CWLP requests $302,300 engineering study for possible injection well as EPA compliance clock ticks

City Water, Light & Power (CWLP) asked the Springfield City Council committee to approve a $302,300 contract to prepare and submit a permit application for a Class I underground injection well at the Dahman 4 power station, saying the work is necessary as the utility confronts a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation and a pending lawsuit. The committee voted to send the ordinance to the debate agenda for next week.

CWLP said the measure would fund preliminary engineering, modeling and permit-preparation work by Stearns, Conrad & Schmidt Consulting Engineers Inc. The utility described the work as an option should a federal rule ultimately require changes to how CWLP handles flue-gas desulfurization wastewater. "It costs over a million dollars a year just to send the waste to the Sanitary District," CWLP representative Debbie Williams told the committee.

Why it matters: CWLP officials said their facility faces a unique regulatory timeline under recent EPA action and is one of a small number of plants nationwide affected by how its waste stream is routed. The utility said it has been pursuing litigation against the EPA rule while preparing technical options; the study would produce permit-ready documents and cost estimates if the utility decides to pursue an underground injection well.

CWLP told aldermen the utility has about three years to comply with the current rule and is roughly one year into that timeline. Staff estimated that building an underground injection option would cost more than $10 million and possibly up to $20 million; permitting alone could take about two years and total build time an estimated 40–60 months. Williams said the utility still views sending pretreated wastewater to the Sangamon County Water Reclamation District as the most environmentally proven option but that the study is intended to preserve alternatives if the litigation or rule changes leave CWLP without that route.

Citizen concerns and staff response: Lori McKernan, speaking for the Coalition for Springfield's Utility Future and the Sierra Club, asked why CWLP would apply for a permit before developing full cost estimates and a cost‑benefit comparison of alternatives. "Why is CWLP asking for funds to apply for the permit before knowing what the costs are?" McKernan asked. Williams replied that the city needs a permit-ready package because permitting timelines are long and the study would yield more reliable cost figures to feed into the utility's integrated resource plan (IRP). She said the permit application work does not commit the utility to build an injection well.

McKernan also asked about potential connections between the well and CWLP's landfill leachate; CWLP staff said the request covers preliminary work to evaluate how landfill leachate and the flue-gas wastewater might factor into any injection permit. PJ Becker, CWLP staff, said the landfill is used for temporary holding of ash and related material and that leachate volumes fluctuate with rainfall; staff said the study would examine such ties and the protections needed for drinking water.

Next steps: The committee accepted a motion to send the ordinance (2025-239) to the debate agenda. Committee members asked for more information at debate, and some requested follow-up briefings and community outreach — one alderman asked that updates be scheduled biannually and held in the evening to improve public access.

"We don't know whether we'll win the lawsuit," Williams said, "so we need to move on options and make sure we're showing effort to the agency."