January 14, 2026
Jonathan Stercho
NYSDEC Region 7 Headquarters
5786 Widewaters Pkwy
Syracuse, 13214
Re: Request That the Proposed Renewal and Modification of the Existing Water Withdrawal permit (WSA # 11,753) be DENIED
Greetings:
I write to request that the proposed renewal and modification of the existing Water Withdrawal permit (WSA # 11,753) be DENIED.
It is my understanding that:
“The applicant is proposing to renew and modify the existing Water Withdrawal permit (WSA # 11,753) for the Cayuga Operating Company, LLC, facility, which will result in the reduction of the permitted water withdrawal rate. The facility was historically a 322.5-megawatt coal-fired power station. The generation of electricity has been discontinued, and the coal-fired boilers have been removed. The facility currently withdraws approximately 1.44 million gallons per day (MGD) of water from Cayuga Lake through a cooling water intake structure and uses the water as non-contact cooling water for equipment. The maximum daily water withdrawal rate is proposed to be reduced to 1.008 MGD from 245 MGD, which is the previously permitted withdrawal rate.
I request that the proposed renewal and modification of the existing Water Withdrawal permit (WSA # 11,753) be DENIED for the reasons documented in detail below.
I trust that my request is self-explanatory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can clarity my request.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very best regards,
Walter Hang
January 14, 2026
Jonathan Stercho
NYSDEC Region 7 Headquarters
5786 Widewaters Pkwy
Syracuse, 13214
Re: Request that the proposed renewal and modification of Permit NY0001333 pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.18, and 750-1.19, the Priority Ranking System known as New York State’s Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS) be DENIED.
Greetings:
I write to request that the proposed renewal and modification of Permit NY0001333 pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 750-1.18, and 750-1.19, the Priority Ranking System known as New York State’s Environmental Benefit Permit Strategy (EBPS) be DENIED for the reasons explained herein.
It is my understanding that:
“Cayuga Operating Company, LLC is an industrial facility that was historically a 322.5-megawatt coal-fired power station. The facility no longer generates electricity and the coal-fired boilers have been removed. The facility currently withdraws approximately 1.44 MGD of water from Cayuga Lake through a cooling water intake structure and is used as non-contact cooling water for equipment. The facility also has a pending application to renew its Water Withdrawal permit, DEC ID 7-5032-00019/00024, with a proposed authorized withdrawal of 1.008 MGD, which will be publicly noticed separately.
Treated effluent consists of industrial and sanitary wastewater, and uncontaminated stormwater. Treatment consists of an API oil/water separators and Process Water Reclamation Facility (PWRF) gravity sand filters (stormwater includes additional treatment consisting of chemical neutralization, clarification, and dewatering) that is discharged through Outfall 001 to Cayuga Lake, a Class AA(T) waterbody. Additional flows not requiring treatment and discharging directly to Cayuga Lake: 1) Outfall 003 flow from the sump lift station that was previously sent to the PWRF, and 2) Outfall 005 stormwater runoff from the lined former coal pile area.
The proposed changes to the permit are summarized as follows: Outfall 001 – reduce flow limit to 1.008 MGD, reduce total residual chlorine (TRC) limit, add oil & grease monitoring, add total dissolved solids (TDS) monitoring; Outfall 01A – remove TRC limit and add monitoring, add ammonia monitoring, remove Outfalls 01B, 01D, and 01F; Outfall 002 – remove ammonia action level; Outfall 003 – add monthly average limit for TSS, add limits for chloride, TRC, aluminum, and mercury; Outfall 05A – change outfall number from 01C to 05A, add oil & grease limit, add TDS monitoring, reduce chromium and copper daily maximum limit and change monthly average limitation to monitoring, remove iron limit specific to operating conditions no longer applicable, reduce iron daily maximum limit, reduce lead daily maximum limit and changed monthly average limitation to monitoring, add magnesium monitoring, add 12-month rolling average limit for mercury, reduce nickel daily maximum limitation, remove action level for molybdenum, reduce ammonia action level, add WET action levels; Outfall 013 – reduce pH sample frequency, reduce total suspended solids daily maximum limit, add 12-MRA limit for mercury, add selenium, phenol and total phenols monitoring, reduce WET action levels, update Biological Monitoring Requirements to reflect existing use of approved BTA, update Mercury Minimization Program to Type III, add Schedule of Additional Submittals; and other changes as more fully described in the draft permit and fact sheet. As a result of the EBPS full technical review, a new five-year term is proposed.”
The Proposed Renewal and Modification of Permit NY00011333 Must be DENIED For Multiple Reasons
The proposed renewal and modification of Permit NY0001333 must be DENIED because it irrefutably fails to fulfill key Federal and State regulatory requirements pursuant to:
Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 section USC 1251 to 1387
• Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Articles 17 and 70
• Federal Regulations
• 40 CFR, Chapter I, subchapters D, N, and O
• State environmental regulations
• 6 NYCRR Part 621
• 6 NYCRR Part 750
• 6 NYCRR Parts 700 – 704 – Best use and other requirements applicable to water classes
• 6 NYCRR Parts 800 – 941 – Classification of individual surface waters
• NYSDEC water program policy, referred to as Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS)
• USEPA Office of Water Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, March
1991, Appendix E
A. The Proposed Permit Renewal and Modification Must be DENIED Because it Fails to Fulfill the 1985 “Zero Discharge” Goal of the U. S. Clean Water Act.
As a general matter, the proposed Permit Renewal and Modification must be DENIED because it fails to fulfill the 1985 “Zero Discharge” Goal of the U. S. Clean Water Act.
More than 25 years after The New York Times documented Cayuga Lake is a disgraceful example of the inability of State and Federal authorities to enforce the U. S. Clean Water Act, local water quality hazards are worse than ever. Cayuga Lake is now plagued by Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and other pollution hazards that threaten drinking water supplied to more than 40,000 local residents. There is no meaningful plan to resolve this crisis.
Given this deplorable record of on-going regulatory failure, it is imperative that the 1985 “Zero Discharge” goal of the U. S. Clean Water Act be enforced without any further delay. This is why the proposed permit renewal and modification must be DENIED.
The proposed Permit Renewal and Modification must also be DENIED because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established Industrial Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) that mandate “zero discharge of pollutants” for particular waste streams, including several highly toxic types of wastewater associated with Coal-Fired Power Plants, including bottom ash transport water and combustion residual leachate that are reported at the above-referenced facility.
It is inconceivable that this mandate can be ignored at a facility where those specific wastewater concerns reportedly exist.
B. The Proposed Permit Renewal and Modification Must be DENIED Because it Would Violate Cayuga Lake’s 303(d) Impaired Waters Regulatory Cleanup Requirements
According to the proposed permit renewal and modification for the above-referenced facility:
“The NYS 303(d) List of Impaired/TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load, not in the original] Waters identifies waters where specific best usages are not fully supported. The state must consider the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) or other strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutant(s) that restrict waterbody uses, in order to restore and protect such uses. SPDES permits must include effluent limitations necessary to implement a WLA [Waste Load Allocation, not in the original] of an EPA-approved TMDL (6 NYCRR 750-1.11(a)(5)(ii)), if applicable.”
Cayuga Lake was originally included in the National 303(d) Registry of Impaired Waters circa as a “high priority” in 2002 to address “phosphorus and silt/sediment” water quality impairments. To date, a fatally flawed Total Maximum Daily Load watershed cleanup plan has been adopted that 1) fails to identify all of the pollution sources that must be curtailed in order to halt all water quality impairments caused by excessive nutrient loading and 2) lacks any dedicated or sustained funding to clean up the lake. In short, the existing TMDL is a worthless sham that must be withdrawn and thoroughly revised.
The proposed permit renewal and modification must be DENIED because it would exacerbate existing excessive nutrient hazards in Cayuga Lake that are the reason it is included in the National 303(d) Impaired Waterbody Registry. This is because the proposed permit renewal and modification would irrefutably violate, at a minimum, the spirit, if not the language, of Section 122.4(i) of the U. S. Clean Water Act which prohibits issuing a discharge permit for any project that through its construction or operation will cause or contribute to water quality violations.
The proposed permit renewal and modification for the above-referenced facility specifically sanctions discharges of “treated sanitary” wastewater that almost certainly contains phosphorus, the growth-limiting nutrient in freshwater ecosystems. Excessive phosphorus in Cayuga Lake causes massive HABs that threaten public health and the environment by releasing mycrocistins that can impair drinking water drawn from the lake and supplied to local residents.
In addition, the proposed permit renewal and modification specifically sanctions discharges of “Ammonia (as N,[nitrogen not in the original])”, “Nitrate” and “Nitrate-Nitrite”. These forms of nitrogen are nutrients that irrefutably could cause HABs.
It would be irresponsible and unthinkable for the proposed permit renewal and modification to sanction discharges of various forms of nitrogen at a time when State authorities are proposing to require a local Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Plant to spend more than $100 Million to curtail nitrogen discharges to Cayuga Lake.
C. The Proposed Permit Renewal and Modification Must be DENIED because it Fails to Halt Toxic Pollution Discharges into Cayuga Lake
The proposed permit renewal and modification must be DENIED because it fails to require “zero discharge” into Cayuga Lake of “oil and grease” wastewater contamination, polluted stormwater releases from ash disposal areas, and a wide range of discharges of toxic metals and other contaminants from numerous other on-site areas.
The former coal-fired power plant site is known to be extensively polluted with a wide range of toxic chemicals associated with coal fly ash, coal bottom ash and other Coal Combustion Residuals. This contamination has impacted or threatens Cayuga Lake, ground water that drains into the lake, drinking water supplied to thousands of local residents from that critical supply source and local air quality.
Coal Combustion Residuals are well documented in the scientific and technical literature to be contaminated with with a broad spectrum of toxic chemicals, including, but not limited to: polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, radioactive elements, arsenic, selenium, boron, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls.
See: A comprehensive review of toxicity of coal fly ash and its …
Given these concerns, the proposed permit renewal and modification is inadequate because it: 1) permits voluntary Best Management Practices that are shockingly insufficient to curtail toxic releases on a comprehensive basis and 2) fails to require a full-scale investigation and clean up of all of the site contamination concerns associated with a massive former coal-fired power plant that operated for decades with extensive on-site discharges of waste materials and fugitive dust releases that undoubtedly impacted the facility as well as the area around it.
The proposed permit renewal and modification fails to include any requirement to investigate and remediate all of the toxic pollution hazards posed by the former power plant site on a comprehensive basis. Instead, only a “Hot Spot” investigation that is by definition of limited scope is required for development of a voluntary Best Management Plan, but even the scale and time frame of that investigation is not spelled out.
It would be unacceptable and improper if the proposed permit renewal and modification is adopted before all toxic chemical hazards associated with the existing facility and the area around it are fully documented and cleaned up in strict compliance with all New York State and Federal regulatory requirements, notably the state mandate to restore toxic sites to “Pre-disposal conditions, to the extent feasible…” This would imperil Cayuga Lake in defiance of applicable legal and regulatory requirements.
“6. Required Sampling For “Hot Spot” Identification – Development of the BMP plan shall include sampling of waste stream segments for the purpose of pollutant “hot spot” identification. The economic achievability of effluent limits will
not be considered until plant site “hot spot” sources have been identified, contained, removed or minimized through the imposition of site specific BMPs or application of internal facility treatment technology. For the purposes of this permit condition a “hot spot” is a segment of an industrial facility (including but not limited to soil, equipment, material storage areas, sewer lines etc.) which contributes elevated levels of problem pollutants to the wastewater and/or stormwater collection system of that facility. For the purposes of this definition, problem pollutants are substances for which treatment to meet a water quality or technology requirement may, considering the results of waste stream segment sampling, be deemed unreasonable. For the purposes of this definition, an elevated level is a concentration or mass loading of the pollutant in question which is sufficiently higher than the concentration of that same pollutant at the compliance monitoring location so as to allow for an economically justifiable removal and/or isolation of the segment and/or B.A.T. treatment of wastewaters emanating from the segment.”
“1 Uncontaminated area means soils which are free of contamination by any toxic or non-conventional pollutants identified in the tables of SPDES Application Form NY-2C. Disturbance of any size contaminated area(s) and the resulting discharge of contaminated stormwater is not authorized by this permit unless the discharge is under State or Federal oversight as part of a remedial program or after review by the Regional Water Engineer; nor is such discharge authorized by any SPDES general permit for stormwater discharges.”
Perhaps most appallingly, the proposed permit renewal and modification sanctions discharges of highly toxic mercury into Cayuga Lake even though its New York State Water Quality Standard is in non-attainment. The Multiple Discharge Variance contained in the proposed permit renewal and modification makes no sense and must no longer be allowed.
“The multiple discharge variance (MDV) for mercury was developed in accordance with 6 NYCRR 702.17(h) “to address widespread standard or guidance value attainment issues including the presence of a ubiquitous
pollutant or naturally high levels of a pollutant in a watershed.” The first MDV was issued in October 2010, and subsequently revised and reissued in 2015; each subsequent iteration of the MDV is designed to build off the
previous version, to make reasonable progress towards the water quality standard (WQS) of 0.7 ng/L dissolved mercury. The MDV is necessary because human-caused conditions or sources of mercury prevent attainment
of the WQS and cannot be remedied (i.e., mercury is ubiquitous in New York waters at levels above the WQS and compliance with a water quality based effluent limitation (WQBEL) for mercury cannot be achieved with
demonstrated effluent treatment technologies (emphasis added).”
Conclusion
I trust that you will find my request self-explanatory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can clarify my request.
Very best regards,
Walter Hang