ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

25,

1990

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC

SERVICE COMPANY,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 88—207

(~302.2l1(f) Thermal

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

Demonstration)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MS.

VICKI

MASTERNAN,

JONES,

DAY,

REAVIS

AND

POGUE,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

MS.

KATHLEEN

BASSI,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by M. Nardulli):

This matter comes before the Board upon a petition for hearing

pursuant to 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 302.211(f)

filed December

30,

1989

by Central Illinois Public Service Company (“CIPS”).

The Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) filed its Recommendation

on June

22,

1989 and its Amended Recommendation

on June 30,

1989

in support of CIPS’ petition.

A hearing was held on July

6,

1989.

In December of

1982,

CIPS commenced commercial

operation

of

Unit

No.

2

at

the

Newton

Power

Station

in

Jasper

County.

Condenser cooling water generated from that unit is discharged into

Newton

Lake,

an

artificial

cooling

lake

constructed

by

CIPS.

Section 302.211(f)

requires

CIPS

to demonstrate that the heated

effluent discharged

from Unit

No.

2

has not caused,

and cannot

reasonably be expected to cause, significant ecological damage to

the receiving water of Newton Lake.

Pursuant to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code

106.101 and 106.102, CIPS has submitted extensive surveys conducted

by CIPS, outside consultant evaluations and Illinois Department of

Conservation (“IDOC”) studies.

(See, Unit No. 2 Section 302.211(f)

Report and Ex.

5,6,8,9,12-17.)

According to CIPS,

this data and

testimony

given

at

hearing

establish

that

the

heated

effluent

discharged

from Unit No.

2 has not caused,

and cannot reasonably

be

expected

to

cause,

significant

ecological

damage

to

the

receiving waters of Newton Lake.

1Previously, CIPS established its compliance with 35 Ill. Adm.

Code 302.211(f) with regard to its operation of Unit No.

1.

(CIPS

v. IEPA,

PCB 83—84

(January 26,

1984).

107-~191

---

2

In

its

Amended

Recommendation,

the Agency

states

that

it

supports

CIPS’

petition

and

recommends

that

CIPS be

allowed

to

continue

its operation

in

accordance with the thermal

discharge

limits imposed

upon CIPS’

discharges

into Newton

Lake

by Frior

Board Order of August 21,

1980.

(CIPS v.

IEPA,

PCB 78—271.)

Deborah Bruce,

a biologist for CIPS, testified that with the

exception of a few brief excursions in 1983 and 1988, CIPS has been

in compliance with the thermal limits imposed by the

Board.

(Tr.

7/6/89

at

19.)

Bruce

stated

that

these

brief

temperature

excursions did not result

in any adverse effects

in Newton Lake.

(Id.

at

21.)

Bruce testified that,

in evaluating the fishery

in

Newton Lake, thirty—two fish species had been collected over twelve

years.

(Id.

at

24.)

According

to

Bruce,

the

data

collected

establishes that the species composition and relative abundance

of

the majority

of

fish has

not

changed significantly

since

1980.

(Id.

at 25.)

While initial documentation showed a decline

in the

white crappie

population,

recent data

suggests this decline has

been reversed.

(Id.

at 28.)

Furthermore, Bruce testified that the

original decline

in the white crappie population does not appear

to be

related to the thermal discharge.

(~.

at 29-31.)

Bruce

opined

that

operation

of Unit

No.

2 has not

caused,

and cannot

reasonably be expected to cause, significant ecological damage to

the receiving, waters.

(~.

at

34.)

Mr. Toby Frevert, Manager of the Agency’s Planning Section for

the Division of Water Pollution Control, testified that, based upon

review of the information submitted by CIPS, the Agency finds CIPS’

thermal demonstration to be acceptable and

in accord with

35

Ill.

Adm. Code 302.211(f).

(Id. at 40-41.)

While the Agency recognizes

the

decline

in

the

white

crappie

population,

it

notes

in

its

Amended

Recommendation

that

such

declines

have

been

reported

statewide in both “power plant and non—power plant lakes.”

(Agency

Am. Rec.

at 2.)

Based upon the foregoing,

the Board finds that Unit No.

2

of

the Newton

Power Plant

has not caused,

and cannot reasonably

be

expected to cause, significant ecological damage.

This

Opinion

constitutes the

Board’s

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Central

Illinois

Public

Service

Company

has

demonstrated

2The Board’s 1980 Order provides that CIPS’ thermal discharge

into Newton Lake

from

its Newton Power

Station shall not exceed

102°Fas a monthly average and 111°Fas a maximum measured at the

outside edgi of a specified mixing zone.

These limits are to be

incorporated into

any

appropriate NPDES discharge perIni~.

107—192

---

3

pursuant to 35 Iii. Adm. Code 302.211(f)

that discharges from its

Newton

Power

Station

Unit

No.

2

have

not

caused,

and

cannot

reasonably be expected to cause, significant ecological damage to

the receiving waters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section

41

of

the Environmental

Protection

Act,

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.

1985,

ch.

111-1/2, par.

1041,

provides for appeal of final

Orders of the Board within 35 days.

The Rules of the Supreme Court

of Illinois establish filing requirements.

I,

Dorothy N.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board hereby certify t~atthe above Opinion and Order was adopted

on

th~~5~

day of

“~‘--~-~-~‘/

,

1990 by a vote of

70

Dorothy

~/

Gunn, Clerk

Il1inois~pol1utionControl Board

107—193