ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 31,
1975
ILLINOIS POWER COMP1~NY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 75-31
ENVIRONMENTAL PP.OTECTION AGENCY,
Responc~nt.
Mr. Sheldon A.
ZabE~1,Attorney, appeared for the Petitioner;
Mr. Henry
J.
Handzel, Jr., appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Zeitlin):
On October 26,
1970,
Petitioner,
Illinois Power Company
(Illinois Power)
dnnounced its intention to build a nuclear
power station ne~ Clinton,
Illinois
(Clinton Station).
The
Clinton Station is
to consist of two 991 megawatt units,
both of which wi1~be nuclear
fiiciad.
To dispose of waste heat generated at the Clinton Station,
Illinois Power proposes to construct an artificial cooling
lake,
to be created by damming Salt Creek approximately
1,200 feet downstr?~amof its confluence with its North Fork.
The resultant lake will be a U-shaped impoundment,
extending
approximately 14 miles upstream along Salt Creek, and
8
miles up its North Fork.
The lake will have an average
surface area of 4895 acres, and a mean depth of 15.6 feet.
The lake’s capacity will be approximately
24 million gallons.
Operation of the Clinton Station will result in a
discharge to the
TLake
(Clinton Lake)
of approximately 1.7
billion gallons per day
(2534 cfs).
That water, used for
condenser cooling p~irposes,will be withdrawn from the North
Fork arm of Clinton Lake,
and thence discharged
into the
Salt Creek arm via ~ 3.1 mile discharge flume.
After passing
through spray modules
in the discharge system,
the effluent
water temperature will nonetheless be in violation of present
Board thermal standards.
PCB Regs,
Ch.3,
Rules 203(i),
402.
18—
241
—2—
PLEADINGS
Illinois Power initially submitted the instant Variance
Petition, with respect to its proposed Clinton Lake,
on
January
23,
1975.
Illinois Power requested Variances from
Rule
203(1)
(water quality temperature standards),
Rule 402
(effluent standard prohibiting discharges causing water
quality standards violation), and Rule 970
(barring Agency
effluent discharge ~pproval
for Federal permits in the
presence of Illincis Statutory or Regulatory violations).
Illinois Power,
in its original
Petition,
claimed that
the request for Varia.’ice
is necessary for several reasons.
First, Illinois Powe~’alleged that a Variance
is necessary
to allow progress
or. its Clinton Station to continue while
various legal uncertainties regarding the status of cooling
lakes
in general are resolved.
Specifically, Illinois Power
claimed that the requested Variances would:
a.
Permit the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
(IEPA)
to issue
“at least a partial certificationt’
pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972
(FWPCA)
and U.
S. ~nvironmenta1
Protection Agency
(USEPA)
Regulations,
40 CFR §122.8.
Such a certification
would elimi~-iatethe necessity of judicial determination
of Rule 97U’s validity.
b.
IEPA could issue construction permits for Clinton
Station, and Clinton Lake,
and a full certification
under Section
401 of the FWPCA.
c.
Issuance of the requested Variance would eliminate
the necessity of judicial determination of the
question o1 Federal pre—emption of state thermal
effluent and water quality standards
by virtue of
316(a)
of
tr.e FWPCA; and a number of other legal
questions possibly related to the question of
Federal prt~—emptionas a result of permit issuance
by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Illinois Powe:— also alleged that issuance of the requested
Variance would eliminate unnecessary delay in the construction
of Clinton Station, by perhaps as much
as. one year, resulting
in considerable financial savings for the company.
Additional
18—
242
—3—
hardships alleged
to
be likely results of any further delay
in the construction of Clinton Station
were possible ‘blackouts’
or “brownouts” with:~nthe Illinois Power service area.
Public hardships
we-re alleged insofar as delay
in construction
of the Clinton Station would result in considerable economic
loss for the Clinton area;
construction wages amounting to
$250 million would be postponed or delayed.
Petitioner also
noted that unempQyment
is presently high in the Clinton
area.
Thereafter,
on. February 11,
1975,
IEPA submitted to the
Board
a Motion to T~ismissthis case, which Motion was subsequently
withdrawn on February
18,
1975, after Illinois Power submitted
an Amendment to its initial Variance Petition
(Amended
Petition).
The Amended Petition, received by the Board on February
18,
1975,
incorporates into the record several other reports and
documents.
These include Illinois Power’s Environmental
Report to the Atomic Energy Commission
(NRC),
a final environmental
statement prepared by the NRC, an NPDES permit application
to the USEPA for Clinton Lake,
Illinois Power’s application
to USEPA for an alternate thermal standard under Section
316(a)
of the FWPCA,
and Illinois Power’s construction
permit application to
IEPA, with an application for certification
under the FWPCA under Section 401.
The Amended Petition also included various statements
alleged to const~bute compliance plans for Clinton Lake on
the part of Illinois Power.
Illinois Power proposed three
methods of compliance:
a.
A pending rule change before the Board.
(In the
matter of:
Cooling Lakes, R75-2.)
b.
A Section
316(a) demonstration to the Pollution
Control Board under the NPDES system,
(Rule 410 (c)),
once Iliin~is’administration of that program is
approved by USEPA.
c.
A long term, permanent Variance,
for which Illinois
Power cites as authority the case of Commonwealth
Edison,
v.
P.~C.B.,
Ill.
App.
3d
(1st
fii~t.,
974,
No.
57487).
Illinois Power also mentioned as possible methods of
compliance a judicial reversal of the Board’s prior Opinion
lfl
the
“Lake Coffeen’
case.
Central Illinois Public Service
Co._v.EPA,
PCB 73—364,
11 PCB 677
(1974);
see also,
Citizens
ForA
Better
Environr.ient v.
Commonwealth Edison,
PCB 73-248,
18— 243
—4--
and Commonwealth Edison v.
EPA, PCB 73-24 8
(Consolidated),
13 PCB 69
(1974).
(PCB 73—384 has been appealed to the
Illinois Appellate Court,
5th District, No.
74—182).
Petitioner
also notes
that it has a pending §316(a)
Demonstration
before the USEPA,
pc’.rsuant
to the FWPCA.
Illinois Powe also introduced with its Amended Petition
an affidavit purporting to show approximate costs associated
with either altenate cooling systems for Clinton Lake or
with a delay in construction of the Clinton Station pending
approval of the current cooling system.
Illinois Power
claimed that approximately $50 million
in costs have been
added by a year’s delay already incurred due to administrative
review of its proposed plant and lake, and that an additional
year of delay would add another
$50 million to the total
cost of the plant.
Insofar as cooling towers for the Clinton
Station were estimated to cost between $50—and—$75 million,
Illinois Power estimates that with the delay for construction
of those towers,
and pending determination that such towers
would
in fact be necessary,
the total additional cost would
be between $100 ~ii11ion and
$125 million.
Further, Illinois
Power alleges thac the use of cooling towers at Clinton Lake
would still require use of the proposed lake
to provide
makeup water used
in conjunction with such towers.
IEPA filed its Recommendation on March
20,
1975, which
set out considerable factual data regarding the proposed
Clinton
Lake.
The Fcecommendation compared predicted conditions
for Clinton Lake with existing conditions at presently
operating Illinois cooling reservoirs,
of both the dammed
and side channel
(er “perched”) variety.
The Agency recommended that the Variance be granted,
for a period of from
1 to
5 years, subjeat
~o several conditions.
With respect to the Variance request from Rule
970,
the
Agency stated
tha’:
a Variance grant should be conditioned
on:
a.
Adequate proof that it would not be technically
feasible or economically reasonable
to achieve
cooling sufficient to meet present Board standards,
or some other standard lower than the 96°F.
requested by Illinois Power.
18—
244
—5—
b.
Proof that upstream users of the water courses
to
be impounded have been informed and understand
that construction of the impoundment would result
in additional effluent requirements on them.
c.
Proof a~to the length of time for which a Variance
is necessary.
With respect to the Variances requested from Rules 203 and
402,
the Agency also recommended that the Variance be granted,
but subject to the following conditions:
a.
Proofs as required with respect to the Variance
from Rule
970.
b.
Proof
Lhat Variance would be necessary for Illinois
Power to proceed with its Clinton project before
“the NRC and USEPA while review processes are
pursued~’.
c.
Proof that an Agency construction permit would be
required during the next 1-year period.
The Agency also reccmmended the following general conditions:
a.
A submission by Illinois Power of an acceptable
lake management plan,
preserving the lake’s recreational
and fishery values.
b.
Submission by Illinois Power of
a commitment to
keep
the
lake readily available for public access
throughout the life of the lake.
c.
Submission of an acceptable program for start up
and shut down procedures
to minimize adverse
effects on aquatic life,
d.
That the Variance terminate on a denial of the
Section 316(a) request pending before USEPA, or
upon a decision in the pending cooling lake regulatory
proceedings
(R75-2) unfavorable to Illinois Power.
IEPA then filed its Amended Recommendation before the
Board on June 12,
1375.
Based on the fact that Illinois
Power by that time had agreed to install a supplemental
18
—
245
—6—
cooling system,
IEPA again recommended the Variance be
granted.
The Agency moved,
in its Amended Recommendation,
that the Variance requested with regard to Rule 203(i)
and
402 be granted without hearing, and further moved that the
requested Variance from Rule 970 be dismissed as moot,
Additional Motions to Decide Without Hearing were filed June
20,
1975
(IEPA)
and June 24, 1975
(Illinois Power)
The Agency also adopted further conditions relating to
operation of the proposed supplemental cooling system to be
constructed along
~ith Clinton Station and Lake.
Certain of
the initial conditions proposed by the IEPA were dropped or
modified,
and a further additional condition
(that the
Variance be conditioned on compliance with a final
316(a)
Determination) was added.
Further, IEPA recommended that,
should conditions in Clinton Lake,
after it becomes operational,
differ significantly from those predicted in the Section
316(a) demonstration submitted by Illinois Power to USEPA,
Illinois Power be required to take whatever corrective
measures are necessary,
to include the possible addition of
further supplemental cooling facilities.
The Board subsequently denied all Motions for Decision
Without Hearing
(Interim Order, June 26,
1975),
and a
hearing was held in Clinton on July
7,
1975. The only relevant
objections raised at that hearing related to the possible
effects which an artificial impoundment,
containing waters
with increased temperatures, might have on surrounding
agricultural
conoerns.
Two witnesses expressed fears that
increased evapor~’tionresulting from the thermal component
of Clinton Staticn’s effluent may have an adverse effect on
crop growth,
throigh a variety of mechanisms.
It was feared
that increased frost damage might result, and that additional
local humidity would affect plant growth rate,
and the
manner in which fertilizers must be added to farm fields.
Additional testimony was introduced with regard to the
possibility that increased atmospheric moisture may have an
adverse effect on grain drying and storage; one witness
stated that the additional humidity would delay the drying
of grain in the fields, and would cause mold growths
on
stored grain
(R.
26,27).
(An additional objection, based on
possible interference with drainage from surrounding farms
is not relevant to our determination here,
and may not lie
within the Board’s jurisdiction.)
1l1inois Power also
agreed,
in its closing statement,
to abide by the conditions
contained in the IE~A’sAmended Recommendation.
At the conclusion of the pleadings, and the hearings,
the Board was presented with
a massive record on which to
base its determination.
18
—
246
.$UPPLEMENTAL COOLING SYSTEMS
Steam electric generating plants utilize water for
condenser cooling.
The condenser
is
in effect a heat exchange
mechanism;
in it,
3
separate quantity of water, which
is
that actually heatad and used to drive steam turbines for
electric generation
is cooled for reuse.
The water employed
for condenser cool~ng is not itself used to drive the electrical
generating mechanism.
In the past,
it has been commonplace for steam electric
generating plants to utilize natural waters, withdrawn
directly from
a natural water body such as a river or lake
for such cooling; that water
is then directly discharged
back into the body of water from which it is drawn.
That
process
is known as
“once through cooling”.
Where once through cooling
is not practical,
either
because no sufficiently large natural water body
is available,
or because such a method may result in violation of environmental
or other standards
other cooling systems must be employed.
These have in the p~’stincluded the construction of artificial
impoundments
for cooling water,
the use of cooling towers
(of several vari~Lies), or the use of spray canals.
In all
of these methods,
the basic mechanism for cooling involves
both evaporation
Etnd direct radiation of heat to the atmosphere.
Depending on the supplemental cooling system to be used, and
on myriad other factors,
the cost and efficiency of condenser
water cooling varies greatly.
The Pollution Control Board
(Board)
has previously
decided that where
a.n artificial cooling impoundment is
constructed by damr~:ingan existing protected water of the
state,
the resulting
“artificial cooling lake” will be, and
remains,
a protected water of the state;
it is thus subject
to existing therr~’alstandards.
Central Illinois Public Service
Co.
v.
E.P.A., supra, and Citizens For A Better Environment
v.
Commonwealth Edison,
supra.
(This matter is actually more
complex than can be discussed here,
and
is the subject of
pending Board regulations.
R75—2,
supra.)
For a more
complete description of the problem,
see the Board’s earlier
case,
and record
in
Lhe pending regulatory matter.
Illinois
Power has conceded that the proposed lake would fall within
the protected waters classification.)
Protected waters of the state are subject to the water
quality temperature standards of Rule 203 Ci), which provides
in relevant part:
18— 247
—8—
203(i)
Temperature
(STORET numbers F°( 00011 and
(C°) 00010)
(1)
There shall be no abnormal temperature changes
that may adversely effect aquatic life unless
caused by natural conditions.
(2)
Tn~ normal daily and seasonal temperature
fluctuations that existed before the addition
of heat due to other than natural causes
shall be maintained.
(3)
The maximum temperature rise above natural
temperatures
shall not exceed 5°F.
(4)
In addition,
the water temperature at representative
locations
in the main river
shall not exceed
the maximum limits in the following table
dtring more than one percent of the hours in
the 12-month period ending with any month.
M3reover,
at no time shall the water temperature
at such locations exceed the maximum limits
in the following table by more than 3°F.
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
60
60
60
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
60
Main river temperatures are temperatures of those portions
of the river essentially similar to and following the
same thermai regime as the temperatures of the main flow
of the river.
(5)
The owner or operator of a source of heated
effluent which discharges
0.5 billion British
therr~ia1units per hour or more shall demonstrate
in a hearing before this 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
ca’i.~edand 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.
18
—
248
—9—
(6)
Permits for heated effluent discharges,
whether issued by the Board or the Environ-
mental Protection Agency,
shall be subject
to revision in the event that reasonable
fiture development creates
a need for
reallocation of the assimilative capacity
of ~riereceiving stream as defined in the
regniation above.
In addition,
Rule 402 provides an effluent standard
which prohibits any effluent from causing a violation of the
applicable water quality standard.
It should be noted that
Rule
201, Mixing .~ones, provides discharger with a mixing
zone for its effluent.
That Rule would provide, as a mixing
zone, an area contained within
a circle having a radius of
600 feet;
subject to certain other limitations,
the applicable
temperature standards need only be met at the edge of a
mixing zone.
See, Commonwealth Edison v.
EPA, PCB 73-359,
10 PCB 659,
662
(1974); Ohio Wabash Thermal Standards,
71—12,
2 PCB 563
(19’l)
As originally designed, Clinton Station would have
utilized once through cooling;
its proposed discharge under
that system would have reached a maximum temperature of
112°F.
(Rec., P.6).
In 1974,
the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC)
issued a final environmental statement for the proposed
Clinton Station.
Tnat statement imposed a maximum temperature
discharge limitation of 96°F.,
or such other temperature as
may be appropriate ~nder
the FWPCA.
To achieve compliance
with that limitation,
Illinois Power proposed a supplemental
cooling system to meet such a 96°F.
limitation.
That 96°
limitation was the basis of a construction permit application
and an NPDES permit application submitted by Illinois Power
with respect to Clinton Lake.
It was also the basis for an
application to the USEPA for an alternative thermal
limitation
under Section
3l6ta)
of the FWPCA
(as amended February
24,
1975)
The supplemental cooling system chosen by Illinois
Power for its Clintcn Station would involve the use of 232
spray modules along the 3.1 mile discharge canal running
from the Station to Clinton Lake.
Illinois Power claims
that, with the utilization of this system,
current Board
regulations will usually be met at Clinton Lake.
By operating
the spray modules from June
1
(or such earlier time as the
condenser discharqe temperature reaches 92°F.) until around
September 19 of each year, the discharge temperature will
18—
249
—10—
reach a maximum of 92°F.
in normal years, and on one or two
occasions in suen years.
Only during extremely dry years
should the discharge temperature approach the 96°limit
proposed by Illinois Power in this procedure.
(In the
eventuality that conditions might indicate that 96°F. will
be exceeded,
plant operations are to be altered to meet that
limit.)
(Rec.
Ex.
~‘.
to Ex. B).
FEDERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Section 316(a)
of the FWPCA grants the Administrator of
the USEPA the power to determine an alternate thermal standard
for an individual source,
where it has been determined that
existing standards are more stringent than necessary to
protect an indigenous aquatic biota.
(Again,
this matter
is
somewhat complex,
and the reader
is referred to the appropriate
federal statutory and regulatory provision describing the
requirements of Section 316(a).)
Illinois Power, as noted
above, has applied to the USEPA for such an alternate thermal
standard.
In a letter
ftorn Francis T. Mayo, Regional Administrator
of the USEPA,
dat:ed May
9, 1975,
that Agency tentatively
approved such an alternate thermal standard for the proposed
Clinton Lake.
That tentative approval followed the submission,
by Illinois Power,
of voluminous
data and predictions relevant
to the proposed lake.
The original submission to USEPA,
October
10,
1974, was supplemented on February
24,
1975, and
April
14,
1975.
(Amended Rec.,
Ex.
C).
The May
9,
1975,
tentative approval by tJSEPA was subject to the following
conditions:
1.
The proposed supplemental cooling system
(spray
canal)
is
to be operated during the summer under
the method described above.
2.
The effluent to the lake will never exceed 96°F.
3.
Illinois Power is
to conduct thermal research to
determine the effects of thermal discharges on
cooling
lakes.
That data,
and data on the proposed
Clinton Lake,
are to be evaluated,
and reports
to
be made to USEPA.
4.
If the research, data,
etc.,
indicate that Clinton
Lake will be significantly different than the
predictions in the 316(a) demonstration show,
or
if the cooling water use, recreational aspects, or
protection and propagation of indigenous aquatic
life cannot be assured, Illinois Power must agree
to take whatever measures are necessary
in correction,
to include backfitting of additional
cooling
facilities.
18—250
—11—
5.
Illinois Power is
to develop and maintain plans
for n::isance algae and aquatic macrophyte control
on Clinton Lake.
6.
Illinois Power is to develop a detailed fishery
management plan for Clinton Lake.
In
a letter dated May 16,
1975,
(Rec.
Ex.
D), Illinois
Power agreed to
the
above conditions.
ISSUES
In determining whether or not a Variance is warranted
in this issue, the Board must examine the following issues:
1.
Is
a Variance in fact needed by Illinois Power for
its proposed Clinton Lake?
2.
Is such
3
Variance in fact needed at the present
time,
if at all?
3.
Have the elements normally necessary for the grant
of the hardship been shown?
A.
F~asthe requisite hardship been demonstrated?
B.
Is the necessary compliance plan present?
C.
What will be tho resultant damage,
if any,
to
the environment?
4.
How long
a Variance is warranted on the present
record?
It would appear that there
is some question as
to
whether this variance is
in fact needed by Illinois Power.
The Board notes that all of the engineering data leading to
the estimate of a 96°F.discharge during unfavorable meterioloqical
conditions are deiived from very conservative assumptions
and calculations
(eg. Amend.
Rec.,
Ex.
B,
pp.
3,4;
Ex.
1 to Ex.
B, pp.5,6)~ This, however,
is as it should be.
Illinois Power has c~esignedits facility to cool to 96°F.
under worst—case conditions, and has committed itself
to
modification of plari~operations should the situation indicate
that
a 96° limit cannot be achieved.
(Amend.
Rec.
Ex.
D.
responding
to Rec.
Ex.
C,
p.6 para 4).
It is asking for a
variance from the 90°F. limitation under the Board’s rules
based on such a worst—case possibility.
.
.
.
a possibility
which it seems is more likely than not during a drought year
with high wet-bulb conditions during the summer.
(Amend.
Rec.
Ex.
1 to Ex.
B, supra)
There is no need to penalize
18
—
251
—12—
Illinois Power for its caution in both conservatively designing
its cooling facilities and at the same time seeking a shield
from prosecution under the grant of a variance, while constructing
the facility.
There would also appear to be some question as to
whether the variance would be needed now,
in light of the
fact that Clinton Station will not be in operation until
1981.
In seeking ihe variance now,
rather than at the time
of operation,
Illinois Power seeks a shield from enforcement
which will,
in effect, allow construction to commence.
Such
a request is not unreasonable,
since a Variance is in fact
needed,
and in
ligrrc of the hardships which delay might
cause,
a present grant is indicated.
As regards hardship,
the most obvious
is the financial
burden which a eenial of the variance would impose on
Illinois
Power.
The original Agency Recommendation,
(p.29),
shows
the costs for “alternate” cooling systems
to be used in
conjunction with Clinton Station.
It was estimated that the
following costs would be incurred:
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
It should be noted that the spray canal costs shown
above would be those involved for an “alternate”
cooling
system,
that
is, one which would not be used for cooling
in conjunction with the proposed artificial cooling lake
(Lake Clinton).
The supplemental cooling system which has
been proposed by Illinois Power will,
it is estimated, have
a total cost of $34,524,800, covering all capital, operating
and maintenance costs over a 30—year life.
(Amended Rec.,
Ex.
1
to Ex.
B, p.2).
In addition,
the hardships described ~above, in the
original Petition of Illinois Power, remain valid.
Those
are costs which would be incurred through delay in the
commencement of construction at Clinton.
Further,
the
Board may take notice of the fact that this country has
experienced an enerçj crisis.
For that reason,
and because
the Board may also take notice of current depressed economic
conditions,
the Board feels that sufficient hardship has
been shown to,
at least initially,
justify the grant of
a
variance.
18
—
252
—13—
Such hardship. however, must also be balanced against
the possibities of environmental harm resulting from the
grant of the requested Variance.
The bulk of the record
in
this matter, and in particular the 316(a) demonstration
(with its supplements)
submitted to USEPA,
is largely concerned
with predicting tne ecological effect that the thermal
discharge from Clinton Station may engender.
Based on the
predictive data submitted for the proposed lake,
and the
data submitted for comparison indicating present conditions
at other cooling water impoundments, the Board feels that
the likelihood of environmental damage
is minimal.
The data and the pleadings
indicated that possible
problems may arise
in Lake Clinton with respect to algal
blooms
(Amended Rec.,
Ex.
A, p.2).
The 316(a) demonstration
for Clinton Lake indicates that the lake will contain sufficient
nutrients
to suppoit rich planktonic flora.
However,
a
large algal biom.iss on Lake Clinton will not necessarily be
due to the thermal input;
large blue-green algal growths
occur naturally
in nutrient-enriched waters,
such as those
predicted for Lake Clinton
(316(a)
demonstration, p.6-58).
In addition,
Illinois Power has adopted a willingness to
employ necessary control measures should algal bloom become
a nuisance
(Amend.
Rec.,
Ex.
6 to Ex. B).
Additionally, Illinois Power has committed itself to
control measures should aquatic macrophytes become a problem
(Ex.
4
to Ex.
B,
Amend.
Rec.).
It is estimated that the
growing season of the macrophytes may be extended as
a
result of the heated cffluent entering Lake Clinton, but it
is also estimatei that the heated effluent will not increase
macrophyte growth beyond those areas of the lake which would
normally be inhabited
(i.e., shallower areas)
(316(a)demonstration,
p.6-45,46). Nor
is plant shut-down predicted to cause
problems with macrophyte growth,
as the largest temperature
differentials
(i.e.,
thermal shock)
are likely to occur in
winter,
when macrophyte growth and reproduction are minimal
(id.)
It is expected
(Amend.
Rec.
Ex.
7 to Ex.
B), that
passage through the condenser, and the subsequent passage
through the spray cooling system, will prove fatal
to all
zooplankton entrained with the cooling water.
It is also
felt, however,
that the proposed lake will provide sufficient
cool habitats, and that rapid replacement of those individuals
will take place,
so that,
over all,
there will be little
effect on the zooplankton population of Clinton
Lake.
In
fact,
due to the thermal effect,
zooplankton community
density will be higher during the cool months than would
ordinarily be the case in central Illinois lakes
(316(a)
demonstration,
Sec.
6.3.5;
Ex.
7,
to Ex.
B, Amend.
Rec).
18—
253
—14—
There has been some dispute as to the assumptions which
can be made in predictions on the fishery to be maintained
in Clinton Lake.
‘llinois Power Company,
in an Amendment to
its 316(a) proposal to USEPA
(Ex.
5 to Ex.
B, Amend.
Rec.),
chose 92°F. as a hostile temperature for the eight important
fish species prelicted for Clinton Lake.
In the May
9
letter tentatively approving an alternate thermal standard
for Clinton Lake,
the USEPA disputed the use of 92°F. in
that analysis
(Amend.
Rec.,
Ex. C).
USEPA felt that an 86°
temperature would be more appropriate for analyzing thermal
impact.
The Boa-d.
however,
takes note that Illinois Power
has committed itself to the maintenance of a viable fishery
in the proposed lake,
in conjunction with the Illinois
Department of Conservation
(See,
Ex.
3 to Ex.
B, Amend.
Rec.).
Based on studies made at the Baldwin Reservoir,
(a
“perched” or “side channel” lake,
also owned by Illinois
Power),
the Board feels that it will be quite possible for
Illinois Power
tu maintain an adequate recreational fishery
in Clinton Lake
(Ecological study
of Baldwin Reservoir,
Progress Reports,
1 September,
1970,
to October,
1974,
submitted by Department of Zoology,
Southern Illinois Tniversity;
see also,
Aquatic Vegetation Studies of Lake Baldwin,
WAPORA,
Inc., March
25,
1975).
Further, Illinois Power has
committed itself to the maintenance of this fishery as a
public recreation facility.
(This was one of the conditions
which Illinois Power has assented to on the record in this
matter.)
While
it appears from the record that some fish will be
damaged in Lake Clinton under extreme conditions, we do not
find this fact controlling.
In balancing the economic and
other hardships described above against the possibilities of
environmental harm, we feel that a variance is warranted
in
this situation.
Another issue remains, however.
The Board has in the
past required that a compliance plan exist, as a condition
to any variance granc;
Illinois Power has submitted such
compliance plans, which are acceptable
to the Board.
First,
Illinois Power shall, and has, participated
in a pending
regulatory proceeding before the Board which would,
if
successful, provide a means
by which it could obtain the
equivalent of
a permanent variance, which is presently
unobtainable.
In the Matter of Cooling Lakes,
R75-2.
Should that Regulatory Proposal,
or the alternatives suggested
by
IEPA,
be adopted by the Board, Illinois Power could be
granted a specific thermal effluent limitation;
such a
specific limitation would provide permanent relief
(subject,
of course,
to future Board actions,
such as those provided
for under
Ch.
3,
Rule 203(i) (5)), by granting a thermal
standard exceeding
~he generally applicable one of Rule
203 ~i)
18—
254
—15—
Second,
the E~oardwould hope that federal approval of
the Board’s NPDFS regulations is imminent.
Such approval
would cause Rule 410(c)
of the Water Pollution Regulations
to provide for just such specific,
long—term relief as
Illinois Power would require.
Rule 410(c),
by adopting the
federal standard under Sec.
316(a)
of the FWPCA,
provides
for the adoption by the Board of an alternate thermal standard
such as is requested by Illinois Power.
Both of these alternatives,
in light of the other
evidence presented
in this matter, present adequate compliance
plans.
In our opinion, these compliance plans justify
a
grant of the Variance for a two-year period.
This will allow
time for Illinois Power to pursue these compliance plans,
and for the resciution of all r’emaining issues.
THE VARIANCE
Having determined
that a Variance
is in fact warranted
in the present situation, the terms of that Variance shall
be examined.
It snould be noted first of all,
however,
that
Illinois Power has,
in the record
in this matter, agreed to
the conditions under which the Agency Recommendation of a
Variance grant was made, and to the conditions under which a
federal 316(a)
tentative determination was made
(R.40,4l;
Amend. Rec.,
Ex. D).
As noted above,
the Board will grant a Variance from
Rules
203(i)
and 402,
for a period of two years.
The requested
Variance from Rule
970 will be dismissed,
insofar as the
Agency may issue the requested permit and certification based
on the grant of Variances from Rules 203(i)
and 402.
The essential condition on which this Variance
is
granted is the operation of the supplemental cooling system
described above.
We shall, consistent with both the recommendation
of the IEPA, and the tentative
316(a)
grant of USEPA, require
that the spray canal cooling system,
as described
in Illinois
Power’s letter o
April
14, 1975,
to USEPA
(Amend.
Rec.,
Ex.
B), be operated
luring summer months so as to prevent harm
to the aquatic biota in the proposed lake.
The system of
operation as desclibed,
which provides for a gradual start-
up during warm weather months,
should protect both the biota
and allow for econoTnical operation by Illinois Power.
18—
255
—16—
As agreed
to
by the parties,
and as we have also found
to be effective
to protect the hiota, we will also require
that the effluent Lemperature to the lake not exceed 96°F.
at any time.
While it is expected that the 96°F. limitation
will rarely,
if ever,
be reached,
the Board nonetheless
feels such an absolute limitation
is required to protect the
aquatic environment.
Illinois Power has also agreed to submit an acceptable
lake management ulan,
to preserve the lake’s recreational
and fisheries value.
That agreement plays an important role
in the Board’s approval of this Variance.
That,
and Illinois
Power’s agreerneni
to hold the lake open for public access,
indicate a wise,
m’..’ltiple use of scarce water resources.
While the record indicates that start-up and shut-down
procedures at the proposed Clinton Station will have little,
if any, adverse effect on the aquatic biota, Illinois Power
will also be required to develop and submit a program to
minimize any adverse effects which may develop.
The concept
of thermal shOck remains
a concern to the Board,
such that
we shall require assurance that no untoward effect will
result.
The Board has not conditioned this Variance on compliance
with
a
final Section
316(a) determination by the USEPA at
Clinton Lake.
First, no such determination now exists,
so
that the Board may not assume that such a final determination
will be entirely consistent with this Opinion and Order.
Secondly,
it has not been demonstrated that a requirement of
such compliance would not constitute
“redelegation”
of
powers granted the Board under the Act.
The fact that
Illinois Power h~sagreed to such compliance,
in the record
in this matter,
c~oesnot affect our decision on that point.
The Board has also conditioned the grant of this Variance
on a commitment
by
Illinois Power
to take whatever corrective
actions are necessary should environmental harm develop at
the proposed cooling
lake.
This commitment,
to which Illinois
Power has also agreed,
is a major factor in our grant of
this Variance.
This condition
is consistent with the Board’s
requirement under i~ule203(i) (5),
set out fully above.
We shall also require that Illinois Power submit quarterly
progress reports on both the status of construction at the
proposed Clinton Station and Lake,
and on the status of its
compliance with the other conditions
of this Order.
Certification
of acceptance of this Variance, with all conditions,
shall
also be required.
18
—
256
—17—
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
A)
Petitioner Illinois Power Company is granted
a
Variance from the provisions of Rule 203(i)
and
Rule 402 for a period of two years from the date
of this Order, subject
to the following conditions:
(i)
~rhat Illinois Power Company agrees to operate,
as a minimum, a supplemental cooling system
employing 232 spray modules, and otherwise
consistent with that described in the accompanying
Opinion in this matter,
in the following
r~ianner:
(a)
in the late spring when the condenser
discharge temperature reaches 92°For on
June
1,
whichever comes first,
the
supplemental cooling system will begin
operation with approximately one-fifteenth
(1/15)
of the capacity being switched
on;
(h)
each day thereafter another one-fifteenth
(1/15)
of the system will begin operation,
until by June
15, at the latest,
all
modules will be operating;
(c)
in the late summer, when the condenser
discharge temperature reaches 92°Fon
the declining side of the time/temperature
curve, or on September
19, whichever
occurs last,
the supplemental cooling
system will begin to be sequenced off
with approximately one—fifteenth
(1/15)
of the modules being shut down for the
first six
(6)
days;
(d)
each day thereafter another two-fifteenths
(2/15)
or less of the modules will be
shut off until
by September 30, at the
earliest,
the complete system will be
off.
(ii)
That the effluent temperature to the lake
will not exceed 96°Fat any time;
18—
257
—18—
(iii)
That Illinois Power Company prior to the
filling of the impoundment submits an acceptable
1a~,emanagement plan for approval by the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and
the Illinois Department of Conservation,
which plan will preserve the lake’s recreational
and fisheries value;
(iv)
That Illinois Power Company keeps
the lake
open to readily available public access
throughout the life of the lake;
(v)
That Illinois Power Company develops and
submits
an acceptable program prior
to operation
showing startup and shutdown procedures which
will minimize the adverse affect of such
activities on aquatic
life;
(vi) 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
prcpagation 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 ~xisting
plant with additional cooling
facilities.
(vii) That Petitioner Illinois Power Company submit
quarterly progress reports to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Manager, Variance Section; Division of
Water Pollution Control,
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois
62706
(viii) Within 28 days after the dateof
the Board
Order herein the Petitioner shall execute and
forward to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, Manager, Variance Section at the
above address, and to the Pollution Control
Board
a Certification of Acceptance and
agree~’nentto be bound to all terms and conditions
of the variance.
The form of said certification
shall be as follows:
18—
258
—19—
CE RT IF
I CATION
I
(We),
____________________________
having read and
fully understandin~ the Order of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board
in PCB 75-31 hereby accept said Order and
agree to be boun.i by all of the terms and conditions thereof.
Signed
Title
Date
B)
Petitioner Illinois Power Company’s request for
a Variance from Rule 970 of Chapter
3 is
dismissed
I, Chistan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby ce~tifythe above Opinion and Order
w re adopted on tne,~j4
day of~J
,
1975, by a vote of
trol Board
Illinois Pol
18—
259
