Ii~LINOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 29, 1975
IN THE MATTER OF
)
WATER QUALITY AND EFFLUENT
)
R 75-2
STANDARDS AMENDEMENTS,
)
COOLING LAKES
)
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Zeitlin):
On January 22,
1975,
this Board received a Proposal for
Requlatory Amendrnert, with the signatures of more than 200
citizens attached,
submitted by the Commonwealth Edison
Company
(Edison).
Designated as R75-2,
“Cooling Lakes”, the
Petition asked for revision of the Board’s thermal standards
as they would apply to a newly defined class of
“Artificial
Cooling Lakes”,
associated with steam-electric generating
plants.
The Edison proposal was published in Environmental
Register No.
98, on February
18, 1975
(Ex.
2).
Following
publication of
a hearing schedule,
(Ex.
3,
4(a),4(b)),
public hearings were held in Chicago,
on May 2,
1975,
Springfield
on May 23,
1975,
and again in Chicago on June 23,
1975.
After the final public hearing, the Record was held open for
comment until July 10,
1975.
The Board published a Proposed
Final Draft of th~Regulation on July
24,
1975,
in Environmental
Register No.
106.
Conirnents were again received by the
Board, through August 12,
1975.
The Regulation was adopted
by the Board on August
14, 1975.
BACKGROUND
The Board inherited the substance of the present water
quality and effluent standards for thermal pollutants from
its predecessor,
the Sanitary Water Board
(SWB).
Illinois
Sanitary Water Board Rules and Regulations SWB-14, Water
Quality Standards,
Intrastate Waters Exclusive of Interstate
Waters
(1967,
1968)
(Although this citation applies generally,
see also Sanitary Water Board Regulations SWB—8 through
SWB—l3, and SWB-l5,
applying water quality and effluent
standards for thermal discharges as well as other pollutants.)
18—
681
—2—
Pursuant to Section
49(c)
of the Environmental Protection
Act
(Act),
these thermal standards remained in
effect until
superceded or other~i.sealtered by the Board.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.,
Ch.
111—1/2,
flOOl et.
seq.
(1973).
Over the subsequent
five years that the Board has been in operation,
it has
spent considerable time and effort on the question of thermal
pollution.
The Board first faced the question in efforts
to arrive
at the proper thermal standards for certain individual
bodies of water:
Lake Michigan,
the Mississippi River,
the
Wabash River, and the Ohio River.
In the matter of:
Thermal
Standards Lake Michigan, R70—2,
1 PCB 697
(1971);
In the
matter of Mississippi Thermal Standards,
R70-16,
3 PCB 177
(1971);
In the matter of Ohio-Wabash Thermal Standards,
R71-l2,
2 PCB 563 (l~7l);In the matter of Water Quality
Standards Revisions,
R72—4,
10 PCB 69,
73—78
(1973)
(Des
Plaines River,
“5—mile stretch”).
The first consideration, of course, was the amount of
heat that an individual discharge could contain before
causing damage to the receiving stream and its existing
aquatic biota.1
(The term “heat”
is used advisedly here.
The Regulations and t~eBoard’s prior considerations have
not strictly concer’ied themselves with the question of heat
itself, but rather with the question of temperature and its
effects.)
In each of the cases cited above,
the Board attempted
to arrive at a standard for effluents which would generally
protect the waters and marine ecology of the state.
In doing
so, the Board also considered the benefits to be derived
from an effluent s~urce, and the cost and practicality of
eliminating the thermal component from an effluent.
The
results are the Bcard’s present effluent aDd water quality
standards. 2
1.
The Board has not heretofore made a fine distinction
between an existing biota and that which would naturally be
present were pollutants other than heat not present;
the
problem arises where thermal discharges enter an already
polluted water.
2.
PCB Regs,
Ch
3.
In the Matter of Effluent Criteria,
R70-8; Water Quality Standards Revisions, R7l-14; Water
Quality Standards Revisions for Intrastate Waters, R71-20,
3
PCB 755
(opinion),
4 PCB
5
(order); The Board’s opinion
states that,
“In large part today’s draft is simply a codification
of existing water qu~1itystandards and associated provisions
3 PCB at 755;
see also
3 PCB at 763
(re:
Rule 203(1)).
—3—
The Board has also considered the question of thermal
effluents
in a series of cases relating to individual dischargers;
several of these cases directly concern the questions at
hand:
steam-electric generating stations and their attendant
cooling impoundments.3
In the most relevant of these cases,
the Board determined that such impoundments, constructed to
provide condenser cooling for power plants,
fall into two
categories:
1)
treatment works,
and
2)
protected waters of
the state.
The distinction is of sufficient importance to
have led to our considerations here.
The distinctic1n, in summary,
is based upon the way
a
cooling—water impoundment is constructed.
Where artificial
diking is erected,
arid water to fill the resulting enclosure
is largely4 obtained by withdrawal from a nearby natural
body of water such as a lake or river, the enclosure constitutes
a treatment works.5
Commonly known as “perched” or “side—
channel” lakes,
tnese bodies of water are, as treatment
works, exempt from the Board’s water quality standards, and
discharges into them are not subject to the thermal effluent
standards.
3
Commonwealth ~dison
v. EPA, PCB 73-359,
10 PCB 659
(1974); Commonwealth Edison v.~.EPA, PCB 74-182,
13 PCB 219
(1974)
(extension of variance in~PCB73—359,
itself an
extension of variances granted in PCB 70-21 and PCB 72-350);
considerations
in two cases are central to this discussion,
in that the Board there directly dealt with the question of
thermal effluents
iflto “cooling lakes”:
Central Illinois
Public Service Co.
v.
EPA, PCB 73—384,
11 PCB 677
(1974);
Citizens For A Bette: Environment v.
Commonwealth Edison PCB
73-245, and Commonwealth Edison v
EPA, PCB 73-24~ (Consolidated),
13 PCB 69
(1974).
~PCB 73—38.4 has been appealed to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District,
No. 74—182
(R.571);
PCB 73-248
is also before the Fifth District in case
No.
74—
281.)
4.
Natural land contours may form part of the impoundment,
such that some runoff from adjacent lands enters these
lakes
(R.11;
see also R.97).
5.
This definition has previously been given only by
implication.
Cf., eases cited,
note
3,
supra.
18
—
683
—4—
T~eother tyDe of impoundment, an “artificial cooling
lake”,
encompasses the remaining field of cooling water
enclosures at issue here.
Generally formed by damming an
existing watercourse which is itself a protected water of
the state,
such artificial cooling lakes remain subject to
the Board’s water çuality and effluent standards.
This categorization by the Board was not a painless
process.
The utilities contended that since these cooling
impoundments are initially formed to dispose of waste heat
from
a generating station’s condensers,
it would make no
sense to deem thei~anything but treatment works, and that
the imposition of the water quality and effluent standards
would be improper.7
The Board, however, held that the
character of
a protected water of the state is not changed
by the simple construction of a dam; where a stream, whether
continuously or intermittently flowing,
is dammed to form an
artificial lake fox cooling purposes,
it remains a protected
water of the state.
Its waters remain subject to the Board’s
standards. 8
6.
For purposes of our discussion here,
the term “cooling
lake” should be uri~5erstoodto refer
to cooling water impoundments
formed by damming
a natural stream, continuously or inter-
mittently flowing.
Where distinctions are required, the
shortened terms “dammed lake”
and “perched lake” will be
used.
As will be shown
later, certain characteristics of the
two types of impoundments are interchangeable,
and the
distinction between the two types will be the subject of a
definition
adopted in the accompanying regulation.
The
type of impoundment being discussed should be kept clear.
(See discussion,
R.55, regarding Edison’s interpretation in
this regard prior to the Board’s decision in
PCB 73-248,
supra)
7.
See,
eg., discussion at R.81:
“..
.
the very concept of
cooling the lake runs counter,
really,
to the Board’s Regulations,
in the sense that if you are going
to design something to be
a cooling facility,
it shouldn’t have to meet-—except the
effluent from that sy3tem——
...
temperature restrictions.”
See
also
13 PCB at
‘8,
79.
8.
See also, PCB
73—384, supra,
11 PCB at 680:
“The Board
in Lea~ueof Women Voters_vThorth Shore Sanitary District,
PCB 71-7,
12,
13,
14, has held that a protected water of the
state
(i.e.,
Lake Michigan) cannot be used as a treatment
works
.
.
.
.
18
—
684
—5--
Then, however,
the Board stated that “The evidence
further showed that not only
is the lake an improvement over
the previously existing waters, but
it is possibly a better
lake than natural lakes of its size and location.”
Still
speaking of Lake Sangchris, the Board stated that,
“From the
facts elicited,
there has been no environmental damage
proven
....
“
13 PCB at 80,
81.
Based on these facts,
the Board stated that Edison had
two forms
of relief open to it with regard to the thermal
effluent from Sangcliris:
1)
it could seek a Variance from
the Board’s limitations,
if it felt that the regulations
were arbitrary and unreasonable in their application to
Sangchris; such
~.
Variance would extend from year to year
pending the development and implementation of a plan to
bring Sangchris into compliance with existing regulation;
or
2)
Edison could seek a Regulatory change,
if it felt that
the rules were then~selvesunreasonable.
Edison chose the
latter route.
In this proceeding, Edison has attempted to show,
simply,
that the application of present water quality standards
in Rule 203(i)
to artificial cooling lakes
is unnecessary
for the protection of the environment.
PCB Regs,
Ch.3,
Rule 203(i)
(1972).
Further, Edison has attempted to show
that because the present limitations are unnecessary,
it is
not economically reasonable to apply them to artificial
cooling lakes.
To achieve this change, Edison offered the
following Regulator~iamendment
(Ex.
1):
1.
(Sec.
104):
“Artificial cooling lake” means any
manmade
lake which
is not a treatment works but
is
used to cool the water discharged from the condensers
of a steam—electric generating plant for recirculation
in substantial part to the condensers.
2.
(Sec.
203(i) (10)):
The preceding temperature
provisic~nsshall not apply to discharges into an
artificial cooling lake.
3.
(Sec.
937(a)(7):
Where an artificial cooling lake
is proposed
to be constructed by damming the flow
of a non-intermittent stream,
a statement from the
Illinois De7artment of Conservation that the lake
will not diminish the recreational value of the
area.
18
—
685
—6—
During the course of the hearings Edison stipulated to
~.
change in its prooosal,
to
the, extent that under its
Droposed Rule 95~(a)(7)
the statement to be required from
bhe Illinois Depa:tment of Conservation
(Conservation) would
show that an artificial cooling lake to be created would
‘enhance” the recreational value of the area, rather than
r~ere1y“not diminish” such recreational value
(R.52).
Later,
in a letter to the Board,
Dr.
Briceland,
Director
f the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency),
.~fferedthe Board
an
alternate wording for the proposed
T~egu1ation:
Rule
104:
“Artificial cooling lake” means any manmade lake
which is not a treatment works but is used to cool
the water discharged from the condensers of a
steam-etectric generating plant for recirculation
in substantial part to the condensers.
Rule
203 Ci) (10):
Ill effluents to an artificial cooling
iake must comply with the applicable
provisions of th~thermal water quality
standards as set forth in Rule 203(i),
c~xceptwhen all of the following require-
ments are met:
(aa) All discharges
from
the artificial cooling lake to
other waters of the state comply with the applicable
provisions of Rule 203(1) (1—4).
(bb) The heated effluent discharged to the artificial
cooling lake complies with all other applicable
provisions of this Chapter, except Rule 203 (1) (1—4).
(cc)
At a public hearing, the discharger demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Board that the artificial
cooling lake receiving the heated effluent will be
an environiientally’ manageable and acceptable
fishery and recreational facility, and that control
of the thermal component of the discharger’s
effluent, beyond that which is proposed in the
demonstration, would be technologically infeasible
or economically unreasonable.
(dd) Upon approval of such demonstration by the Board,
the Board ~hal1 establish alternate thermal effluent
standards to be applied to the discharge to the
artificial cooling lake.
—7—
Dr. Briceland’s proposed alternate wording was published by
the Board in Environmental Register No.
104.
As the hearings progressed Dr. Briceland offered a
final proposal in the matter, incorporated into the record
as Exhibit 32:
Rule 104:
“Artificial cooling lake” means any manmade lake
which is not a treatment works but
is used to cool
the water discharged from the condensers of a
steam—elec~tricgenerating plant for recirculation
in substantial part to the condensers.
Rule 203 (1) (10):
All effluents to an artificial cooling
lake must comply with the applicable
provisions of the thermal water quality
standards as set forth in Rule 203(i),
except when all of the following requirements
are met:
(aa) All discharges from the artificial cooling lake to
other waters of the state comply with the applicable
provisions of Rule 203(i) (1—4)
(bb)
The heated effluent discharged to the artificial
cooling lake complies with all other applicable
provisions of this Chapter, except Rule 203(i) (1-4).
(cc) At a public hearing, the discharger demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the Board that the artificial
cooling lake receiving the ‘heated effluent will be
operated i~1an environmentally acceptable manner
so as to provide conditions capable of supporting
an acceptable fishery,
and that control of the
thermal co~~nponentof the discharger’s effluent by
means of an artificial cooling lake represents the
most technologically feasible and economically
reasonable means of thermal control.
The demonstration
documentation shall set forth the specific maximum
thermal limits proposed by the discharger.
(dd)
The demonstration required in Rule 203(i) (10) Ccc)
may take the form of those applicable portions of
the final environmental assessments used in the
preparation of the final environmental impact
statemenL,
that addresses the requirements of Rule
203(i) (10) ,cc)
(ee) Upon approval of such demonstration by the Board,
the Board shall designate the proposed thermal
effluent limits set forth in the demonstration
as
the ther~ialstandards to be applied to the discharge
to that artificial cooling lake.
18
—
687
—8—
(ff) Any discha:~gerto an artificial cooling lake who
has been granted a variance from one or more of
the provisions of the thermal standards
Rule
203(i) (1—4)
prior to adoption of this Rule,
shall
be exempted from the requirements of Rule 203(i) (10) (cc).
The alternate thermal limitations
for that discharge
shall be the conditions set forth in the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Order on the variance.
NEED FOR CHANGE
The hearings and the record generated in this matter,
including the extens~veexhibits, conclusively demonstrated
that some change is needed in the present thermal standards
as they apply
to artificial cooling lakes.
This conclusion
is mandated by our finding of the following facts:
1.
No substantial environmental harm has resulted at
several existing cooling impoundments9 where the thermal
effluents of the accompanying generating stations violate
existing Board thermal standards.
2.
The cost of providing alternate methods
tc cool the
condenser coolant discharges from steam—electric generating
plants associated with cooling lakes can be expensive.
It should be noted that these findings are essentially
similar to our findings in the earlier Edison case,
PCB 73-
248.
This is not, however, mere reiteration of facts already
found by the Board.
The findings in the earlier Edison case
were limited and specific; they applied solely to an individual
artificial cooling lake,
Edison’s Lake Sangchris.
The
proceeding at hand, however, has
a much broader scope; our
decision here will affect all presently existing artificial
cooling lakes, and all those to be built in Illinois in the
futureJ°
The difference is significant.
9.
Both dammed and perched lakes are considered here,
although the regulations to be adopted will affect only the
former.
10.
Existing artificial cooling lakes
in Illinois are: Lake
Sangchris
(Commonwealth Edison); Lake Springfield
(City of
Springfield); Lake of Egypt
(SIPC); Lake Coffeen
(CIPS).
Presently planned artificial cooling lakes are: Lake Clinton
(Illinois Power), Lake Newton
(CIPS).
18
—
688
—9—
Nor, howeve—,are these findings to be read as a commitment
by the Board
to the use of artificial cooling lakes
in all
situations where cooling is to be accomplished in conjunction
with a steam-electric generating station.
While existing
lakes have generaL’y proven environmentally acceptable, and
the cost of alterna:e or supplemental cooling has been shown
to be high, the present record is not conclusive as to the
advisability of using or not using artificial cooling lakes
in every situation.
Whether an artificial cooling lake or
some alternate cooling technology is to be used in
a specific
instance is dependent on many factors,
and must be shown on
a case—by-case ba3is.
For clarity, we will consider first the costs associated
with the various technologies for cooling at electric generating
stations, with a brief description of the way
in which they
work.
We will then discuss the results of the thermal input
from present steam-electric generating plants on the aquatic
biota at existing cooling impoundments.
COOLING TECHNOLOGIES
The present state of the art allows several engineering
choices
in
the design of cooling facilities for steam-
electric generating plants.
Such plants generate steam to
drive electric generaLing units, after which the steam is
condensed back into water for re—use.
To achieve that
condensation,
the used steam is passed through “condensers”,
which are water—cooled heat exchangers.
The water used to
cool the condensers,
(a considerably greater quantity than
that used as steam to run the generators), must then in turn
be either cooled or ‘lisposed of to make way for new, cooler
water to absorb
the
heat conducted through the condensers
(eg.,
R.9).
Once-Through Cooling
One common method of accomplishing condenser cooling is
“once—through” cooling, whereby water is taken from a
natural water body,
(ie,
a lake or river), passed through the
condensers, and then returned, untreated and unc~ooled’, to
that or some other body of water. Since
it requires -a large
volume of available cooling water, this method is used
largely on major water bodies,
such as Lake Nichi~anie.
Zion Station)
or the Mississippi River
(ie.,
Quad Cities
Station).
This method of cooling is unimportant to our
discussion here
(R 10).
18
—
689
—10—
Mechanical Draft Coding Towers
Water may alsc be cooled through the use of mechanical
or natural draft cooling towers.
Mechanical draft cooling
towers, more commcn than the natural—draft variety in the
United States,
(R.353), dissipate waste heat to the atmosphere
through the process of evaporation, with little or no loss
though conduction or radiation, and a resultant loss of
efficiency, whereas 40—50
of cooling on lakes
is through
radiation
(R.ll5.l22)
By way of example,
the evidence in this matter indicated
that the use of mechanical draft cooling towers at Lake
Sangchri~would
in~.rolveapproximately $17.6 million.
Costs
incurred from the naed of such towers for auxiliary power
and from the loss oi~generating capacity,
as well as other
factors, would amount to approximately $6.4 million, figured
as the equivalent of present investment cost.
After
$1.2
million in operating and maintenance costs for these towers
is added in,
the evidence showed that the backfitting of
mechanical draft cooling towers at Kincaid station,
(Lake
Sangchris), would amount
to approximately $25 million
(Ex.
6(N),
testimony of Michael J.
Groppi in PCB 73-248).
Exhibit 27, submitted by Central Illinois Public Service
Company,
shows similar breakdowns for the costs of mechanical
draft cooling towers at that Company’s Coffeen and Newton
artificial cooling lakes.
Although extensively questioned
on cross—examination, the figures nonetheless show that the
actual and equivalent
(present value of lost generating
capacity at the stations, maintenance operation,
fuel,
etc.,)
costs would be approximately $20 million for Coffeen
Station and Lake,
and $18 million for Newton Station and
Lake.
Figures were also presented for Illinois Power Company’s
proposed Clinton Nuclear Power Station.
Figures presented
indicated a cost for “once—through” cooling towers of $29.5
million,
a figure termed “capital cost” over the 30-year
life of the Station
CConiment C, attachment 1, p.2; Letter,
April
14,
1975,
Illinois Power to U.S. EPA).
18
—
690
—11—
It should also be noted that these costs do not necessarily
replace the cost of building and maintaining an artificial
cooling lake or its equivalent,
even for new stations where
the cooling impoundment has not yet been built.
The testimony
of several witnesses,
as well
as several of the exhibits,
showed that the
‘.ise of mechanical draft cooling towers would
still,
(in the ab3ence of a large natural body of water),
require a large
impoundment to supply make—up water, due to
the increased consumptive water use of such towers.
One
witness stated emphatically that, to account for the 50-100
year drought conditins for which power station design must
provide,
a make—up water impoundment at least as large as an
artificial cooling lake for the same facility must be built
(R.126;
see also R.32, 378)
Natural Draft Cooling Towers
Natural drafi~wet cooling tower costs were also provided
for Lake Sangchris.
Not presently used in Illinois,
these
towers,
(the large hyperbolic structures seen in the literature),
are much less used in the United States than in Europe,
although some examples are available
(R.354).
Exhibit
6(N)
shows
an estimate that Kincaid station would require a
single hyperbolic tower 460 feet in diameter and 500 feet
high, with a cost,
~figured in the same manner as for mechanical
draft towers),
of approximately $31 million.
Trimming Towers
A further type of cooling tower,
a “trimming tower” was
also discussed for Coffeen and Newton Stations.
Without
providing a breakdown,
the conclusion was made that such
towers, designed
SUCh
that after discharge to a cooling lake
the effluent could meet a 5°F.temperature rise at the edge
of the mixing zone,
(ie., not a “closed cycle” system),
would
be less costly than a conventional closed cycle mechanical
draft cooling tower system.
Such towers would require the
minimum of additional piping and additional power.
However,
this concept was dismissed by CIPS when it concluded that
such towers would not work;
“wet bulb” temperatures in the
area would be too high to allow full and efficient performance
for perhaps six mi’nths of the year
(Ex.
27,
p.3).
18
—691
—12—
Dry Cooling Towe:s
A final type of cooling covered in the testimony and
exhibits was the
“thy” cooling tower.
Such towers do not
achieve condenser water cooling through evaporation, and
instead channel th?- water through finned radiators cooled by
air passage over the radiator surface.
It was stated
(Ex.
5,
p.3) that such towers are much lower in efficiency
than wet towers,
since it is not possible to make use of
evaporatve cooling.
It was also alleged that the development
of such towers
is still in an “infancy” stage,
and that they
are not yet commercially viable
(R. 114).
(A hybrid tower,
the “wet-dry” was mentioned only
(Ex.
5,
p.4)
as being
developed to control the problem of plume drift with wet
towers).
Spray Canals
Similarly,
spray canals form an expensive alternative
when compared to a:~tificialcooling lakes used alone.
As
was the case wit1~towers,
the Board was presented with
considerable data on the costs
of such spray canals.
A spray canal has been proposed by Illinois Power for
its proposed Clinton Station and Lake, utilizing 232 total
spray modules in a 31 mile long discharge canal. Cf.
Illinois
Power Co.v.
EPA, R75-3l
(July 31,
1975).
Illinois
Power st~èsthe cost of the proposed system as a “capital
cost of $11,522,800
(cash flow through Unit #2 completion
Ed:
1983))
and
...
a total revenue requirement of $34,524,800
to cover all capital, operating and maintenance costs over
the assumed economic life of the generating units
(30 years)”
(Comment C,
Exhibit
1, p.2).
A hypothetical closed cycle spray canal cooling system
to replace Lake ~angchris for cooling at Edison’s Kincaid
Station would have 130 spray modules in a 7,600
ft.
canal.
Although the costs estimated for such a system at Kincaid
may not be applicable generally, due to the fact that back-
fit installation there would require extensive reconstruction,
Edison estimated a total cost of approximately $38.4 million.
18—
692
—13—
IMPOUNDMENTS TO (OMPLY WITH GENERAL REGULATIONS
The costs associated with the design and construction
of a cooling lake
(or any artificial impoundment) which
would be capable of meeting the general Board therrn~jstandards
must also be considered.
Present Board Regulations-i-
allow
temperature rises of 5°F.above ambient, and set maximum
water quality temperature standards for various waters and
classes of waters.
The testimony presented at the hearing
indicated that present cooling lake technology12 would not,
as applied to an existing or planned standard cooling lake,
allow for compliance with Board standards.
11.
The principal ~oard Regulations controlling thermal
pollution are contained in Rule 203(i) of Chapter
2:
Water
Pollution.
The Rule applies to “General Use” waters.
Ch.
3, Rule 205(f)
sets
a thermal water quality standard of
93°F,not to be exceeded more than
5
of the time,
for
Restricted Use
(Secondary Contact and Indigenous Acquatic
Life Waters, Rule 302)
Waters.
100°F.is never
to be exceeded.
Rule 402,
in Part IV:
Effluent Standards, prohibits
any effluent which will result
in a violation of any water
quality standard.
Lake Michigan temperature standards are contained in
Rule 206(e).
It should be noted, however, that under Rule 201,
Mixing Zones,
a discharger is given an area as would be
contained in a circLe with
a radius of 600 feet within which
the water quality standards may be violated.
Were the case
otherwise,
all effiuents would have to meet water quality
standards.
(Cf,
Ohi..o-Wabash
Thermal Standards,
supra,
2
PCB at 565,
(citing SWB
9 and SWB
10, limiting mixing
to the
area
“inirnediately
adjacent to outfalls.”
The basis
of a
600’-radius rnixin~i zone is questioned at
2 PCB 566).
An important decision of the Board, Commonwealth
Edison v. EPA. PCB 73—359,
10 PCB 659,
662
(1974), found
that mixing zones are limited only by the area contained
within the
600’ circle, and riot by the shape of the circle;
thus,
the
26 acre mixing zone may be
“cigar shaped” if
necessary.
(Note,
ho”iever, the limitations on mixing zones
in Ch.
3, Rules 201(o)
and
(b)).
See also, Water Pollution Amendment Regulations,
R73-l,
11
Pc~T35,
140—41
(1974).
12.
Although not conclusive,
testimony offered by Edison
indicated that cooling lakes tend to be roughly proportional
in
size,
as betwecn generating plant size ~nd lake surface
area, resulting
in
roughly equivalent heat loading on cooling
lake surfaces
(R.124).
18
—
693
—14—
The “cooling”~-3properties of an artificial cooling
lake, testimony sho~ed,are largely dependent on two factors:
the volume of a lake,
and its depth
(R.527).
In other
words,
there must he a large volume of water with which
mixing can take place before water quality standards can be
met at the edge of a
26 acre14 mixing zone.
Such mixing
allows heat to be dissipated from the effluent into adjacent
waters through conduction;
while this process does not
actually remove the heat from the body of water in question,
it does lower the temperature of the effluent fairly quickly.
Since the adverse effects which Board regulations are designed
to prevent are the result of temperatures in waters, rather
than the total amount of heat contained in a water body,
such mixing is effective.
Testimony at the hearing showed that it is simply not
practical to perfor~nsuch mixing on cooling lakes that
either now exist or would be likely in Illinois.15
In the
opinion of one witness,
a lake of the size of one of the
Great
Lakes would be required before the effluent from a
current large electric generating station would meet the
present Board standards at the edge of the allowed mixing
zone
(R.528,108).lh
While the Board is not convinced that one of the Great
Lakes would actually be required to meet its present standards,
it is fairly plain that cooling lakes designed to meet
present standards without supplemental cooling,
(ie, towers
or spray canals), would be far more expensive than has
previously been
t1’e case.
Present lake design simply does
not provide a sufficient body of water for the required
mixing;
to provide sufficient water for such mixing would
require a much larger lake, with the additional expense of
the additional land to be inundated.
13.
“cooling” here being used in the sense of temperature
reduction,
as opposed to actual heat loss
(cf.
R.l00,
104).
14.
See, PCB 73—359,
supra,
10 PCB 659 at 661.
By way of
contr~E,discharge of 2,140 CFS at 13.5°F. Delta-T
(change
in temperature) requires a 500 acre mixing zone before the
5°F. Delta T requirement of Rule 203(i)
is met
(R.l7).
15.
Sangchris,
for example, has no flowing water such as
would be used for mixing with a large river
(R.l02).
Sangchris
cost in excess of $30 million for the construction of the
enclosure alone
(R.15).
The lake has approximately 2700
acres of surface area
(R.3l)
.
Only 46 lake sites such as
Sangchris, with a potential of more than 2,000 acres surface
area, exist in Illinois, and only
4 of those are located in
Northern Illinois
(R.675,
695,
698)
16.
Ex.
5, pp I-li
1-2 show new units varying from 200 to
1175 megawatts, with only
2 examples
(of
17) below 500
megawatts.
18
—
694
—15—
LACK
OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM
As was noted,
in the quotations from PCB 73-248,
relating to the lack of evidence of environmental harm at
Lake Sangchris,
the Board was impressed by the facts presented
with relation to that Lake.
However, more information has
been developed since the time of the Board’s findings there,
which must necessarily be discussed here;
it must be remembered
that the Regulation~proposed here would have much wider
effect than could be justified on only the evidence presented
in that case.
The Regulations proposed, in both the Edison
and Agency versions, would be effective as against all
artificial cooling lakes.
For that reason, we must examine
the evidence presented regarding Lake Sangchrisl7 in the
light of its general applicability to cooling lakes, and we
must examine the data available regarding other similar
lakes
to determine whether the results noted
at Sangchris
are borne out in other locales.
Environmental harm,
as discussed here, refers
to a
range of potential carnage which might be envisioned as
resulting from the construction of an artificial cooling
lake.
A partial listing of the factors examined in determining
the lack of environmental harm is the effect of the thermal
effluent into an artificial cooling lake on:
a.
water quality
b.
Phytoplankton, Zooplankton
c.
Benthos
d.
Macrophytes, Periphyton
e.
Fish
f.
Wildfowl, Aquatic Mammals
g.
Other uses
It should be noted that some of the data used
in
our
consideration is obt.ained from “perched” lakes which,
as
previously discussed would not be affected by the regulations
proposed here.
Such lakes are, however, sufficiently similar
to dammed “artificial cooling lakes” to allow the use
of
data gathered from them.
In effect,
since they are
unregulated,
the results of their unregulated thermal discharges on the
environment may be profitably used to show the effects of
thermal discharges on the biota of the unregulated lakes,
and allow extrapolation of that data
for application to the
“artificial cooling lakes”.
17.
It should be noted that Edison bore the brunt of the
evidentiary burden
in this proceeding, and that much of the
data now available to the Board resultantly relates to
Edison’s Lake Sangchris.
The Board commends Edison for both
the completeness ard comprehensiveness of its presentation
in
this matter.
18
—
695
—16—
A.
Water Quality
Edison’s 316(a) demonstration18 for Sangchris contains
considerable data on water quality
(Ex.
6).
In addition,
Edison commissioned the Illinois State Natural History
Survey to prepare a long—term
(4 year)
study on conditions
in Lake Sangchris.
Ex.
6(I)
is the first annual report on
that study,
and Ex.
7 is a further semi-annual report covering
through February,
3975.
Earlier data on the lake was compiled in a study by
Limnetics,
Inc., which prepared a limnological survey of
Sangchris submitted to Edison in 1972
(Ex.
6(D)).
In essence,
the information available from these sources does not show
any degradation of water quality in Sangchris which is
attributable to the thermal components of Edison’s Kincaid
Station effluent.
The 1972 Limnetics,
Inc.
study showed that Lake Sangchris,
with a daily discharge averaging 700 million gallons having
a Delta T of 13.5°F. (into a lake with a total volume of
10.7 billion gallons,
7.7 billion of which are actually in
the cooling loop), has generally good water quality.
The
only difficulty found was turbidity.
Fine clay sediments
entering the lake
i”. runoff are held in suspension by plant
operations
(Ex.
6 i.E),
iv).
Tests run to show levels for
about
30 parametero
(Ex.
6(D),
p.84,
Tables F—i to F-36,
Figures E-l to E-15),
revealed little of any interest.
Although fairly high nitrogen levels were found, which might
support algal blooms, low phosphorous levels in the lake
would limit algal productivity;
in addition, algal production
is light limited in
trie lake
(R.
308,
293) due to the high
levels of turbidity and suspended solids.
Later data for Sangchris,
(the Natural History Survey
study results), show a continuing high water quality in
Sangchris.
The first annual report of that study,
(Ex.
6(I)),
covering through September 4,
1974,
presents’ a considerable
mass of data on water quality parameters.
The report notes
that nitrogen is readily leached from soil,
and concentration
increases during winter and spring are normal in lakes
surrounded by agricultural lands
(Ex. 6(I),
p.
1.3).
Mercury
concentrations were rarely at the detectable limit, and
never beyond the limits set by Board Regulations
(Id.).
It
18.
A “316(a) demonstration” relates to application by a
discharger to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
an “alternate thermal standard” under §316(a)
of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L.
92-500,
70 stat.
498,
84 stat.
91,
33 U.S.C.
1251 et.
seq.
(1972)
18
—
696
—17—
was also noted that bacteriological concentrations
(especially
fecal coliform) ~re affected primarily by climate rather
than any other
fact.or;
the source of the coliform is the
surrounding land, ard provides input to the lake only when
the ground is not frozen.
(Id.,
p.
1.5).
The Sangchris
study to date,
(Ex.
6(I) and 7), has shown that deeper
portions of the lake,
little affected by the thermal component,
may at times violate Board dissolved oxygen
(DO)
standards.
It is shown, however, that this
is the result of natural
phenomena rather than the thermal input.
No violations have
occurred thus fax in the second year of the study
CR.
294).
The mass of data available for Lake Sangchris is made
more useful by a Comparative Limnological Literature Survey
for Sangchris Lake,
conducted in 1973 by the Natural History
Survey.
Various data for five lakes, with and without
thermal input, were collected.
(Ex.
6J.)
The lakes studied
were:
Lake Decatur, Evergreen Lake, Lake Lou Yaeger,
Lake
Springfield and Lake Taylorville.
All these lakes are
located in centrai. Illinois, and several are very similar to
Lake Sangchris.
.~1thoughthere ‘were some problems with the
comparative study due to lack of information,
it did indicate
that Lake Sangchris does not differ significantly from the
other lakes in any of the water quality parameters important
to our consideration.
Even the turbidity of Lake Sangchris,
which was inferred
by testimony to be a result of plant operations at Kincaid
Station, was not particularly high
(R. 293).
In fact,
Sangchris and Springfield,
the only two lakes
in the study with
a
thermal component from power stations, had the lowest
turbidity readings of those lakes considered
(Ex.
6(J),
P.
91,
Tables VIII-3,
VIIi-4).
Sangchris did, of course,
have
significantly. different temperature readings
(Id.,
P.
101,
Fig. VIII-6).
DO levels for Sangchris, Evergreen and Springfield
were essentially similar, while Decatur had higher readings
at most depths.
Esse~~tia1ly,the chemical and physical
parameters would appear
to be more dependent on the watershed
providing a lake’s water, and on the a~eof the lake,
than
on any other factor
(Id.,
pp.
91,80,7.).
Thermal discharges from the Daliman and Lakeside generating
plants of the City of Springfield affect approximately one—
fifth of the waters in the North Basin of Lake Springfield
daily.
The only water quality anomaly present in the two
studies submitted
Thich might be seen to be a result of the
thermal component is
a high nitrate level
(Ex.
24, pp.
6,
37;
Ex.
25, pp XII-20,21).
This
does not, however, appear
to be causing problems of plankton growth,
as the thermal
effluents from Lakeside and Dallman Stations are stressing
the plankton communities
(Ex. 25,p.XII—30)
.
While this
problem is not serious,
it needs further study.
18
—
697
—18—
B.
Phytoplankton,
Zooplankton
As noted above,
the Betz Study
(Ex.
25, p.XII-30),
reached the conclusion that the heated effluents from Lakeside
and Dallman stressed the plankton communities in Lake Springfield.
The earlier Burns/Swanson Study, however,
(Ex.
24,
p.
50),
reached the conclusion that Lake Springfield supports a
relatively good diversity of plankton species, both phytoplankton
and zooplankton.
Ii
stated that a dominance of the diatoms
suggests good overall ecological conditions at Lake Springfield.
As with Lake Sangchris,
small plankton speciman sizes were
attributed to phytopLankton feeders, and possibly some
temperature induced stress
(id,
p.
52)
The first annual report on Lake Sangchris,
(Ex. (6)1,
p.
2.17),
showed as a conclusion a lack of overall thermal effect
on zooplankton or phytoplankton.
Sangchris was described as
a moderately eutrophic lake with a typical phytoplankton
community.
It was aso
noted, that a reduction in size,
(cell and colony sizes were consistently observed near the
lower limits described for any given species), is
a well—
documented response to warm water conditions.
The semi-
annual report of the Natural History Survey Study,
(Ex.
7),
however,
showed that during the second year of the study,
when plant operations were at a lower level, population
trends at each of the sampling stations were similar to
those observed during the previous year
(Ex.
7.,
p.
2.1).
From all the data available~it would appear that thermal
inputs to cooling lakes result
in some localized effect on
plankton communities near station outfalls.
These effects
do not seem serious and have not been shown to upset the
normal productivity cycles for these lakes.
C.
Benthos
There was some indication,
(Ex.
16, Report No.
3),
that
condenser passage at Baldwin
Lake has proved harmful to
certain benthic organisms.
It was also felt that fish
predation could account for the same population decline
(id.
p.
7).
Later studies also indicated that low standing
benthos crops may be the result of poor bottom compositions,
primarily of clayey, heterogeneous sediments.
It was doubted
that high temperature caused the sparseness of bottom fauna,
due to sampling station distributions
(Ex.
16, Report No.
6,
p.2).
18
—
698
—19—
Early studies at Lake Sangchris indicated some difficulties
with the benthic population.
This problem apparently was
corrected in later years of operation.
(See
Infra,
pp
30)
0.
Macrophytes, Periphyton
An extensive study of aquatic vegetation at Lake Baldwin,
(Ex.
17), was unable to determine what effect the thermal
discharge had on the aquatic plant community.
It was feared
that too-extensive vegetation growth could interfere with
the cooling properties of the lake, and possibly result
in
higher temperatuxe discharges.
A study by WAPORA,
Inc.,
submitted March 25,
1975,
(Id.),
studied the effects of
herbicides on the lake
as a macrophyte control measure.
In
essence, no thermal effect could be found.
The Limnetics study at Sangchris
(Ex.
6(D),
§
5.3.6),
describes normal maorophyte growth.
Similarly,
the periphyton,
(shoreline growth), was found to be normal, with considerable
growth
(id, p.96).
E.
Fish
Discussion of the fish community in cooling impoundments,
(both dammed and diked), occupied much of the record in this
matter.
Of the fish populations discussed, game fish received
the greatest amount of attention
(eg., R.232—288).
The record clearly indicates that several cooling
impoundments support viable game fisheries.
This was obviously
true of Lake Sangchris, whose fishing virtues were praised
by many of the witnesses.
Fishermen representing various
organizations,
(ie., the Bass Anglers Sportsmen’s Society,
the National Wildlife Association,
the Bass Casting Association,
and the Illinois Wildlife Federation),
stated unequivocally
that Lake Sangchris provides some of the best fishing in
Illinois.
Perhaps more importantly, they stated that the
thermal discharge from Kincaid Station makes possible
a
year-round fishery,. providing winter recreation of
a type
not otherwise available in Illinois.
Although this latter
fact seemed of part~cu1arimportance to the fishermen
witnesses,
it was also stated that Kincaid’s thermal effluent
makes possible year—around habitation and growth by many
warm-water species of fish.
Although cross—examination left
open
the possibility that the thermal component may eliminate
some species which would otherwise habitate the lake,
(R.
452),
this issue was not heavily dwelled upon.
Instead,
testimony centerc~’don the unique recreational opportunities afforded
by Lake Sangchris.
18
—
699
—20—
It is apparent that Lake Sangchris
is indeed widely
used by Illinois residents.
A creel census, prepared by the
Illinois Department of Conservation,
(Ex.
6(L),
indicated
that 1973-74 usage at Lake Sangchris constituted 42,235
total fishermen days, with each angler spending an average
of 3.55 hours per year.
It was projected,
(Id.), that over
31,000 blue gill ~ould be caught,
and over 20,000 large
mouth bass;
crappy and channel catfish would account for
12,964 and 15,006 catches, respectively. Approximately
24,000 fish were caught during the “unique winter fishery”
CR.
679).
Although Lake Springfield has been less frequently
sampled, 1972 population analyses showed good fish growth
rate, condition and reproduction in all game fish species
samples.
It appeaxs that this condition has not always been
true of that Lake,
however; Department of Conservation
testimony indicated that fish condition
at Lake Springfield
has “changed dramatically”
(R.
680). Conditions now are
thought to be good,
and fluctuations in fish condition
cannot be attributed to the thermal component from the City
of Springfield’s generating stations
CR.
684).
Although no
data was available,
the Department of Conservation felt that
angler usage of Lake Springfield is quite extensive.
(See also
R.
232—285;
148—154;
679;
271;
(Baldwin and other lakes).)
In predicting conditions on Lake Clinton,
Illinois
Power cited extensi~relyfrom experience on Lake Sangchris.
Although temperatures at Lake Clinton would be lower than
those experienced at Lake Sangchris,
it was predicted that
conditions on Clinton will not vary significantly from those
observed at Sangchris
(eq.
Ex.
18,
§
6 p.37).
It is predicted
that Clinton will provide the same type of year-round fishery.
Several specific problems, possibly attributable to the
thermal component in Lake Sangchris, were discussed during
the hearings in Chic.igo and Springfield.
(For example,
it
was noted that in 3ome thermal plumes from electric generating
stations, super—saturation of air in the heated water causes
gas bubble diseases in fish
(R.481).
This has not been
observed at Lake Sangchris.)
It was pointed out,
CR.
466),
that fish move away from the thermal plume during some
seasons; while ther~is still some question as
to whether
this indicates
a harmful but sub—lethal effect,
such harm
has not been shown.
Although some species in Sangchris
have,
at times,
s~-iownsigns of poor condition
(i.e., weight-
to—length ratio),
this fact is offset by population densities
within those species
CEx.
6(1);
R.
482).
(See infra p.29).
18
—
700
—21—
Many other qi~estionswere also raised at these hearings
with regard to the possible sublethal effects of heat on
various fish specits.
These include problems with reproduction,
habitat crowding, species imbalance,
species elimination,
and fish diseases j~j.R.706).
Many of these questions,
however, remain academic, and the reader is referred to the
record for a complete
-
and particularly in the Exhibits
-
thorough examination of these matters.
The fact re~nainsthat the cooling impoundments examined
in this proceedi.~gall support large fish populations. More
importantly, the record shows that the existence of these
fish populations may well indicate a generally healthy
condition in the suiject lakes.
Game fish occur at the top
of a complex, and finely balanced, food chain and ecosystem
(eg.
Ex.
6(D), p.12’~). A break in the ecology or food chain
in a cooling lake might well prohibit the flourishing
fisheries now found.
This fact seems borne out by the references cited in
the Exhibits.
One,
(Bush,
et al., Potential Effects of Thermal
Discharges on Aquatic Systems,
8 Environmental Science and
Technology 561
(June,
1974)), even suggests that the effects
of thermal effluents on fresh water fish communities will
suffice as a guide.Line for the protection of both fish and
invertebrates.
Due to the size and diversity of the biota
to be protected,
and the fact that thermal limitations are
not known for all species,
the effects on fish may well be
our best guide.
Certainly, the Board cannot hope in a
proceeding of this
iature,
to completely resolve issues
which apparently remain contested in the scientific community.
But, based on the record here, we may accept the thermal
effects on fish a~one indication of general conditions in
the biota.
This does not
mean that we will blindly accept the
existence of a fishery as our only criteria.
Sufficient
questions have arisen to show that many possible problems do
exist, at many levei,s in the biota, which may be the result
of thermal effluents.
The record certainly indicates that,
with fish as well ~.sother aquatic animals and plants, very
high temperatures may produce distinct harm to the environment.
Thus, while we dc not accept the contention that the existence
of a fishery is the sole criteria of compatability between
the ecosystem and additional heat loadings, the existence of
a viable fishery must be given considerable weight.
18
—
701
—22—
F.
Wildfowl,
etc.
There was considerable testimony,
CR.
305), to the
effect that wildfowl usage of Lake Sangchris has been normal.
It was asked at some length whether the migratory feeding,
or other habits of wildfowl may be affected by the addition
of heat to bodies of water used by those birds.
The evidence
shows that these effects,
if they do exist, are minimal.
Further, extensive predictive data on wildfowl usage for the
proposed Clinton Lake has indicated that wildfowl usage of
cooling lakes will not constitute a future problem, whether
through the addition of nutrient or the introduction of
parasites
(eg.
Ex.
18,
§ 6.3.2.3.2,
p.
6—42).
G.
Other Considerations
It has been argued that the function of the Board in
protecting the environment does not allow for the consideration
of other factors in reaching our decisions on environmental
matters
(eg. Submission of U.S. EPA, letter of July
9,
1975;
see also,
Ex.
20, p.4; R.365).
We are not convinced that
EFiis
is the case.
The General ~ssemb1y made it quite clear in the Environmental
Protection Act that there are many factors to be considered
by the Board in reaching our decisions.
Section 27 of the
Act sets out a listing of factors
to be considered,
several
of which are important here insofar as they require our
consideration of the benefit of artificial cooling lakes,
to
both the utility company owners of such lakes and to the
public at large.
These factors must then be balanced against
either the harm,
cr the possibility of harm, which may
result from our decision.
It would appear that,
within limits
CR.
481),
the
addition of heat from a steam-electric generating plant
actually aids ir~the growth and development of gamefish in
artificial cooling lakes
(eg.
R. 462).
While the continued
growth of fish and other aquatic organisms during winter is
unquestionably not in the natural order of things for
Illinois lakes;
it would appear that this phenomena none-
theless contributes to the recreational value of an artificial
cooling lake.
Further,
it would appear that the presence of
such
a fishery as
is evidently produced by the thermal
effluent may also be a good indication of,the general environ-
mental quality and acceptability of an artificial cooling
lake
(supra,
p.
2.~.). Apparently,
then,
the existence of this
type of recreational use is compatible with the preservation
of our environmer’t.
18
—
702
—23—
Two other factors, besides those which might normally
be covered
in
a purely environmental consideration of the
acceptability of higi~-temperaturethermal effluents to
artificial cooling lakes, remain.
The first is the need of
the State of Illinois for the type of general recreational
facility,
(besides a game fishery), which has been provided
at Lakes Sangchris and Springfield, and to a lesser extent
at other artificia’. cooling impoundments in Illinois.
Illinois has a serious deficit in recreational parkland for
general use; this seems especially true of “water related”
public land
(eg.
R.
113,
347,
703;
Ex.
19).
By providing
multiple use areas,
cooling lakes may thus provide a considerable
public benefit to be weighed against any possible environmental
harm.
The multiple recreational uses which have accompanied
present cooling impoundments are perhaps best shown at Lake
Springfield.
Testimony showed that Lake Springfield supports
a viable fishery as well as public swimming areas,
eight
public parks, children’s
zoo
and botanical areas,
a golf
course,
the Municipal Opera, a wildlife sanctuary,
and
boating and
campi1’~’gareas
(R.
427,
429,
680).
This listing
is only partial; while this lake may not be typical of the
uses to which an artificial cooling lake can or will be put,
it may serve as an example of the types of
uses
possible.
There was also testimony,
(eg.,
R.
272,
273),
to the
effect that there are multiple recreational uses, besides
the excellent sport fishery, accompanying Lake Sangchris.
The lake and park there provide a wildfowl refuge,
as well
as camping and general outdoor recreation areas
The need for such multiple—use facilities in Illinois
was brought out
in the
testimony of Dr. Wayne Rogers of the
Illinois Departmth~.tof Conservation.
Dr. Rogers testified
on the beneficial qualities of these sites, and on the
Department
of’ Conservation’s need for such sites
(R.
674-
713)
Our finding in that artificialcooling lakes may provide
a suitable recreaticn resource was not the result of
a
consensus on the record.
Mssrs.
Adarnczyk and Ginsler both
stated that what is considered an acceptable recreational
facility for some may in fact result from the destruction of
the natural, unspoiled areas sought out by others
(R.
156,
179).
It was also pointed out that the use of an artificial
cooling lake for recreational purposes is not always ideal,
due to the presence of the steam-electric generating
station
for which the lake
is constructed
(R.
696).
18
—
703
—24—
Besides those oublic and recreational uses,
there
remains a final aspect to be considered in relation to the
construction of artificial cooling lakes.
Principally from
the testimony of Dr. Ackerman, Chief of the Illinois State
Water Survey,
it wosld appear that the impoundment of artificial
cooling lakes may be an important measure
in
the husbandry
of our natural water resources.
While Illinois may be
considered a “water rich”
state, to the extent that it
receives an abundance of rainfall and has many large rivers
and other bodies of water,
there are nonetheless many areas
of the state that are effectively impoverished as regards
available water
(eq.,
Ex.
11,12,13).
Many of the state’s
streams are intermittent,
and are dry much of the time.
By
impounding these streams, much of the water that would
ordinarily be lost as runoff is retained and made available
for public benefit.
An excellent example is Lake Springfield, which provides
a public water supply for the City of Springfield.
The Lake
was,
in part, constructed to provide for this use
(R.
423).
While not all artificial cooling lakes are
—
or could be
-
used for that purpose, this
is again evidence that condenser
cooling,
with effluent temperatures in excess of present
standards,
is not ~ncongruent with other beneficial uses.
As was stated at th’~Springfield hearing of May 23,
1975,
it
is conceivable that artificial cooling lakes might be used
for irrigation,
industry, or any other use of general benefit
(R.
340,
349). The retention for beneficial use of waters
which would otherwise be lost provides the Board with
a
factor which must be weighed
in setting Regulations for
environmental benefit.
Discussion of this conservation of Illinois’ water
resources would not be complete without again mentioning
that cooling impoundments may be the least consumptive of
the engineering alternatives available for steam—electric
generating station cooling.
Testimony indicated that,
in
addition to any other problems with cooling towers or canals,
their excessive use of evaporation as the principal cooling
mechanism is extremely water—consumptive
(eg.,
R.
335,370;
Ex.
9;
see also R.
357)
At a time wh&n Illinois
is lacking in both public
recreational areas and
in a full use of its water resources,
artificial cooling lakes have historically provided at least
partial solutions to both problems.
This is not to say
that these factors are sufficient to override all environmental
18—
704
—25—
considerations.
As was noted in the testimony of Dr. Rogers
of the Department of Conservation,
it would not necessarily
be in the best interests of the state if all possible sites
were developed for artificial cooling lakes.
Further, the
testimony of Mr.
Adamczyk,
Dr.
Rogers, and Mr. Ginsler show
that the types of recreational facilities provided by artificial
cooling lakes may not always be the best use of available
natural land.
And
there is the possibility that th~construction
of an artificial cooling lake may eliminate the habitats of
important indigenous wildlife and aquatic species
Ceg.,
R.
446).
The Board also remains concerned that the construction
of such artificial cooling lakes may inundate excessive
amounts of agricultural land.
Again,
these factors must
be weighed on a case—by—case basis.
But in light of the paucity of evidence demonstrating
any actual net dai~ageto the environment from artificial
cooling lakes, the multiple use of these lakes weighs heavily
in favor of the adoption of these Regulations,
and here led
to the inclusion of the relevant portions of Rule 203(i) (10) (cc).
This was also a consideration of the Board in adopting the
specific thermal standard for Lake Clinton.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
In summary,
the Board finds that the adoption of Regulations
to allow for speci~icthermal standards for individual
cooling lakes would be
thoroughly justified.
While the
record has shown tnat there is not presently a full understanding
of the environmental dynamics of lakes receiving large heat
input,
it nonetheless indicates that at present there
is
little or no indication of any significant damage.
The record indicates that there is no question that
excessive thermal inputs can be damaging to the aquatic
environment of an artificial cooling lake.
Each artificial
cooling lake must be judged on its own merits.
No individual
factor can justify the complete de-regulation of these
lakes, and no individual factor,
(such as recreational use),
can by itself provide the test of acceptability for an
artificial cooling lake.
We realize that the coverage of this regulation is
narrow;
it applies only to the thermal effluents from steam—
electric generating plants.
Since the testimony of Dr.
Ackerman
CR.
353) po~ntedout that there are many other
sources of heated water, we have considered the question of
applying the regulation more generally.
We are however limited
to the facts before
us;
the evidence herein concerns only
the types of impoundments discussed above.
18
—
705
—26—
We have therefore adopted a careful case-by-case approach
to the situation.
The accompanying regulation provides for
an individual Regulatory proceeding to set specific thermal
standards applicable to an individual artificial cooling
lake.
SPECIFIC STANDARDS:
LAKE
CLINTON AND
LAKE
SANGCHRIS
In adopting these Regulations,
the Board has decided
that it would serve no purpose to require a further showing,
for Illinois Power’s Lake Clinton, as would otherwise be
required under the Regulations adopted here.
Edison’s Lake
Sangchris may not be treated similarly in arriving at a
specific thermai standard.
While the Board feels that the
evidence present supports the adoption of a final specific
standard for Clinton Lake,
the same conclusion cannot be
reached for Lake Sangchris. Our discussion of specific
thermal
standards for individual artificial cooling lakes
has been limited to Lakes Clinton and Sangchris;
although
other lakes were mentioned in the record, the information on
them was insufficient to warrant such discussion.
For Lake Clinton,
the Board has been presented with a
specific thermal limitation proposal.
The predictive modeling
done for that lake
is based on a maximum condenser cooling
discharge of 960 F.,
and specific, narrow operating conditions
for
a supplemental system to be used in conjunction with the
lake for cooling purposes.
For Lake Sangchris,
however,
the instant record nowhere
reflects a proposed specific standard.
Commonwealth Edison
did not request such a standard until the public comment
period following
the
final public hearing in Chicago on
June 23,
1975.
In
the record on Edison’s initial proposal,
supra,
its effect was shown as intended for general,
as
opposed to specific,
(ie., Sangchris),
applicability
(R.
124).
As a result, the mass of evidence introduced with
regard to Lake ~angchris, while supporting the general
conclusions reached here,
was insufficient to allow adoption
of a specific standard for that Lake.
—27—
Further heaxing(s)
on Lake Sarichris will, we feel,
allow
an opportunity for Edison to justify the higher specific
standards which we are rejecting here.
These higher standards
are those requested in Edison’s comment-period submission,
and may in fact be justifiable; but that justification does
not exist in the present record.
We have reached our decisions in both cases
(Sangchris
and Clinton) based on massive quantities of evidence submitted
at the hearings held in Chicago and Springfield.
It would
serve no great purpose to require that Edison once again set
out essentially the same data and testimony.
We will therefore
make provision for the incorporation of the record and
findings here in a further hearing on Lake Sangchris.
It is
our hope that this will minimize duplication of effort, and
still allow Edison a full opportunity to justify whatever
numbers it feels would be appropriate as a specific thermal
standard.
The specific provisions regarding Lake Clinton will
take effect upon proper submission to the Secretary of
State.
LAKE
SANGCHRIS
(DISCUSSION)
Lake Sangchris has previously been before the Board,
at
which time the Board was impressed by the lack of environmental
harm seen there.
As was noted above,
this Regulatory
proceeding is itselZ a result of our prior consideration in
PCB 73-248.
When instituting this proceeding, however,
Commonwealth Edison did not ask for a Regulation which would
be specifically applicable to Lake Sangchris, but instead
sought a change wh.ch would have exempted all artificial
cooling lakes from the present standards,
subject to certain
conditions.
The Board’s prior Opinion has not changed.
Based on
many of the same evidentiary matters presented in PCB 73-
248,
and on the wealth of further data seen here, we can
impose a specific thermal standard for that lake,
once
one has been proposed and justified.
That specific standard,
n~o~d, will a~hi~7ethe result originally sought by
Edison in this Regulatory proceeding, but will do so, we
feel,
in an environuentally and legally sound fashion. We
find that the data present as regards Lake Sangchris cannot
justify the imposition of a specific standard.
—28—
a.
Background.
Lake Sangchris was created between
1964 and 1966 by the construction of an
earthen dam across
Clear Creek
(Ex.
6, p.3).
By damming Clear Creek just
below the confluence of its three branches,
(approximately
one mile upstream of the confluence of Clear Creek and the
South Fork of the Sangamon River),
a three-armed lake was
created at a cost of about $30 million.
The lake, with a
surface of about 2,700 acres at a designed surface elevation
of 580 feet, ha~a volume of approximately 10.7 billion
gallons
(R.15;
Ex.
6(D), p.iii).
The Lake provides condenser cooling water for Edison’s
Kincaid Station,
a mine—mouth facility designed in the early
1960’s to take advantage of the economies accompanying
location near a fuel source
(Ex.
6, p.2;
R.l4).
Kincaid
Station has two
661
MW units,
and has a total condenser
cooling discharge
of
2140 cfs when the station is run at
full capacity. Normally,
three pumps are used to provide the
cooling water from the intake arm of Lake Sangchris,
(the
eastern of the three arms), and the effluent is discharged
into the discharge
(central)
arm.
(The station has four
pumps to provide cooling water, but maintenance difficulties
have kept one pump down for much of the station’s operating
history, R.5l9.)
The temperature of the effluent is dependent,
among other things, on the temperature of the water withdrawn
from the intake arm,
(largely a function of the season)
,
the
level at which the plant is operating, and the
number
of
pumps used
(R.5l9:
Ex.
10;
Ex.
6(D), Table
4—1, pp 55—60).
The total site at Kincaid Station comprises approximately
13,000 acres, including the lake
(Ex.
6,
p.
2).
In February,
1969, Edison conveyed about 2,300 of those acres
to the
Illinois Department of Conservation for the development of
Lake Sangchris State Park
(R.15).
Since that time,
considerable
effort has been expended by the Department of Conservation
to develop and operate a multi—purpose recreational site in
conjunction with the park and lake
(eg. R.272). Although the
total of the actions take~9todevelop the site are too
numerous to set our here,
there is no question of the
fact that Lake Sangchris is an excellent recreational asset
and sport fishery ~eg., R.678,680), both widely and well
used by Illinois residents
(see also, R.232,252,268).
19.
See the discussion above regarding the multiple use and
water conservation aspects of cooling lakes.
18
—
708
—29—
b.
Biota.
Much of the foregoing discussion of the
effects of thermal discharges on the biota of artificial
cooling lakes comes from data acquired at Lake Sangchris.
The work done there by the Natural History Survey,
the
Department of Conservation and various private consultants
for Commonwealth T~dison, (in particular the Limnological
Survey prepared by Lirnnetics,
Inc.), provides the Board with
a broad base
on
which to reach a determination with regard
to that Lake.
The data and evidence show little if any harm
from past operations at Lake Sangchris.
Our discussion noted that game fish, at the top of the
food chain,
have fared well in Lake Sangchris.
As also
noted,
this may be some indication of the overall “health”
of a body of water.
There have, however, been some anomalies
noted in the fish population at Lake Sangchris,
which require
specific coverage.
The Limnetics study, done in 1972,
stated that gizzard shad,
(the dominant fish in the lake at
that time),
showed poor condition with a low weight-to-
length ratio
(Ex.
‘5(D),
pp. vi,
120—125).
It was also
thought at that time that the channel catfish population was
not reproducing, although this may be normal for an impoundment
without a strong current
(Ex.
6(D), p.109).
Although this problem with the gizzard shad was not
fully discussed in the later Natural History studies,
(Ex.
6(1),
p.
4-5), the results of similar studies relating
to the “coefficient of condition” seem to indicate that the
weight-to-length ratio of fishes
in Lake Sangchris may be
more related to the local availability of food organisms
than to water temperature
(Ex.
6 (I),
p.
4—8).
Also, the
problem of slow growth in certain fishes may be more than
made up for by the numbers of individuals present in species,
(R.686), where there is competition for limited food resources.
This
is not to say, however, that all questions relating
to the fishery at Lake Sangchris have been answered.
The
Natural History studies have indicated that the bluegill
population is stunted, possibly from thermal stress
(R.483),
and that carp may not be successfully reproducing
(Ex.
6(I),
p.
4—5;
see also Ex.
6,
p.35,
Ex.
7, pp.
4.3,
4.4).
While
these questions and others need further study and examination,
it has not been shown that the thermal input from Kincaid
Station has produced any of these anomalies
(eg.,
R.707,
testimony of Biologist Herndon, Department of Conservation).
It may be that the problems which have been observed are all
within the natural order of things
(
id.).
—30—
There have also been questions raised regarding the
phytoplankton and zooplankton populations at Lake Sangchris.
It was shown in the Limnetics 1972 study that there was a
preponderance of the smaller species of both zoo- and phytoplankton
(Ex.
6(D),
p.
95).
Although data for other Illinois lakes
was not available for comparison, plankton from lakes
in
other parts of the country are larger
(Id., p.86).
This
problem,
however, may be more related to the selective
feeding habits of gizzard shad than to condenser passage
(Ex.
6 CD),
p.
120)
.
The reduction in individual size
is
possibly a response, at least in part,
to the warm water
input from Kincaid Station
(R.
297).
The earlier Limnetics study also showed a lack of
benthos in certain areas of the Lake
(Ex.
6(D), p.122).
This was attributed to oxygen deficits occurring in the
Lake, since the major benthic organism found is very tolerant
of low oxygen tensions
in the water.
The problem was attributed
primarily to the deeper portions of the Lake.
There
is
very little background data on the benthic populations
typical of Illinois reservoirs
CR. 501).
Some testimony
indicates that the population density and diversity are more
dependent on the available substrate or habitats than on the
water temperature
(R.
497—503). Later studies by the Natural
History Survey indicate that the earlier pausity of benthos
no longer exists, and that benthos are now “moderately
abundant”
in the Lake
(R.
298).
Heat tolerant species are
even found in the discharge canal
CR.
500).
Other testimony indicates that the macrophyte distribution
in Lake Sangchris is fairly normal
(Ex.
6(D),
§ 5.3.6), and
that wildfowl patterns of usage are typical, both in terms
of stay and distribution
(R.
305—306).
c.
Standards
The evidence,
then,
has shown that an
excellent fishery has been developed in Lake Sangchris,
and
that the fishery is extremely popular with area fishermen.
This fact, and the record’s rather minute examination of the
effects which the thermal effluents of Kincaid Station have
had on the aquatic biota of the Lake,
lead us to the conclusion
that past operaticns of Kincaid Station, with the attendant
thermal effluent, have probably not been environmentally
harmful.
However,
two questions remain:
1)
Will future
operations on Lake Sangchris be of the same nature as those
in the past?;
and
2)
What effluent temperatures at Lake
Sangchris have produced these results?
When these are
answered, we may set
a specific thermal standard for Lake
Sangchris based on the operational history of the Station
and the Lake.
18
—710
—31—
Cornmonwedlth Edison, in a letter to the Board dated
July 10,
1975..
requested the following as the specific
thermal standard for Lake Sangchris:
The temperature of the condenser cooling discharge
from Kincaid Station shall not exceed 107°F.except
that for
5
of the hours in any 12 month period
ending with any month during which time excursions
shall be allowed up to a temperature not to exceed 122°F.
This request was evidently based on an attachment to
that letter, c~rnsistingof a letter to the Board from Mr.
McCluskey of Commonwealth Edison.
Tables attached to that
letter indicate that the highest Delta—T experienced at
Kincaid during the period September
1,
1973 through October
31,
1974,
was 25°F. This Delta-T was reached with a generated
load at the stat~.onof 1,029 Megawatts, with two of four
cooling water cir.~ulatingpumps
in operation.
The letter
goes on to extrapolate that with a full generation load of
1286 megawatts the Delta—T could have been 31.2°F. Based
apparently on that same data,
the letter goes on to state
that although the maximum discharge temperature recorded
during that same period was 107°F.,the maximum that could
have occurred, with two circulating pumps in operation, and
the Station at maximum generating load, was 121,6°F.
This request by Edison was simply not reasonable.
First, other evidence has shown that it is unusual for there
to be only two circulating pumps in operation
(the station
has four such pumps), and historically there have been three
of them in operation to provide condenser cooling water
(R.5l9).
Second,
other exhibits,
(eg.
Ex.
6,
§ 316(a)
demonstration, Tatle
4)
indicate that over the course of
approximately 10 years of operation at Kincaid, the discharge
temperature rarely even approached the numbers requested by
Edison.
Based on these facts, we have determined that Edison
has requested a regulatory change based on a hypothetical,
worst-case situation, which, based on the evidence in this
proceeding, has never occurred.
We therefore,
after a
further hearing, must arrive at a specific figure as the
thermal standard for Lake Sangchris;
or, alternatively,
Edison must more fully justify the standard proposed.
The letter cited above states that during the period of
September 1,
1973 through October 13,
1974,
there were 7,741
observations made of the effluent temperature at Kincaid
Station.
During that time,
the effluent temperatures cited
exceeded 102°F.only 1.9
of the time,
and never exceeded or
equalled 108°F.; 104°F.and 106°F.were equalled or exceeded
only 0.2 and 0.1
of the time, respectively.
The temperature
data in that letter are, however,
incomplete.
18—
711
—32—
Table
4 of Exhibit
6,
(the
§ 316(a) demonstration for
Lake Sangchris),
containing sparse data for the years 1966
through 1974,
(no figures are given for the period from
November,
1968 through August,
1973),
shows a maximum
discharge temperature of 107°F.,with five weekly high
temperature readings exceeding 100°F.
Further, of approximately
110 weekly high temperature figures given, only 28 exceeded
90°F.,of which only
7 readings were between 96°F.and
100°F.
Of the readings between 96°and 100°,three were
96°F.,three were 97°F.,and one was 99°F. During this
period,
however,
it appears that the plant was not operating
at high levels.
Also,
it seems that these readings,
(those
taken from both the letter cited above and those shown in
Ex.
6), were the result of measurements made at the point of
discharge into the plant’s discharge canal, rather than at
the point of discharge into the Lake itself.
(It is not
clear where the readings contained in Mr. Mccluskey’s
letter were taken.)
Any standard which we may set for Lake Sangchris would
be,
in effect, the historic fact for that Lake.
In the
record before u~, the history
is incomplete.
While we have
determined that serious damage to the biota has probably not
occurred at Lake Sangchris, we cannot determine fully the
discharge temperatures, and their historic limits, which
have produced this result.
SPECIFIC STANDARDS
LAKE
CLINTON
(FINAL)
The evidence presented with regard to Lake Clinton,
which will be constructed along with the proposed Clinton
Station,
is larg’~1ytaken ~om
the §316(a) demonstration
presented to the
us.
EPA.~U Looking at the same evidence
and data,
the Board shall adopt into the instant Regulation
the same thermal standard as has been tentatively adopted
for Lake Clinton by the federal government pursuant to
§316(a)
of the
FWPCA.
Lake Clinton has also been rather thoroughly discussed
by the Board in another previous matter,
the Variance case
of Illinois Power v.
EPA, PCB 75-31, decided by the Board on
July 31,
1975.
While some of the following discussion may
20.
§316(a)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of 1972, PL 92—500,
33 U.S.C.
§1326(a).
18-.
712
—33—
therefore be duplicative of that Opinion and Order, we feel
that this
is nonetheless necessary.
The Board’s grant of a
specific thermal standard for Lake Clinton is,
in effect,
fulfillment of the compliance plan which was accepted in
connection with the grant of that Variance.
To avoid some
repetition, however, we specifically adopt that Opinion and
Order into the record here.
In addition
to
matters seen in the
§
316(a) demonstration
and the earlier Variance, our decision regarding a specific
standard for Clinton Lake is based on
additional matters
entered at the May 23,
1975 hearing in Springfield and
during the public comment period following the hearings.
Introduced by both Illinois Power and the U.S.
EPA, these
matters are further evidence of acceptable conditions predicted
for the Lake.
The same grounds that led to our grant of the Variance
in PCB 75-31 are those which lead us to adopt a specific
96°F.standard for Lake Clinton, and to adopt the same
technical conditions as those in the Variance.
The supplemental cooling system chosen by Illinois
Power for the Clinton Station is
a spray canal system,
utilizing 232 individual spray modules along the discharge
canal running from the Station to the Lake.
By using this
system,
it will be possible to meet a maximum discharge
temperature of 96°F.
This maximum, we find, will be sufficient
to preserve and protect the biota of the lake.
The proposed spray canal has been the subject of extensive
modeling and planning.
It has been conservatively engineered
to meet “worse case” conditions,
but nonetheless will not
result
in compliance with the general Board standards under
those “worst case~’conditions, although the present standards
will be met under many meteriological conditions.
It was
noted in the earlier Variance Opinion that there was some
question as to whether there will in fact be violations of
the present standards.
We found that the estimates of
violation in drought years were credible.
We again find
that to be the case.
It should be noted that the predictive data for Lake
Clinton is based on a rather thorough review of the literature
with regard to thermal effects,
and, importantly, on experience
at Edison’s Lake Sangchris,
as well as
a study by the Biology
Department of Southern Illinois University.
Since predicted
temperatures for Clinton will be within the range of experience
at Lake Sangchris,
the predicted temperature effects at Lake
Clinton are amenable to verification from the record on Lake
Sangchris.
—34—
In a letter to Illinois Power dated May
9, 1975,
the
U.S. EPA Regioi1 V Administrator tentatively approved an
alternate thermal standard for the proposed Lake Clinton.
That tentative approval followed the submission,
by Illinois
Power, of voluminous data and predictions relevant to the
proposed Lake.
The original submission to U.S.
EPA,
October 10, 1974,
was supplemented on February
24,
1975, and
April 14, 1975.
tn
a letter dated May 16,
1975,
Illinois
Power agreed to all the conditions specified by U.S.
EPA.
Without reiterating all of the Board’s findings in PCB
75-31, the predictive data for the proposed Lake indicate
that minimal,
if any, damage will result at Lake Clinton
from the thermal effluent. As with Lake Sangchris, Lake
Clinton will provide considerable “refuge” area for the fish
populations,
so that fish will be able to effectively avoid
the “worst—case” effects of the thermal discharge, as predicted
above.
Unquestionably,
some minimal damage to the biota will
occur.
Entrainment will, partially as a result of the
cooling water’s passage through the spray canal system, kill
essentially all of the organisms entrained at certain times
of the year.
This will be especially true of the zooplankton
brought in throegh the plant intake.
However, populations
will be reestablished downstream of the discharge due to the
reproduction of organisms not carried through the plant.
As was the case with Lake Sangchris,
it is felt that
any damage which may occur as a result of plant operation
will be offset by the benefits to be gained.
The thermal
effluent may actually benefit the biota
at times, although
this would not occur
in the normal course of events. This
will take the
foria of an additional growing period during
the normally dormant winter months, and should affect
almost all of the biota.
In reaching these conclusions regarding the hiota, we
have taken into consideration the same balancing factors
used
in our discussion of Lake Sangchris.
The probable
costs
of alternate cooling,
the loss of water resources and
increased consumptive water use, the energy crisis, and many
other factors entei here.
These have all been covered in
PCB 75-31,
in the
§ 316(a) demonstration, or in our general
discussion above, and do not require reiteration.
There is one other important factor regarding the
effect on the biota which we must mention here.
Illinois
Power has committed itself to take corrective action,
if
necessary,
should biotic conditions in Lake Clinton differ
18—
714
—35—
from those predicted.
This condition,
also continued
in effect from the Variance,
is in keeping with the Board’s
policy as stated in Rule 203 (i) (5)~that further study
of thermal effects is needed, and that envirq~mental
protections may be added as shown necessary.’~
The
corrective action envisioned here
is not limited;
if
need be, we may require the backfitting of the station
with additional cooling measures.
In addition to the effects on the biota,
the Variance
Opinion in PCJ3 75-31 set out some of the available data
on the costs of achieving compliance with the general
thermal regulations for the proposed Clinton Station and
Lake.
That information appears,
in part,
in the
preceeding sections of this Opinion concerned with the
costs associated with various cooling technologies.
Data
on Lake Clinton is included there, along with available
data on other existing or planned artificial cooling
lakes.
The following data from the Variance Opinion is
repeated for convenience:
Alternate Cooling System
Cost
(1) wet mechanical draft tower
$48,300,000
(2) wet natural draft tower
71,952,000
(3~ spray canal
55,754,000
(4) dry mechanical draft tower
422,144,000
(PCB 75—31, Opinion at 12).
The costs shown above would be those associated with
an “alternate” cooling system, that is,
one which would
not be used for cooling in conjunction with the proposed
artificial cooling lake.
The supplemental cooling
system mandated in our grant of a specific thermal
standard will,
it is estimated, cost approximately
$34.5 million, to include all capital, operating and
maintenance costs over a 30—year life.
21.
This agreement,
it
is felt, will constitute a
valid waiver of Illinois Power’s right to rely,
if
in fact any such right is determined to exist, on
§316(c)
of the FWPCA,
supra.
18
—
715
—36—
THE
REGULATION
The Regulation adopted on August 14,
1975, provides two
major additions to the existing Regulations:
1.
A mechanism is adopted whereby the Board may,
in a
regulatory proceeding, promulgate a specific thermal standard,
on a case—by-case basis,
for artificial cooling lakes, using
the standards set out in new Rule 203(i) (10);
and,
2.
A specific thermal standard is adopted for Lake
Clinton.
The final form of the Regulation differs significant-
ly from the proposa~submitted by Commonwealth Edison.
Rather than totally
2 exempting all artificial cooling lakes
from the general standards, we afl~wfor the promulgation of
new specific standards for individual lakes.
Even the
definition cf an artificial cooling lake offered by Edison
has been changed.
Similarly, changes have been made in each of the proposed
drafts of this Pegulation which the Board has seen.
There
have been five major drafts of this Regulation:
1)
the
original Edison proposal;
2)
the first Agency draft, published
in Environmental Register No.
104;
3)
the second Agency
draft,
(Ex.32);
4)
the Board’s proposed final draft, published
in Register No.
106; and,
5)
the final Regulation.
In
addition, the record contains further alternate subsections
submitted by the Agency,
as well as other suggestions received
during the
two
public comment periods.23
The Board also
published two alternate subsections to the Regulation with
the proposed final draft.
To clarify our reasoning and intent in the final Regulation,
we will examine both the final form of the Regulation,
and
our rationale i~iexcising and amending portions of earlier
drafts.
22.
The “total” exemption here was partially limited
by certain
conditions
in Edis~ri~s
proposed Rule 957(a) (7);
see the discussion
following.
23.
The first
public comment period followed the close of the
hearings on June
23,
1975,
and lasted through July
10,
1975.
The
second followed publication
of the Board’s proposed final draft in
Environmental Register
No.
106 and lasted until August
12,
1975.
18
—
716
—37—
Rule 104, Definitions.
In its final form,
the definition
of an “artificial cooling lake”
is designed to make clear
the Regulations’
limitation to those lakes created by the
damming of existing streams.
Previous cases have made it
clear that these lakes are protected waters of the state,
whether the dammed streams are intermittent or continuously
flowing.
cf.,
PCB 73—248, PCB 73—384,
supra.
This definition
does not char~geour determinations in those cases.
The definition offered by Edison in the original
proposal was dropped primarily because it attempted “definition
in the negative.’~ By calling artificial cooling lakes those
which are,
“not.
.
.
.
treatment
works”, the Board would have
avoided answering the important preliminary issue of the
Regulations’ coverage.
The final pnrase of Edison’s definition was retained,
as a further limitation to the Regulations’ applicability.
It was suggested,
(comment of Mr. Marder,
Illinois Department
of Business and Economic Development), that the definition
of an artificial cooling lake be expanded beyond the scope
of the prior proposals,
to include impoundments used for any
cooling purpose, whether or not associated with a steam-
electric generating plant.
This proposal was rejected
because the record simply fails to indicate that conditions
under any other situation would be the same.
While it would
indeed seem that,
“heat is heat”, regardless of the source,
significant questions remain unanswered regarding the
effects of sub-lethal thermal effluents on other pollutants,
and the effects of such other pollutants on the biota under
such conditions.
The record shows that this has not been a
problem with steam-electric generating plants, but is silent
on the issues for any other situation.
Rule 203(i) (10).
The first portion of subsection
(10)
is intended to make it clear that any exemption which might
be granted from the general thermal water quality rules,
in
a specific thermal standard, will be limited to the specific
circumstances and requirements set out in the following
subsections.
It is intended in this language that any such
exemption be narrowly limited to thermal discharges into
artificial cooling lakes.
18
—
717
—38—
The original subsection 203(i) (10),
submitted by Edison,
would have provided a general exemption for all artificial
cooling lakes, and was deleted in its entirety.
The record
simply failed to support such a generalized proposal, even
where the conditions set up in Edison’s proposed Rule 957(a) (7)
might have been met.
The record did show just the opposite:
too—great a thermal load on an artificial cooling lake can
cause extensive environmental damage.
The parties,
including
Edison,
seemed to realize that this proposal was not viable
by the time of the second hearing on May 23,
1975.
By the
third hearing on June
23,
1975,
almost no mention was made
of the original Edison proposal.
Particularly from the
testimony of Dr.
Tranquilli and his associates at the Natural
History Survey,
it had become clear that the Board would
have to examine each artificial cooling lake individually.
The language eventually used in the Regulation for the first
portion of Rule 203(i) (10) was taken from the first Agency
draft, which first presented the concept of a case—by-case
approach.
Subsection
(aa).
In contrast to prior Board determina-
tions,
(see pp.
2—4 supra,
and cases cited), the new Regulations
adopted in R75—2 allow limited thermal effluent dissipation
in protected waters of the state, once it has been shown
that no harm to the environment will result.
Subsection
(aa)
limits this exception to the boundaries of the artificial
cooling lake in question, and prohibits any interference
with natural temperatures in any other waters.
The language and concept for this section are taken
from the first Agency draft.
The same language remained
through the second Agency draft, but was changed in the
Board’s proposed final draft.
That change, which would have
required compliance with
“all applicable” provisions of
Chapter Three, was deleted, and the language of the first
and second Agency drafts was reinserted;
this was done to
avoid the confusion which the changed language might have
caused, and because the language suggested by the Agency was
more limiting.
Subsection
(h~). This subsection was adopted from the
first Agency proposal, and
is intended by the Board
to
narrowly limit the scope of the Regulation.
As was the case
18
—
718
—39—
with subsection
(aa),
subsection
(bb) was changed in the
Board’s proposed final draft but later returned in the final
Regulation to its initial form.
It was decided that because
the Regulation as a whole is limited to thermal standards
and effects,
it might be unnecessarily confusing to make
reference to all the standards contained in Chapter
3 of the
Regulations.
This Regulation is limited by its own terms
to
thermal constituents,
and need not refer to any other section
of the Regulations.
Subsection
(cc).
This subsection makes
it clear that
any attempt by a discharger to obtain
a specific thermal
standard must take the form of a Regulatory proceeding.
It
also acts in part as
a procedural rule by showing that the
burden is upon the applicant for a specific thermal standard
to make the showing(s) required under the Regulation.
By
requiring a showing that the lake will be environmentally
acceptable,
and by setting out in subsections
(cc) (1) and
(cc) (2) certain minimal elements of such a showing,
this
subsection is intended to give an applicant guidance to
allow adequate preparation for the required hearing(s), and
to give guidance as to the burden which must be met.
The general heading of environmental acceptability as
the thrust for the required showing under this subsection
is
necessarily broad.
The many factors which the Board must
consider, under its mandate in the Act, prohibit more concise
or narrow a general definition.
It is hoped that subsections
(cc) (1)
and
(cc) (2) will provide sufficient guidance, but
the showing is specifically “not limited to” the considerations
set out in those subsections.
Subsection
(cc) (1)
lists those tests which the Board
found most helpful in evaluating artificial cooling lakes
generally,
and in choosing a specific thermal standard for
Lake Clinton.
Under subsection
(cc) (1),
it is not absolutely
required that there be a fishery,
or that an artificial
cooling lake provide recreational or any other uses except
that for which it was designed.
One public comment pointed
out that factors besides generating plant operations might
prohibit a recreation facility.24
But it is nonetheless
felt that by requiring such conditions in a lake we will
have taken a significant step in protecting water quality.
24. An example would be the prairie chicken sanctuary
shown in CIPS’
letter received August 11, 1975.
18
—
719
—40—
Qualitatively, while the end use of a
body of water is
indeed important,
and may be weighed by the Board in the
regulatory process,
the Board is most concerned with assuring
water quality sufficient to allow these
(fishery and recrea-
tional) and any other beneficial and ecologically-sound
uses.
We may not require that water be properly and beneficially
used; we must require that it can be so used.
In subsection
(cc) (2), the Board recognizes two points:
first, where it would
in the judgement of the Board be
economically reasonable and technically feasible to meet the
general thermal water quality standards in Rules
203(i) (1)—
(4), there
is no need for a specific thermal standard under
this regulation;
second,
the Board is required under the Act
to evaluate these economic and technical factors in arriving
at its regulatory decisions.
(It has been argued that we
may not consider economics or technical factors in arriving
at suitable thermal standards to protect the environment;
this
is not how we interpret the Act.)
A further point follows from our consideration of the
environmental, economic and technical aspects of setting
thermal regulations for individual artificial cooling lakes:
in balancing all of these factors to determine a specific
thermal standard, the Board may well find that such a standard
cannot be justified.
A necessary corollary is that the
Board might find that an artificial cooling lake incapable
of meeting the ~‘eneralthermal standards of Rules
203(i) (1)-
(4)
would not be environmentally acceptable, and that if the
generating~Tantin question is to be built,
some supplemental
or other cooling mechanism must be provided,
(e.g., Lake Clinton).
We decline to give blanket approval to artificial cooling
lakes at any thermal standard other than those designed for
the general protection of the waters of the state,
and
contained in the general thermal water quality standards.
As with other parts of the Regulation,
the concept here
came from the first and second Agency drafts.
The first
Agency draft of subsection
(cc), set out on page
6,
supra,
overemphasized the necessity of having an acceptable fishery
and recreational
facility.
While the underlying thoughts of
this section were retained,
it was re—phrased to emphasize
environmental effects generally,
and require only “conditions
capable of supporting” fishery and recreational uses.
18
—
720
—41—
The “conditions capable” concept was introduced in the
second Agency draft, along with some of the language used
in the final Regulation to include the economic and technical
reasonableness tests.
The “public hearing” phrase in the
second Agency draft was changed to read,
“regulatory hearing”,
for clarity.
The words,
“so as to provide” in the second
Agency draft were also dropped, as being unnecessarily
self—limiting.
One significant change from the Board’s proposed final
draft
to the final Regulation should also be discussed.
Subsection
(cc)
in the Board’s proposed final draft would
have required that “management” of an artificial cooling
lake be performed in an environmentally acceptable manner.
In the final Regulation,
this was changed to reflect
a
requirement that the artificial cooling lake
itself be
environmentally acceptable.
Many of the defects in the language of subsection
(cc)
in the two Agency drafts were also seen in the Board’s
proposed final draft.
Insofar as the Act sets a broad range
of factors to be considered in regulatory proceedings, most
of the language deleted or amended in subsection
(cc)
between the proposed final draft and the final Regulation
itself was found to be improperly limiting future Board
considerations of artificial cooling lakes; it was removed or
changed to correct that deficiency.
Subsection
(dd).
This section is provided in the
Regulation to minimize the duplication of paperwork which
might otherwise result.
It is hoped that if presentation
of similar facts and data before other agencies or regulatory
bodies is required, the same materials used there may be
used to satisfy the showing requirements of subsection
(cc).
The specific instances listed in that section are
for general guidance, and it
i.s expected that any appropriate
reports or materials which address the requirements of
subsection
(cc) may be used.
The language and idea in subsection
(dd)
of the final
Regulation first appeared in the second Agency draft and
were necessary additions.
The changes subsequently made
were for purposes of clarity.
18
—
721
—42—
Subsection
(ee).
This subsection is essentially
procedural, and points out that an adequate showing under
subsection
(cc) must be made before any specific thermal
standard will be promulgated by the Board.
Similar language
to that of subsection
(ee)
of the final Regulation first
appeared in subsection
(dd) of the first Agency proposal.
In subsequent drafts,
the word “alternate” was changed to
reflect the difference between the specific thermal standards
to be set under this Regulation,
and an alternate thermal
standard to be set pursuant to §316(a)
of the FWPCA.
As proposed in the second Agency draft,
this subsection
was simply too limiting.
The language used there for
(ee)
would have required an “all or nothing” determination by
the Board,
in that it did now allow for the adoption of
any specific thermal standard other than that requested by
a discharger.
The Board requires a greater flexibility
in determining the proper thermal standard for an individual
artificial cooling lake, and the language of subsection
(ee) was changed accordingly.
Other Subsections.
Both the second Agency draft
and the Board’s proposed final draft contained additional
subsections to Rule 203 (i) (10),
which were subsequently
dropped in the final Regulation.
A subsection
(ff) was
contained in both the second Agency draft and the Board’s
proposed final draft, and the latter contained an additional
subsection
(gg).
Subsection
(ff)
as contained in the second Agency draft
would have led the Board to consideration of a
“grandfather”
clause,
based on the existence of a Variance, before there
was in fact any artificial cooling lake with an applicable
Variance.
The Agency apparently felt that this would be
appropriate to deal with the case of Illinois Power’s Lake
Clinton, which was then the subject of a pending Variance
proceeding in PCB 75-31.
(On July 31,
1975, the Board did
grant
a two year Variance of
“specific standards”
for
Lake Clinton.) While this was intended by the Agency to
eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort by Illinois
Power, the Board felt that the statutory requirements for
Variances and those for regulatory amendments were not
sufficiently similar to allow this as a “grandfather”
vehicle.
It was questionable whether,
1)
the public
18
—
722
—43—
hearing requirements for a Regulation could properly be
fulfilled by the Variance hearings, and
2) because a Variance
is designed to grant temporary relief from the general rules,
and is conditioned on efforts to achieve compliance with
those general rules,
it was not clear that temporary
approval of a thermal effluent under those conditions would
be legally sufficient to justify the permanent imposition
of the same standard.
In the Board’s proposed final draft, published on
July 24,
1975, we significantly changed the thrust of
subsection
(ff).
Instead of granting an actual
“grandfather”,
the Board’s language provided that certain factors could
amount to prima facie proof of compliance with the showing
requirements of subsection
(cc).
The Board proposed this
subsection to resolve the problems which the Board had
seen with duplication of effort, and in part to recognize
that the points considered by the U.S. EPA in a 316(a)
determination approximate those which the Board might
consider in reaching a specific thermal standard for an
artificial cooling lake.
Among
other problems raised
regarding this language,
it was pointed out that this
version of subsection
(ff) might shift the burden in the
regulatory proceedings envisioned in subsection
(cc) away
from the discharger and to any citizen objectors.
The
problem of re-delegation vis-a-vis the Board’s fact finding
function under the Act was also a problem with this language.
With its proposed final draft the Board also offered
an alternate section
(ff)
in an attempt to deal with the
problem of pre-emption as between federal law,
(in §316 (a)),
and applicable state
law.
By dropping subsections
(ff)
and
(gg)
in the final Regulation, we effectively eliminate
any present case or controversy on the issue,
so we need
not discuss it here.
In
a public comment dated July 28,
1975,
the Agency
submitted two further proposals for alternate language in
subsection
(ff).
Again,
the central issue in these proposals
by the Agency was
a
“grandfather” for Lake Clinton, or
any other artificial cooling lake which might achieve the
same regulatory status.
The Agency alternatives focused
on the following facts:
1.
Lake Clinton had already been the subject of
numerous public hearings and regulatory proceedings before
public bodies,
i.e.,
the AEC and NRC.
18
—
723
—44—
2.
Lake Clinton had already received tentative
approval of an alternate th~rma1standard under
§316 (a)
of the
FWPCA,
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
3.
Lake Clinton was then before the Board in a
Variance proceeding, PCB 75-31, wherein
the
Agency had already
submitted a Recommendation that the Variance be granted,
adopting essentially the same standards as those contained
in the tentative §316(a)
approval of U.S. EPA.
It was the Agency’s contention that any discharger
having met the burden already carried by Illinois Power for
Lake Clinton should be entitled to a specific regulatory
thermal standard without again being required to propose
and defend the same standard.
While the Board agrees that
duplication of effort
is to be avoided whenever possible,
we cannot delegate our fact finding or regulatory functions
to another agency, even where that agency’s requirements
and goals are the same as those of the Board.
While we may
rely on the expertise of other agencies, we cannot redelegate
our statutory powers to them.
We may take steps to avoid
unnecessary duplication only to the extent allowed by law.
Although the Board did not adopt any of the language
in subsection
(ff),
from any of the drafts, the same result
for Lake Clinton was reached in new Rule 203 (1) (11) (aa).
However,
the determination to apply a specific thermal
standard to Lake Clinton was based in part on the foregoing
factors, but more importantly, also on the following
additional fact:
4.
Illinois Power was a participant in the
instant proceeding,
and its Lake Clinton was therefore
the subject of consideration in it.
The Board was able
to examine essentially all the materials in this proceeding
which had previously been submitted to the AEC, NRC,
U.S.
EPA,
and to this Board in the Variance case.
The record in this
proceeding was then replete with the substantive environmental
showing which is the justification for a specific thermal
standard for Lake Clinton.
Subsection
(gg) was subsequently dropped as unnecessary.
Those factors which the Board must consider in any regulatory
proceeding are presently set out in the Act.
Unlike
subsection
(cc),
it was not felt that additional guidance
will be required in this regard.
Specifically addressing
18
—
724
—45—
alternate subsection
(gg) as published with the Board’s
proposed final draft, we note that whether the requirements
for a showing under subsection
(cc) will affect our future
determinations under Rule 410 (c), after assumption of
NPDES authority, must be decided on a case—by—case basis.
Nor did the final Regulation contain the proposed Rule
957(a) (7)
seen in Edison’s original draft.
By requiring only
a statement from the Illinois Department of Conservation
concerning a lake’s recreational value, the Edison proposal
completely ignored the need for any consideration of the
overall environmental effect of an existing or proposed
artificial cooling lake.
As it has been noted, there may
indeed be some relationship between the recreational value
of a lake and its environmental soundness.
The record notes
that it is the existence of, or the conditions capable of
supporting,
fish at the top of the aquatic biota that is a
significant binding fact in the relationship between recreation
and environmental soundness.
The section as proposed by
Edison was therefore notably deficient.
The recreational
value of a lake
is,
however, one of many aspects to be
considered by the Board in a Regulatory proceeding pertaining
to an artificial cooling lake.
Rule 203(i)(ll).
This section was added
to the final
Regulation because,
1) The Board had before it sufficient
legal and factual grounds to set a specific thermal standard
for Lake Clinton, and,
2)
it would serve no purpose,
at yet
another hearing,
to once again examine the evidence on Lake
Clinton, at further expense to both the discharger and the
Board.
Subsection 203(i) (11) (aa) (1).
This subsection sets an
absolute maximum thermal standard for Lake Clinton.
This is
the same maximum set by the Board in the Variance case,
PCB
75-31,
and by U.S. EPA in its tentative §316(a) determination,
and by NRC in its recommendation to U.S. EPA.
The basis
for this standard
is
fully set out in the Variance Opinion,
and the evidence is again examined,
in part,
in the foregoing
sections of this Opinion,
(cf., Ex.l to comment
c,
Copy of
letter from Illinois Power~. to U.S. EPA,
dtd. April
14,
1975).
18
—
725
—46—
In summary, we have examined the possibility of
ecological damage, and weighed this against the costs which
would be required to comply with general Board thermal
standards vis-a-vis alternate cooling methods at Clinton
Station,
and,
the public benefits which will accrue from
Clinton Station and Lake.
Our findings are:
1.
‘rhere remains a possibility of ecological harm
in Lake Clinton; but the possibility is no more than that:
a
possibility.
In the Board’s grant of a specific thermal
standard
it was
a most important consideration that Illinois
Power had committed itself to whatever corrective action
may be necessary should such a possibility be realized.
Further,
the present record indicates an improbability of
even minimal environmental damage, other than as noted in
the Variance Opinion and the foregoing parts of this
Opinion, under the conditions accompanying the imposition
of the specific thermal standard for Lake Clinton.
(These
conditions are those taken from the Variance.)
2.
Clinton Station and Lake will provide
considerable public and economic benefit to the immediate
area and to the state as a whole.
3.
The costs
to provide such cooling as would
be required to meet the general thermal standards would be
excessive,
and in light of the foregoing a requirement
that those standards be met cannot be justified by the
record before us.
Indeed,
as we noted in the Variance Opinion, effluent
temperatures at Lake Clinton will possibly not exceed the
general thermal standards during most years under average
meteriological conditions.
But predictable and probable
conditions
in
dry years will result in
summer
effluent
temperatures approaching or equalling 96°F.
Subsection 203(i)(l1)(aa)(2).
This subsection
specifically adopts into the Regulation conditions
Ci)
through
(viii), which accompanied the Variance granted
in PCB 75-31.
While the principal grounds for our imposition
of the specific thermal standard for Lake Clinton were our
findings on the likelihood of environmental damage and the
costs of requiring compliance with the general standards,
the matters which are the subject of those conditions to the
Variance provided additional factors which,
under the Act,
had
to be weighed.
These factors provided further weight
in favor of imposing a specific thermal standard.
18—
726
—47—
The most important of these conditions, was Illinois
Power’s
commitment
to
take
whatever
measures
are
necessary
to
prevent
further
environmental
damage
should
conditions
as predicted in the S3l6(a) demonstration for Lake Clinton
riot be achieved in the Lake.
The condition is of sufficient
importance to warrant its inclusion here:
That if it is determined after operation of
the first unit or by ongoing research,
that
conditions
in
Clinton
Lake
will
be
significantly
different
than
has
been
described
in
the
316(a)
demonstration,
or
if it is determined
that the cooling water use, recreational
aspects
of
the
lake,
or
that
protection
and
propagation of indigenous aquatic life cannot
be
assured,
Illinois
Power
Company
shall
take
whatever
measures
are
needed
to
correct
the
problem,
including
backfitting
of
the
proposed
or
existing
plant
with
additional
cooling
facilities.
That condition is a total commitment in plain language
to
provide
adequate
protection
of
the
aquatic
environment
and biota in the proposed
Lake.
It is in keeping with the
Board’s previously stated intent in Rule 203(i) (5).
Further,
it is our opinion that this commitment by Illinois Power
will act as an effective waiver of any right which the company
might have under
§1316(d)
or §1326(d) of Title
33, United
States Code,
or any other statutory language designed to
prevent the imposition of more stringent standards at a
future date.
(FWPCA,
§S306(d), 316(c).)
That being the
case, we are assured that protection of the environment will
not be jeopardized by our action here.
To a lesser degree,
the remaining conditions also entered
into our consideration of the specific thermal standard for
Lake Clinton.
These included a commitment by Illinois Power
to provide start-up and shut-down procedures for the
Station which will prevent
“thermal shock”, which the instant
record showed may prove damaging to aquatic life even when
the upper and lower temperatures would not, by themselves,
prove harmful.
In addition, Illinois Power has agreed to
submit operating plans for the
Lake
which will assure
protection of its fishery and recreational value.
This,
in conjunction with a commitment to allow public access
to the Lake,
will provide a further and considerable public
beneficial use of the Lake.
18—
727
—48—
Finally,
ft should be noted that condition
(i)
of the
Variance is
in effect a part of the specific thermal standard
which we have imposed.
That condition is
a requirement that
Illinois Power operate a supplemental cooling system in
conjunction with the lake itself, employing a minimum of
232 spray modules along the 3.1 mile discharge canal from
the Station’s two units to the Lake.
The condition can be
summarized as a requirement that the “spray canal”, more
fully described in a earlier section of this Opinion, will
be phased into operation each summer as ambient and discharge
temperatures rise,
to assure safe temperature levels in the
Lake.
If, even with this supplemental cooling system in
operation, temperatures were to exceed the 96°absolute
maximum specific thermal standard, Illinois Power must take
whatever actions are necessary——including a cutback in
generating operations--to remain within that maximum.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that
he above Opinion was
adopted on the
~g1~
day of
_____________,
1975, by a
vote of
_______
to
________
ChristanL. Mof
t
erk
Illinois Pollutio
ntrol Board
18 —728
