IP's water pollution permit, issued by EPA in 1991, required IP to reduce substantially its emissions of boron into the Middle Fork River by March 9, 1994. Instead of investing in pollution control equipment IP tried to get the Middle Fork exempted from the statewide water quality standards. If the standard were changed from 1.0 to 10 milligrams per liter, IP's effluent would not cause frequent violations as it does now. To get the standard changed, IP had to prove to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) that its pollution was having no adverse effects on fish and other aquatic life. It failed, mostly because it tried to rely mainly on data taken by others for other purposes, instead of doing a study specifically designed to support its claim of 'no adverse impact'. The Pollution Control Board voted 7-0 to deny IP's request. Unwilling to take "no" for an answer, IP filed an appeal, which was rejected 3-0 by the Illinois Appellate Court.

At the IPCB hearing in Danville, IP testified that the cheapest way for it to meet the standards would be to invest about $9 million in pollution control equipment, and spend about $375,000 annually to operate it. This money would be collected from ratepayers all over IP's service territory and spent to improve Vermilion Station. The impact on the average residential ratepayer would be less than 5 cents per month. IP did not detail the numbers and types of jobs this investment would create.

Instead of making this investment IP prefers continued reliance on a 1950's-vintage technology. The ash is flushed down the hill to settling ponds, and the water allowed to overflow into the river. The wastewater carries about 19,000 lbs. of dissolved solids (salts) dissolved from the ash on an average day, and IP adds carbon dioxide to the water to reduce its salinity. One of the most toxic materials in the wastewater is boron, of which there is about 115 lb/day. Unless the permit is modified, IP must reduce emissions to an average of 19 lb/day to comply with the statewide standards.

Instead of investing in pollution control technology as described above, IP is asking EPA to modify its permit to allow it to use 25% of the river flow to dilute its effluent. If granted, IP could increase boron emissions to average more than 350 lb/day, and increase other pollutants as well. IP would withold wastewater in its ash ponds when river flows are low (about 90 days per year) and release it on other days. This means the river could be degraded to the legal limit of 1.0 mg/l boron concentration up to half a year. If the current permit is allowed to stand this would occur only a few days per year.

In humans boron can cause vomiting, diarreha, headaches, convulsions and other effects. In other organisms the effects may differ, and threshold concentrations may be higher or lower. IP has done no chronic toxicity tests on any of the 53 species of fish in the Middle Fork to determine whether such sublethal effects would occur with prolonged exposure at the 1.0 mg/l legal maximum concentration. Before a company can be allowed to rely on dilution instead of investing in waste treatment technology, it must prove that dilution will not harm aquatic life in the river. IP has not done so.

IP's settling ponds are an obsolete, potentially dangerous technology that has been outlawed at all new coal fired power plants built in the United States since 1977. Alternatives exist; no one disputes that. IP has hinted that it might close the plant if it EPA enforces its current permit in June. We think it is unlikely that the Illinois Commerce Commission would allow IP to do so. If Vermilion Station is closed, IP would have to raise rates and bill its ratepayers at least $300 million to replace it with a new plant. Wouldn't it be wiser to invest $9 million in state-of-the-art pollution control technology and protect the jobs of 80 people?

The Committee on the Middle Fork would like to see IP invest in clean coal technology. There might even be state matching funds available to share the cost. Illinois utilities should lead by example, showing the nation that Illinois coal is a viable market choice. IP, on the other hand, is trying to demonstrate that Illinois coal can only be burned by bending environmental laws like the Clean Water Act that enjoy widespread national support. We believe Illinois utilities should be demonstrating how to burn Illinois coal cleanly, and reduce the costs through experience, so the Illinois coal industry can retain and expand its out-of-state markets. IP's investment in clean coal technology at Vermilion Station could help the Illinois economy as well as the local economy.

IP's proposed 'solution' is shortsighted as well. For a few years, it may be able to hold back wastewater in its ponds until the river rises. But as its new ash pond fills, its storage capacity will shrink. Then it will have no choice but to "throttle back" or shut down the plant send workers home — perhaps more than 90 days per year. Is this kind of operation in the interest of the local economy? Would it not be better for IP continue to modernize its plant, instead of continuing on the slippery slope to closure?

When the US auto industry was faced with fuel economy standards and environmental and safety standards in the early 1970's, it hired hundreds of lawyers to defend the status quo. Japanese auto makers, on the other hand, hired engineers to comply with those standards. Thousands of American autoworkers paid for this blunder, losing their jobs due to the shortsightedness of their corporate executives. Today coal-burning utilities may bask in their monopoly power and feel as invulnerable as the automakers of 20 years ago. If they don't modernize, the price will eventually be paid by the communities that mine the coal and burn it in the oldest and filthiest plants. We encourage civic leaders and workers to assess these risks and opportunities first-hand, because the interests of the company are not always the same as the interests of the community.