l{ River 07tL/o/oI-o,-o<)

Name: tra/i//4 county z Te4/-4-ttattaoe z

r1--

Inspector: {'T-5

fnspection Date: HQIS Input Date:

Type of Inspectlon (check only one):

cS _ Comprehensive inspection, earnple taken (f&E Manual's class 3 inspectlon)

cE X Comprehenaive insSlection, no eample taken (I&E Manualre class 3 inepection)

AI Abbreviated inspectlon (f&E Manualra clasg 2 inspectlon)

cP 

- 

Inspection or investigation in response to a complaint

fNSPECTION DATA (check all that aeoLv)

co E_ Facility in compliance

Nco- Facility not in compliance

NocP No Construction Permit

cToP 

- 

Certified operator ie required but not employed

ELV 

- 

Facill-ty is'not meetJ-ng effluent limlts based on Dt{Rs or recent eampling

BYP 

- 

Evidence of bllpaseJ.ng at facility or in collection aystem

NoLA 

- 

clasE f facilily is operating without the required LoA/permit

NoP? 

- 

Facility is digcliarglng without'a permit (lncludes land appl. facilities)

sgv 

- 

Schedule of.compliance ig not being met

REV 

- 

Reporting (e.g. D!fR) or other standard conditions not being met

sDv 

- 

sludge dispoaal etandard violatlofr

SIc 

- 

Sludge or eolids tlere obeerved in creek or around.outfall

soP 

- 

Stream has other obeerv:hle problems due to this dlscharge

swoP 

- 

No etormwater outfalle permitted

HBF Holdine baeln is within one foot of overflow from a no-dlscharge aystem

LL 

- 

Lagoon is leaking baeed on geologic evaluation or water balance inforrnation

LAV Wastewater Lrrlgation Broblems

sDP- Sludge disposal probleme

PTv Pretreatment probleme

OMP operaEion and-maLntenance problems

SNo Stream was not observed during inspection

oT 

- 

other (apecify)

COMPLIANCE TRI,CKING (comelete all that al]ply

NOVRI Notice of Vlolation lggued on:

Reach No:

5 Lt'{ o

Facitlty owner directed to submit DMRs' engineering report,

plans and specs., conet. permit, etc., by:

Facility owner directed to return to compliance by:

_ 

other; describe belowi reoPonse date ig:

Follow-u.p vieit/inepection echeduled for:

( yr. /mo . /day I

/ /

RRER2

FRCR3

OTRR4

:'.. /IR5

WPCP - Rev. 12-15-93
St. Louis County (WP)

w

AmerenUE-Meramec Power Plant

MO-0000361

Mam Blunt, Governor . Doyle Childers' Director

T OF NAIURAL RESOURCES

www.dnr.mo.gov

April3,2006

Steven S. Weiss, Envir. Scientist

Ameren Services

One AmerenPlaza

1901 Chouteau Avenue

P. O. Box 66l4g,MC 602

St. Louis, MO 63166-6149

Dear Mr. Weiss:

On March 15,2006, Mr. Scott Hoffman of the St. Louis Regional Office conducted a water

pollution inspection of the wastewater, storm water, and cooling water discharges from the

AmerenUE Meramec Power Plant to determine compliance with federal and Missouri water

pollution regulations.

Findings of Mr. Hoffrnan's inspection are detailed in the enclosed inspection report.

Should you have any questions about your inspection report, please call Mr. Hoffrnan at

(314) 416-2960 or you may write him at the St. Louis Regional Office, 7545 S. Lindbergh Blvd.,

Suite 210, St. Louis, MO 63125.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OFFICE

Mike 

rnzw

Struckhoff

Regional Director

Ms/ryiJrjh --€tsEnclbs\rei

c: Water Pollution Branch

Catherine Hodges, Water Pollution Enforcement

St. Louis County Health Department 

"._,.p,."*.
AmerenUE-Meramec power plant

8200 Fine Road

St. Louis, MO 63129

NPDES permit #MO-0000361

INTRODUCTION:

on March 15,2006,Mr. Scott Hoffrnan of the St. Louis Regional office conducted an inspection ofthe wastewater, storm water, and cooling water discharges from the AmerenUE-Meramec power plant to determine compliance with federal and state water pollution standards and regulations. Mr. Hoftnan was accompanied on the inspection by Mr. Steven Weiss, Environmental ScientiJ, AmerentIE Services.

The inspection included a review of our department files and Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR') from the facility to assess compliance statui with the facility's State (Water) Operaiing permit.

Paperwork and reports reviewed were from the period January - December-zoos. The facility's operating permit expired in May 2005 and a renewal application *u, ,ubritted to the department as required at that time' The facility's new wastewater operatini p*it is cunently out for publit comment and is awaiting final reviedissuance from the permit section of the water Polluiion control program in JefFerson City.

FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

DMRs for the non-contact cooling water (Outfalls 001 & }}2)indicated that the effluent was in compliance with permit limits. Observation of the receiving iiver showed no visible adverse effects of/from the effluent. The effluent pipe was not submerged ind was visible.

?Nry for the ash pond discharge and storm water (Outfall 003) indicated that the effluent from this discharge was also in compliance with permit limits for the period reviewed. The effluent appeared clear and the receiving stream was clear with both showing no adverse effects from the effluent. Since the

summer of 2000, the pond has only received bottom ash, so accumulation of cenospheres inot a

problem.

DMRS for the extended aeration wastewater plant (Outfall 004) showed that the effluent was also in compliance with permit limits for the period reviewed. At the iime of the inspection, the mixed liquor

was gray brown with no foam. There was also some small floc in the clarifiei. The effluent weir had a

few spots of algae that need to be cleaned and there appeared to be adequate aeration and mixing in the aeration chamber. While the olant appeared to be opiiating correctly, attention should be givenlo the operation and maintenance of the treatment plant to ensure problems with permit limits do not occur as they did several years ago.

DYRt for the emergency overflow (Outfall 005) show that there was no discharge during the period reviewed and there was no discharge during the inspection.

DMRs for the caisson sump and screen wash discharge (Outfall 006) showed that the effluent met permitted limits during the period reviewed. There was no effluent discharging during the inspection.

Per Special Condition #15 of the facility's operating permit, monitoring for storm water discharges from

Outfalls 007 & 008 are waived for this permit cycle as long as AmerenUE uses Best Management

Practices (BMPs) on these outfalls. If problems occur, monitoring will be re-established by the

department. Per the draft permit, AmerenllE will conduct periodic inspections of these outfalls to

determine effectiveness of the BMps.
AmerenUFMeramec Power Plant (WP) Narrative Report

April3,2006

Page 2

lastly, DMR5 for the fly ash pond-storm water discharge showed trat tlre effluent was in compliance with

p"r*ii limits except foione 

"*"e"a*c" 

for Total Suspended _solids CrSs) on July 12,2005- Additional

attention should be given to the operation ind maintenance of equipmento prevent any reoccurrence.

Whole Efiluent Toxicity (WET) tests for Oufalls 001, 002, 003, & 009 are conducted annually as

required.
?oC r SFe.,,* werss

PermitNumber: MO - OOOO=5G f Outfall(s):

Facility mt BF.{.;a

Facility Name: v\Aors.^. U€ -

i ArrtiNllJt'/

DATA INPUT SHEET FOR WQIS

INSPECTIONS

ec P

9\ o,xo,aolF

oo1

Legal Description:

CitvName: 5+. Larts County: 8{ Lqri s

Inspection Date: 5 i f / * *aIS Input Date: Inspector: R Scott Hoffman

Type of Inspection (check only one):

CS fomprehensive inspection, sample taken (I & E Manual's Class 3 inspection)

CE t/ Comprehensive inspection, no sample taken (I & E Manual's Class 3 inspection)

AI _ Abbreviated inspection (I & E Manual's Class 2 inspection)

CP Inspection or investigation in response to a complaint

INSPECTION DATA (Check all that applv)

,/

CO V Facility in compliance

NOCP

CTOP

ELV

BYP

NOLA

NOPT

scv

REV

SDV

SIC

SOP

SWOP

HBF - Eoldi"g basin is within one foot of overflow from a no-discharge system

LL Lagoon is leaking based on geologic evaluation or water balance information

LAV _ Wastewater irrigation problems

SDP _ Sludge disposal problems

PTV _ Pretreahent problems

OMP_ Operation and maintenance problems

SNO _ SFeam not observed during inspection

Other (specify)

COMPLIANCE TRACKING (Comolete all that applv)

NOVRl_Notice of Violation issued on

Facility owner directed to submit DMRs, engineering report,

plans and specs., construction permit, etc. by:

FRCR3_FaciIity ovv-ner directed to return to compliance by

OTRR4 Other; describe below; response date is:

VlRs_Follow-up visit/inspection scheduled for:

oh4 oto I -o7o*{ L

RoP: SLr,ouis ofP{ o(oZofu

NCO Facility not in compliance

_ No construction permit

_ Certified operator requird, but not employed

- Facility not meeting eflluent limits based on DMRs or recent sampling

_ Evidence of bypassing at facility or in collection system

_ Cless I facility is operafing without the required LoA/permit

- Facility is discharging without a permit (includes land application facilities)

_ Schedule of Compliance not being met

Reporting (e.g. DMR) or other standard conditions not being met

Sludge disposal standard violation

Sludge or solids were observed in creek or around oudall

_ S&eam has other observable problems due to this discharge

_ No stormwater ouffdls permitted

(year/month/day)

t l

:,:i':\ t:"'ll

t t
Jefferson County (WP) t:k

AmerenUE-Rush Island Power Plant

MO-0000043

Jeremiah \il (Jay) Nixon, Governor . Mark N. Templeton, Director

T OF NATURAL RESOURCES

www.dnr.mo.gov

April29,2009

Steven S. Weiss, Envir. Scientist

Ameren Services

l90l Chouteau Avenue

P. O. Box 66149, MC 602

St. Louis, MO 63166-6149

Dear Mr. Weiss:

On April 23,2009, Mr. Scott Hoffman of the St. Louis Regional Office conducted awater

pollution inspection of the wastewater, storm water, and cooling water discharges from the

AmerenUE - Rush Island Power Plant to determine compliance with federal and Missouri water

pollution regulations.

Findings of Mr. Hoffman's inspection are detailed in the enclosed inspection report.

Should you have any questions about your inspection report, please call Mr. Hoffman at

(314) 416-2960 or you may write him at the St. Louis Regional Office, 7545 S. Lindbergh

Blvd., Suite 210, St. Louis, MO 63125.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

ST. LOUIS REGIONAL OFFICE

0t{bJElq

Mike Struckhoff

Regional Director

MSiRS.ryjh -(sftEnclosrhes

c: Catherine Hodges, Water Pollution Branch-Enforcement

Jefferson County Health Department o&u

Michael J. Smallwood, Senior Engineer, ArnoFEoUE
Ameren UE-Rush Island Power Plant

100 Bis Hollow Road

Festu*s, MO 63028

NPDES Permit #MO-0000043

INTRODUCTION:

On April 23, ZOO1,Mr. Scott Hoffman of the St. Louis Regional Office conducted an inspection of the

wastewater, storm water, and cooling water discharges from the AmerenUE-Rush Island Power Plant to

determine compliance with federal and state water pollution standards and regulations. Mr. Hoffman was

accompanied on the inspection by Mr. Steve S. Weiss, and Mr. Dan Wenk, both of AmerenUE Services'

The inspection included a review of our department files and Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)

from the facility to assess compliance status with the facility's State (water) Operating Permit. Paperwork

and reports reviewed were from the period January 2008 - February 2009. The facility's operating permit

was isiued in October 2OO4 andwill expire on Septemb er 30,2009. A State Water Pollution Operating

permit renewal application has been submitted and is under review. Reports indicated that the Rush

Island plant was meeting its permit limits/requirements except for an Exception Report in March 2008 for

a discharge from the clean water gravity filter during maintenance, an Exception Report in November

2008 for a discharge (leak) from #3 Condensate Storage Tank, and an Exception Report in August 2008

for low pH in the effluent from the ash pond. All problems were identified, fixed and/or resolved quickly.

FINDINGS AND COMMENTS:

DMRs for the non-contact cooling water (Outfall #l) indicated that the effluent was in compliance with

permit limits for the period reviewed. Observation of the Mississippi fuver showed no visible adverse

iffects of/from the cooling water effluent. The water level of the Mississippi River was high due to

spring rains. The actual outfall pipe is usually below water (as was the case during the inspection) and

could not be observed.

DMRs for the ash pond discharge (Outfall #2) indicated that the effluent from this discharge was also in

compliance with permit limits except for an exceedance for low pH noted in August 2008. The discharge

valvi stuck open causing the CO2 injection system to not shut off during periods of no discharge causing

low pH in the discharged effluent. Again, the outfall pipe was under water in the Mississippi fuver and

could not be physically observed.

DMRs for the flow from the sewage treatment plant (Outfall #3) showed that the effluent was also in

compliance with permit limits. At the time of the inspection, the mixed liquor was very darkbrown with

no foam and no odor. The dark color may indicate that the wastewater system's micro-organisms may be

stressed. Operators need to ensure that the micro-organisms have enough nutrients and are not poisoned

with chemicals to ensure the WWTF can operate as designed until the plant is replaced. A State

Construction Permit #22-7 685 has been issued to replace the current WWTF. The replacement project

has been delayed and will not start until sometime in 2010. Aeration and mixing in the aeration chamber

appeared to be operating normally, and effluent weir was free of solids. The effluent is discharged (piped)

directly from the treatment plant into the Mississippi River. Due to high water on the river, the actual

effluent pipe usually is and was under water. Monitoring samples are taken from the discharge "well"

before exiting the wastewater plant (underground) into the Mississippi.

Outfall #4 (storm water outfall) still exists, but does not have a permit limit and is not monitored

continuously due to the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) by AmerenUE and

minimal risk to the waters of the state. There was no discharge from the outfall during the inspection, and

quarterly inspections of this discharge point are conducted and documented as required.
AmerenllE-Rush Island Power Plant (WPP) Na:rative Report

Aprll27,2009

Page2

Sludge reporting is also submitted annually as required.

While there are no permit limits or monitoring requirements for sulfate levels from the plant, the sulfates

are monitored on a quarterly basis and those monitored levels were shown to vary widely from 40mg/L to

150mg/L through the year. Per engineers at AmerenUE's corporate office, these variations were/are due

to Mississippi River levels, rainfall amounts, type of fuel burned, electric generation levels, and pond

retention time.

Date: April27" 2009

Environmental Speciali st III

St. Louis Regional Office

RS}V

*<
Arr<ut-tt /

DATA INPUT SEEET FORWQIS

INSPECTIONS

_ No construction perrnlt

_ Certified operator required, but not employed

_ Facility not meeting effluent limits based on DMRs or recent

_ Evidence of bypassing at facility or in collection system

_ Class I facllity is operating without the required LoA/permtt

_ Facility is discharging without a permit (inctudes land facilities)

_ Schedule of Compllance not being met

_ Reporting (e.g. DMR) or other standard conditions

Sludge disposal standard violstion

Sludge or solids were observed in creek or

_ Stream has other observable problems this dlscharge

_ No stormwater outfalls permitted

IIBF _Ilolding basin is within one foot of a no-discharge system

FacilirylD: (50( 

1,?. t

I rl r l4ra-u-<-r r \4&r '

permitNumber:, t ***.^t- Z**l.T'h*r|],i

D^-:t:a. tt^--- 

r--.>

Facility Name:

outfall

LL _ Lagoon is leaking based on geologic

LAV _ Wastewrter irrigation problems

or water balance information

SDP _ Sludge disposal problems

PTV _ Preheatnent problems

OMP_Operation and

SNO _ Stream not observed d inspection

OT _Other (specify)

NOYRI Notice tion issued on

owner directed to submit DMRs, engiireering report,

and specs., construction permi! etc. by:

owner directed to return to compliance by

Other; describe below; response date is:

VlRs-Follow-up visiUinspection scheduled for:

WPCP -Rev. l2llil93

Legal Descripuon: nl E 7.f S --f'f3"r,'.1, ,a 7E-*"er Reach yo. c+ t4 ot o ( - z3 eoo l

City Name: F-.'{rr-> Counr.v: I-[D

rt 

-!vquf.'.#ROP:St.Louis

lnspection oate: "1f zs/ oa wers Input Date: Inspector: R scott Eoffman

Type of Inspection (check only one):

!! -gomprehensive inspection, sample taken (I & E Manual's Class 3 inspection)

CE vzlComprehensive inspection, no sample taken Q & E Manual's Class 3 inspection)

AI _ Abbreviated inspection G & E Manual's Class 2 inspection)

CP Inspection or investigation in response to a complaint

INSPECTION DATA (Check atl that apotv)

-/'

CO 

'l/Facility 

in compliance

NCO Facility not in compliance

NOCP

CTOP

ELV

BYP

NOLA

NOPT

scv

REV

sDv

SIC

soP

swoP

being met

(year/month/day)

II

tl

tt