I LLI NOl S

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOAPE)

August

26,

1993

 TILE

MATTLF

OF:

PETITION OF ILLINOIS

POWER

 COMPANY

(CLINTON POWER STATION)

FOR

HEARING PURSUANT TO 35 ILL.

 ADM.

)

 PCB 92-142

CODE 302.211(j)

 TO DETERNINE

)

 (Thermal Demonstration)

SPECIFIC THERMAL STANDARDS

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by G.

 T. Girard)

On September

30,

 1992,

 Illinois Power Company

 (IPC)

 filed a

petition for hearing to determine specific thermal standards

pursuant to 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 302.211(j)

 for its Clinton Power

Station

 (station).

 On October

14,

 1992,

 IPC filed

 a petition for

hearing

 on heated effluent demonstration pursuant to 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

Code 302.211(f).

 On October

16,

 1992, the Board consolidated the

two matters

 into this docket.

 The Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

 (Agency) recommendation was received by the

Board on April

26,

 1993.

Hearing on this matter was held on April 27,

 1993,

in

Clinton, DeWitt County,

 Illinois.

 No members of the public were

present at the proceeding.

IPC filed

 a brief on May 25,

 1993,

 and a reply brief on June

16,

 1993.

 The Agency filed its brief on June 10,

 1993.

BACKGROUND

The station

 is a nuclear—fueled electrical generating

facility located six miles east of Clinton, Dewitt County,

Illinois.

 The station operates

 24 hours per day,

 seven days a

week.

 Approximately 1,200 persons are employed at the station.

(Pet.

 1 at

p.

2

¶1.)1

 Initial criticality of the reactor

occurred on February 27,

 1987.

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

issued the full power operating license for the station on April

17,

 1987.

 The station became fully operational

 on October

15,

1987,

 and commercial operation commenced in November 1987.

 (Pet.

1 at

p.

3

 ¶5.)

The station’s generating system consists of a boiling—water

reactor, steam turbine generator,

 heat dissipation system,

and

The Section 302.211(j)

 petition will

 be cited as

 “Pet.

1

at

p.

¶_“;

 the Section 302.211(f)

 petition will be cited

as

“Pet.

2

at

p.

¶“;

 the IPC briefs will be cited as

 “Pet.

Br.

at

“

 and “Pet.

 Rep.

at

“;

 the Agency recommendation will

be

cited

as

 “Ag.

 Rec.

at

“;

and

the

Agency

 brief will

 be cited as

“Ag.

Br.

at

associated

aux

i

~ry

 facilities.

The

boi

1

 1 ng~water reactor

produces

 steam

 for direct

use

the

 steam

turbine.

During

plant

operation,

 steam

 expanding

 through

the

 low pressure

 turbines

is

directed

 downward

 into the main condenser

and

 is condensed.

The

condenser

designed

for

 a maximum

 22.5 degrees Fahrenheit rise

in cooling

 water

 teniperature

at

100

 percent

 station

 power

 levels

and 100 percent cooling water

 flow.

 (Pet.

1

 at p.2

 ~2—4.)

Heat from the station

 is dissipated by means

of

an

artificial cooling

 lake known as Clinton Lake.

 (Pet.

1

 at figure

2.)

 IPC constructed Clinton Lake at the same time

 it was

constructing the station.

 The lake

is

 a U-shaped impoundment,

formed by damming Salt Creek and the North Fork Salt Creek

immediately below their confluence.

 Clinton Lake

 is the fourth

largest lake

 in Illinois.

 Waters from Clinton Lake are

discharged to Salt Creek.

 (Pet.

1

at

p.

3

 ¶8.)

Condenser cooling water for the station is withdrawn from

the North Fork Salt Creek leg of Clinton Lake by means of three

circulating water pumps.

 After passing through the condenser,

this water travels down

a

 3.1-mile earthen flume and is

discharged to the Salt Creek leg of the lake.

 Between the point

of discharge and the point of withdrawal, the distance on Clinton

Lake

 is approximately 9.9 miles.

 This portion of the lake

is

known as the cooling 1oop.

 (Pet.

 1 at p.

 4 ¶9.)

The Board has had several proceedings to either determine,

or grant relief from, the thermal standards applicable to

 IPC.

The first occurred with IPC filing a petition in 1980 seeking

alternative thermal

 limitations.

 (Illinois Power Company

v.

 IEPA,

 (June 25,

 1981),

 PCB,

 PCB 81-82.)

 The Board’s order

in

that proceeding adopted alternative limitations providing that

the daily average temperature

 of discharges shall not exceed 99

degrees Fahrenheit during more than

 12 percent of the hours in a

twelve-month period

 (i.e.,

 44 days)

 and shall

 at no time exceed

108.3 degrees Fahrenheit.

 (PCB 88-97,

 June 22,

 1989.)

 Next IPC

filed for relief from the thermal standards adopted

 in PCB 81—82

by filing

 a petition for a variance on June

3,

 1988.

 (Illinois

Power Company

v.

 IEPA,

 (June 22,

 1989),

 100 PCB 177,

 PCB 88-97.)

The Board granted that variance stating:

The daily average temperature of discharges at the

second drop structure of the discharge flume shall not

exceed 99 degrees Fahrenheit during more than 90 days

in

 a twelve-month period and shall at no time exceed

110.7 degrees Fahrenheit during

 a fixed calendar year

running from January

 1 through December

31.

On

 December

21,

 1989,

 IPC filed

 a request

 for an extension

of the 1989 variance.

The

 Board granted the extension and

stated,

 “iJf

IPO

submits

 a petition for permanent

 relief

not

I

ate

than

DiD

ol

r

I

1992

ext

ens

i on

var

i a nce

sha

I

I

expire on Octobe~

1,

 1993”.

 (Illinois

~

(June

21,

 1990)

112

PCB

 373,

 PCB 89—213.)

The

filing of this

matter

on

September

30,

 1992,

was

in

response to the Board’s

1989

order.

REGULATORY

 FRAMEWORK

Section 302.211 sets forth the standards for temperature

levels

 in artificial cooling

 lakes.

 Section 302.211(j)

 provides

an exemption for cooling lakes provided that:

1)

 All discharges from the artificial cooling

lake to other waters

 of the State comply with

the applicable provisions

 of subsections

(b)

through

 (e).

2)

 The heated effluent discharged to the

artificial cooling lake complies with all

other applicable provisions

 of this Chapter,

except subsections

 (b) through

 (e).

3)

 At an adjudicative hearing the discharger

shall satisfactorily demonstrate to the Board

that the artificial cooling lake receiving

the heated effluent will be environmentally

acceptable, and within the intent of the Act,

including,

 but not limited to:

A)

 provision of conditions capable of

supporting shellfish,

 fish and

wildlife,

 and recreational uses

consistent with good management

practices, and

B)

 control

 of the thermal component of

the discharger’s effluent by a

technologically feasible and

economically reasonable method.

4)

 The required showing in subsection

(j)

(3) may take the

form of an acceptable final environmental impact

statement or pertinent provisions

 of environmental

assessments used

 in the preparation of the final

environmental impact statement,

 or may take the form of

a showing pursuant to Section

 316(a)

 of the Clean Water

Act

 (CWA)

 (33 U.S.C.

1251

 et seq.), which addresses the

requirements

 of subsection

(j)

(3)

adequate

showing

provided

subsection

(j)

(3)

found,

the

Board

shall

promulgate

 specific

 thermal

 standards

to

be

applied

 to the discharge

to

 that

 artificial

cooling

 lake.

In order

 for Clinton

 Lake

to

 be granted

 an exemption,

IPC

must

demonstrate

that

the

discharge

from

Clinton

Lake

will

comply

with Sections

 302.2ll(b)-(e).

 Subsections

(b)

 through

(e)

of

302.211

provide

that:

there

abnormal

temperature

changes

which may affect aquatic

 life

 (Section

 302-

211(b))

;

2)

 seasonal and daily temperature changes shall

be maintained

 (Section 302—211(c));

3)

 the temperature of the lake shall not be

higher than 5°Fabove the natural temperature

(Section 302.211(d));

and

4)

 the temperature of the lake shall not exceed

levels set forth in the rule more than one

percent of the hours in the 12-month period

ending with any month

 (Section 302.211(e)).

Section 302.211(f) provides:

The owner or operator of a source of heated effluent

which discharges 150 megawatts

 (0.5 billion British

thermal units per hour)

 or more shall demonstrate in a

hearing before this Pollution Control Board

 (Board)

not

less than 5 nor more than

 6 years after the effective

date of these regulations or,

 in the case of new

sources,

 after the commencement of operation,

 that

discharges

 from that source have not caused and cannot

be reasonably expected to cause significant ecological

damage to the receiving waters.

 If such proof is not

made to the satisfaction of the Board, appropriate

corrective measures shall be ordered to be taken within

a reasonable time as determined by the Board.

AGENCY

RECOMMENDATION

The Agency indicated that

 it began reviewing the “extensive

body of material” filed by IPC

 in 1992.

 (Ag.

 Rec.

 at 3.)

The

Agency requested additional materials on two occasions,

 which IPC

provided.

As

 a result of the Agency’s review,

 the Agency stated

that

 it “is satisfied that Illinois Power has demonstrated based

on the available

 information

 a lack of any significant expected

impact

 if the specific thermal relief

 is granted”.

 (Ag.

 Rec.

at

4.)

The

 Agency

 further

 indicated

 that

“believes

that

significant

ecological

 impact should

result”

from

granting

the

standard.

(Ag.

 Rec.

at

4.)

The

Agency

points

out

that

Clinton

Lake

has

been

subjected

thermal

standard

having

the

identical

effect

the

one

requested

here

for

roughly

five

years

without

 exhibiting

 any major

 impacts.

 (Ag.

 Nec.

at

5.)

Further,

the

Agency

stated

that:

the

Agency

biologist

agrees

with

the

statements

made

Mike Conlin,

 Chief

 of Division

 of Fisheries,

 Illinois

Department of Conservation

 in his letter dated February

16,

 1993,

 to Joel Cross Planning Section Manager at the

Agency.

 (Ag.

 rec. at 5.)

Mr. Conlin indicated that based on the review of the information

and the actions IPC indicates

 it will take to correct severe

impacts

 on the fish population,

 IDOC finds “no reason to oppose

the thermal discharge limits requested by

 IPC.

 (Ag.

 rec.

 at att.

A.)

The Agency does express one area of concern.

 Specifically,

the Agency points out that the NPDES permit pertaining to IPC

requires

 a continuous monitoring program until the Board rules on

the thermal standard.

 The Agency requests that the Board add a

condition to address this concern.

 (Ag. Rec.

 at 5.)

Thus,

 the Agency recommends that the thermal determination

be granted with the following condition:

Illinois Power

 is required to conduct a continuous

Temperature Monitoring Program at site 1.5 that will be

located at a submerged depth of 0.5 meters

 in Salt

Creek approximately 100 feet down the stream from the

bottom of the spillway of Clinton Lake during the

months of June,

 July,

 and August of each year until

such time as the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit No. 1L0036919

 is modified and

finalized to include such monitoring as a special

condition.

(Ag.

 Rec.

at

6.)

DISCUSSION

IPC presented significant documentation

 in support of its

petitions for relief.

 The documentation included extensive

studies of the effect of the thermal

 level being sought by this

petition.

 We will not discuss

 in detail all the information

provided to the Board;

 however,

 we will

 summarize certain of the

demonstrations

 as set

 forth

by

 IPC.

In demonrtratinq

 that

 the discharges

 I rom Clint on

 lake

meet

the criteria

 established

 in Section

 3132.211(b)

(e)

IPC

indicates

that.

the

 data collected

 from

Salt

Creek

indicates

 that

abnormal

temperature

 changes occurred

in

Salt

 Creek

 immediately

below

 the Clinton

 dam during

 1988—1991.

 (Pet.

I

¶15.)

Further,

 normal

seasonal

fluctuations

occur

in

 Salt

Creek

below

the dam

and

 the temperatures

 were more than

 5 degrees greater

than background

 temperatures

 on only

 four days during

 the years

between

 1988-1991.

 (Pet.

1

at

P.

 6 ¶15.)

Further,

the

temperatures

never

exceeded

the

levels

set

forth

Section

302.211(d)

and

(e).

(Pet.

¶15.)

IPC demonstrates that

 it will comply with all other water

quality criteria by using the results

 of monitoring required by

the current NPDES permit issued to IPC for the station.

The

NPDES permit imposes effluent limitations on the discharge from

the flume for two parameters,

 pH and total residual chlorine

(TRC).

 (Pet.

Br.

at

 11.)

 “Since January

 1988,

 only one

exceedance of either the pH or TRC numerical effluent limitation

has occurred at this outfall.”

 (Pet.

 1 at 22

 ¶62; Pet.

Br.

at

11.)

 Thus,

 IPC believes that

 it complies with Section

302.211(j) (2).

IPC presented evaluations,

 prepared by Environmental Science

and Engineering,

 Inc.,

 of the projected impacts of once—in-thirty

year summer lake temperatures on several species

 of fish.

The

evaluation was conducted by reviewing the observed effects of

station operation on biota during the last five years of

 operation.

 (Pet.

Br.

 at 14.)

 The impacts range from minimal to

substantial.

 (Pet.

 Br. at

 14.)

 However, the only species which

would be impacted substantially is the white crappie.

 (Pet.

Br.

at

 14.)

 IPC states that the evaluations show that the conditions

in Clinton Lake are capable of supporting fish and other aquatic

biota and although some species could be eliminated these same

species would be eliminated even under ambient, nonoperational

conditions.

 (Pet.

Br.

at

 15.)

IPC specifically studied the potential impact of the 110.7

degree fahrenheit maximum temperature limit,

 and of the

 99 degree

fahrenheit 90 day limit, requested in this petition,

 for six

species of fish representative of Clinton Lake.

 (Pet.

 1 at p.

28-29

 ¶77.)

 These species include gizzard shad,

 common carp,

channel catfish, blue gill,

 largemouth bass,

 and white crappie.

(Pet.

 1 at

p.

 28-29

 ¶77.)

 The USEPA protocol was used to assess

impacts on reproduction, growth,

 and survival

 for each species

using

temperature

data

from

extensive

literature

database

and

the preferred habitats of each species.

 (Pet.

1

at

p.

 28—29

¶77.)

IPC’s

evaluations

indicate

that

minimal

impacts

would

incurred

for

gizzard

shad,

common

carp,

and

blue

gill

for

reproduction,

growth,

and

survival.

For

channel

catfish

and

largemouth

 bass

 minimal

 impacts would

 occur

 for growth

and

survival

 Neproduct ion would

he

 somewhat

 I imited

for

par

the spawning

 season.

 (let

I

at

p.

 29 ¶70.

IPC’s

evaluations

show

that

 white crappie

may

not

 survive

in

Cli nton

Lake.

The

evaluations

a Iso

suggest

 that

crappie

may

not

 survive

 under

severe

ambi ent

summer

condi

t ions

at

Cl inton

Lake,

 even without

discharges

from

 the station.

 (Pet.

1

¶72.)

IPC

considered

several

alternative

methods

 reduce

the

temperatures at Clinton

 Lake,

 including cooling towers at

approximate

 costs of between $13,505,000 for mechanical—draft

cooling

towers

$52,300,000

for

the

gravity—flow

natural

draft

cooling

towers.

(Pet.

Br.

17.)

addition,

the

cost

for

passive cooling with fins was approximately $10,000,000.

 (Pet.

Br.

at

 17.)

 Two options which would have cost considerably less,

shading

the

flume

and

natural

spray

devices,

would

have

resulted

in only

 limited heat

 loss.

 (Pet.

Br.

 at 17.)

 Thus,

 IPC asserts

that

the

analysis

demonstrates

the

“significant

costs

and

lack

feasibility associated with alternative means of controlling the

recirculated

condenser

cooling

water

discharge

from

the

Station

to Clinton Lake”.

 (Pet.

 Br. at

 18.)

The

Agency

supports

granting

the

thermal

standard

arid

states that it “does not believe based on the information

provided that there will be

 a significant ecological

 impact on

Lake Clinton if the relief

 is granted”.

 (Ag.

Br.

 at 3.)

The

Agency does ask that a condition requiring temperature monitoring

be added until such time as the NPDES permit can be modified to

include such a condition.

 (Ag.

Br.

 at 5.)

IPC states that

 it does not object to the additional

condition regarding temperature monitoring as proposed by the

Agency.

 (Pet.

Br.

 at 21.)

 The current NPDES,

 permit which

currently sets forth the monitoring requirements for the

discharge from Clinton Lake,

 requires continuous monitoring until

the Board rules on the thermal standard.

 IPC states that it is

IPC’s understanding that any temperature monitoring ordered by

the Board in this proceeding

 is an interim requirement only

 arid

that the NPDES permit,

 once modified, would determine the

temperature monitoring requirement applicable.

 (Pet.

Br.

 at 21—

22.)

 The Board agrees that the NPDES permit modification should

take precedence over this order as this proceeding

 is only

indirectly reviewing the material relating to an NPDES permit for

Clinton Lake.

IPC has presented extensive documentation to support its

request for relief.

 The Board concludes that the requested

thermal standard would have no significant ecological harm and

further that alternatives are not technically feasible or

economically reasonable,

 considering the minimal reduction

in

temperature that would occur.

 IPC has satisfactorily

demonstrated that the thermal standard will not

 inhibit the

propagation

of

 fish

 or other aquatic

 biota.

 Therefore1

the

will

 grant

 the requested

 thermal

 standard

for

inton

 Lake

the cond it

ion

 that

 tempel

ar’

Sill

on

nq

 occur

Salt

Creek.

The

 Board

 finds,

 pursti~~tto Pection

 302.211(1)

 that IPC

has

demonstrated

that

the

 heated

 effluent

discharges

from

the

station

have not

 caused

a

 signif icant

ecological damage nor can

the heated effluent

reasonably

 he expected

to

in

the future.

CONCLUSION

After careful review of the extensive data provided to the

Board by IPC, the Board finds that the requested thermal standard

will have no significant ecological harm.

 Further, the

alternatives examined to reduce temperatures are not economically

reasonable or technically feasible.

 The Board also finds that

IPC has demonstrated satisfactorily that the heated effluent

discharge has not and cannot be reasonably expected to cause

significant ecological harm.

 Therefore,

 the Board will grant the

thermal standard requested.

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Illinois Power Company

 is hereby granted the following

thermal standard with conditions for its Clinton Power Station,

located

 in Clinton, Dewitt County,

 Illinois:

a)

 The temperature of the discharge to Clinton

Lake from Clinton Power Station,

 as measured

at the second drop structure of the discharge

flume,

 shall be limited to

 a daily average

temperature which

(1)

 does not exceed 99

degrees Fahrenheit during more than 90 days

in a fixed calendar year running from January

1 through December 31,

and

 (2) does not

exceed 110.7 degrees Fahrenheit for any given

day; and

b)

 Illinois Power is required to conduct

a

continuous Temperature Monitoring Program at

site 1.5 that will be located at a submerged

depth of 0.5 meters

 in Salt Creek

approximately

 100 feet down the stream from

the bottom of the spillway of Clinton Lake

during the months of June,

 July,

 and August

of each year until such time as the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

No.

 IL0036919

 is reissued

to

 include such

monitoring

as

a

special

 condition.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED

Section 41

 of the Environmental Protection Act

 (Ill.

 Rev.

Stat.

 1991,

ch.

111

 1/2,

 par.

 1041)

 provides for the appeal of

final Board orders within

 35 days.

 The Rules of the Supreme

Court of

 Illinois establish filing requirements.

 (See also 35

Ill.

 Adm.

 Code 101.246, Motions

 for Reconsideration.)

I,

 Dorothy

 M. Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify that the above opinion And order was

adopted on the

 .4~-

~

 day of

~/~1’

 /~-~7

1993,

 by a vote of

~

Dorothy M. Gt~n, Clerk

Illinois Po1l4~itionControl Board