ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 27, 1978

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE  

)

COMPANY (COFFEEN POWER STATION),

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 77—221

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

Respondent.

ANN

L. CARR, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER;

THOMAS L. COCHRAN, SORLING, NORTHRUP, HANNA, CULLEN & COCHRAN,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

On August 31, 1977, Central Illinois Public Service Company

(CIPS) filed a petition requesting the Board to extend a variance

granted CIPS on May 26, 1977 in PCB 77-2. CIPS requests relief

from the total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, total

iron, and pH concentration effluent standards 

Rule 408(a) of

Chapter 3: Water Pollution, and from the phosphorus, total dis-

solved solids, sulfate and boron water quality standards of Rules

203(c) and (f) of Chapter 3.

Hearing was held in this matter on December 21, 1977. Due

to weather conditions, the Hearing Officer assigned to this matter

was unable to attend the hearing. The parties carried on without

the Hearing Officer, generating a 16 page record, most of which

concerns the fact that the Hearing Officer was not present. Both

parties stipulated that what was in the record would be the testi-

mony which would be presented if there were a Hearing Officer

present. In addition it was noted on the record that no members

of the public were present. Considering the conditions, the Board

will accept the record as a stipulation of testimony and will deem

a hearing to have been held in this matter according to the Pro-

cedural Rules.

30..9j

Coffeen Power ~tation aic

CIPS’ present electric gen~rc~

mately 143 fu1l~timeoperatir

In

1976 CIPS engaged 

two

cor~ ir

design and construction of a

cation at 

Coffeen~ Exhibit I 

v~Coffeen

Power Station Prelirnir

In 1977 CIPS 

retained Stearns ~R~g

the Coffeen 

Power Station wast~acc~

resulted in 

recommendations t a

into compliance 

with Federal 

The proposal 

in Exhibit 3 illu

for completion 

of the wastewatt~r

cost to achieve 

compliance as ~

$12,000,000, 

and the final cont

CIPS alleges that conti u~

ent at 

Coffeen wiJi result ir 

ii.

There is 

apparently little or x

the receiving water, Shoal Cre~r

no evidence 

of large fish ku

in 1965 and 

that the Lake doe~,r

infishery.1965, 

CIPSCIPShasalsoreceivedallegesnth4ir

Station has 

caused or cortribut~-.

Agency 

has not disputed any  

x

~pproximate1y 

one-half of

c~tyand 

employs approxi-

~d 26 

part-time employees.

~ms to 

develop a study for

c~ treatment 

facility modif 

i—

opy of one study entitled

t rater 

Management Study”.

~tceed 

with phase II of

~c~ment facility, which

iig Coffeen Power Station

pollution regulations.

SIc.

oripliance time schedule

~ncntfacility. The estimated

Exhibit 4 is approximately

tate is September, 1979.

g of the 

wastewater efflu-

~i~ts on 

the environment.

o

~ from Coffeen Lake to

~rlleges that there has been

:feci Lake since it was started

~1

ulli continue 

to support a

~ the plant 

became operational

o. that any 

operation at the

y

~rvironmental harm, The

~t~ons 

in CIPS’ petition.

In its recommendati~nth~    

~o~es 

that the variance

requested by CIPS ne granteci. ~ thjec   

certain 

conditions. The

Board 

agrees. The compliance 

.an a~

~r0P0S0d

by

CIPS in this pro-

ceeding should bring the efflucr~tto ~e 

r~ within regulatory

standards and correct any watc: rJ, v ~  ems remaining in

Coffeen Lake, hopefully without cu~s 

problems concerning

the thermal discharges A study b Uu Hirza 

Engineering Company

indicated that a cost of betwe~~:~4 U ,OJJ and 

$14,000,000 would

be incurred to construct fa3il1L1~3 ~o achieve 

compliance with

total dissolved solid standards   

in .~tdditiona1 

$600,000 

to

$3,000,000 annually to operate rh c  ~acrIrties, It 

is expected

that 

subsequent to the operat r c the proposed 

treatment facili-

ties and with dilution of Lita. cx r 

. ~j

Lake waters by increased

pumping from Shoal Creek, the Ii so1~’ed~olids situation at Coffeen

Lake will be corrected, IL 

i.~.t aipc

o the~Board that it would

be an arbitrary and unreat~n .c-~r .i.ip on CIPS to deny the pro-

posed variance while CIPS i~ ~   

g itc compliance schedule,

—3—

In addition to 

the wastewater treatment 

facility CIPS proposes

to follow interim measures 

to control the effluent wastewater from

Coffeen Power Station as enumerated in paragraph (7) of the peti-

tion. CIPS will also continue to sample Coffeen Lake as it has

done since 1965, and biological analysis will be performed for the

Lake, for any discharge from the Lake into the east fork of Shoal

Creek and for the east fork of Shoal Creek both upstream and down—

stream of the dam spillway discharge, all as noted in paragraph

(8) of the petition. With regard to the effluent, the period of

time for which a variance from Rule 408 is sought is until September,

1979. With regard to Rule 203, however, the time period is unde-

termined since the water quality standards for total dissolved

solids, phosphorus, sulfate~ and boron couid conceivably be exceeded

for some time after start—up of the wastewater treatment facility.

The Board will therefore grant variance from Rule 203 with respect

to the aforementioned parameters until September, 1981.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter,

ORDER

It is the Order 

the Pollution Control 

Board that Central

Illinois Public 

Service Company be granted 

variance for Coffeen

Power Station and 

Coffeen

Lake from Rule 408(a) of Chapter 3 of

the Board’s Regulations with 

respect to 

total suspended solids,

total dissolved solids, 

total iron, and 

concentrations until

September 1, 1979, and from Rule 203 with 

respect

to phosphorus,

total dissolved solids, sulfate, and total boron concentrations

until September 1, 1981, subject to the following conditions:

1.  Interim effluent limitations shall be those

values represented in Table 1.2-1 of Exhibit

1 to the extent consistent with U.S. EPA BPT

promulgated standards.

2.

Central

Illinois

Public 

Service Company

nhai~

execute the 

interim measures 

proposed in para-

graph 

(7) of the petition herein.

3.  Central 

Illinois Public Service 

Company shall

execute 

the improvement program for 

the waste-

water treatment 

facilities in 

accordance with

the time frame set forth in Exhibit 

3.

30.-93

4.  Centra~ I1lirc~ r b  

..~vice Company shall

execute chemical 

~o~ogicaI 

sampling and

analysis as prop~ec r.~ aragraph (8) 

of

the

petition

5.  Central li.tir is Pcb .tc  lrvlce Company shall

set up and execute a  lUring program accept-

able to tho Age c~ rLh cspect to the effluent

quality and shall tsFo’L to the Agency on a

monthly basis~

6.  Within 45 da~ I

Illinois Public ~ei~

ward co noth xe ii i

Agency, 2200 Church~ ~1

62706 &d the P 1

of Acceptance aid 

~e

terms and concuiti 

ci

period sha I be he a.  r

period this matte 13

of said cerU.fic’at

I, (We),

fully understanding the )lle

Board in PCB 

221 her~bya~

bound by all of the te ~msanct

pcron of this Order, Central

..~

.~ipany shall execute and for-

Environmental Protection

xo~~d,Springfield, Illinois,

..cncrol 

Board a Certification

cot to 

oe bound to all

tti.s Order. The 45 

day

~cyance 

during any

ng appealed. The form

t he as 

follows:

having read and

t ~e Illinois 

Pollution Control

i.  t. 

cell 

Order 

and agree to be

r  teor,s thereof.

I, Christan L tLCifEtt, ~eii of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, her~tjcer~~r~:he c~ye Opinion and Order

were ~opted on the~~ dey f~~aL, 1978 by a vote

of ~             

(lJd~

~

Illinois Pollu~IbnControl Board