28-10k
28-1 09
Pollution, are amended in conformity therewith:
(bb) Lake Sangchris

I~~fNOiS

POLLUTION

 CONTROL BOARD

October 13, 1977

IN

THE

MATTER

OF:

PROPOSED SPECIFIC

THERMAL

)

 R76—11

STANDARDS FOR LAKE SANGCHRIS

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Goodman)

:*

The Proposal for Regulatory Amendment

 in this

matter was filed

by Commonwealth Edison Company

 (Edison)

 on April

19,

 1977,

 accompa-

nied

 by the signatures of more

than

 200 citizens requesting its

consideration and adoption.

 Ill.

 Rev.

 Stat., Ch. 111-1/2, §1028

(1977);

 Ill.

 PCB Regs.,

Ch,

1,

 §204 (a) (1977).

 At its regular meet-

ing of April 22,

 1976,

 the Board authorized hearings on the matter.

The Board also ordered publication of Edison’s Proposal, which was

published

 in Environmental Register

 #124, published April

27,

 1976.

On September

1,

 1977,

 the Board entered an Order setting a pro-

posed final draft of

the

Reguiatio~ ‘for publication and a 30-day

public

 continent period.

 The proposed final draft

was published

in

Environmental Register #155,

 datu~ISeptember

 12, 1977.

 No comments

were received.

 The Board therefore adopts

 as final this Opinion

and Order, ending over four years

 consideration

in this matter.

Edison’s Petition,

 filed under Rule 203(i) (10)

 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution, asks that the Board set specific thermal standards

for discharges

 from Edison’s Kincaid

power generating station to

the lake.

 Edison asked that the Board set such limits by amending**

Rule 203(i) (11), Exceptions

 to Rule 203(i),

 to include new Rules

203(1)

(11) (bb) (1) and

(2)

 as follows:

(bb) Lake Sangchris:

The thermal discharge to Lake Sangchris

shall meet

*

The

 Board

wishes

to thank Vincent P.

Flood, Jr., Attorney,

Hearing Officer in this matter,

 for his assistance

 in the preparation

and drafting of

this

Opinion

and

 Order.

~

 The procedures for proceedings under

Rule 203(i) (10)

of

Chapter

 3 have been changed since the inception of this case,

 that

change

effect

only

case

filed

after

 April

1,

 1977.

 See,

 Ill.

PCB Regs,,

Ch.

1,

Part

VI(A),

§~1-4,

R77—ll

 adopted May 12,

 1977.

See, also,

 PCB R77—7,

 adopted

June

28,

 1977, amending Rule 203(i)

(10)

(cc);

 future proceedings will be

adjudicatory,

 and not

Regula-

tory;

 see,

 also,

 R77—l

 (March 17,

 1977).

28-107

—2—

the following standards and conditions:

(1)

 The effluent temperature shall not exceed

99°F.during more than seven percent of

the hours in the 12-month period ending

with any month and shall

 at no time exceed

111°F.

(2)

 All conditions adopted by Board Order

in

PCB R76-

this

 proceeding).

BACKGROUND

The thermal discharge from Edison’s Kincaid station into Lake

Sangchris has been before the Board on two prior occasions.

In

Citizens

for a Better Environment

v. Commonwealth Edison,

 PCB 73-245,

-24~(consolidated)

~13 PCB 69

 (1974), the Board determined that the

thermal discharges from Kincaid station are in fact subject to the

Board’s thermal limitations.

 Ill.

 PCB Regs.,

Ch.

3,

 §203(i)

(1-4)

(1977).

 Although the Board did not

find that the thermal discharges

into Sangchris had caused any environmental damage,

 13 PCB

80,

81,

 the Board nonetheless stated that Edison’s discharge must

(1)

comply with Rule 203(i);

(2)

 become subject to

 a Variance pending

implementation of

 a compliance plan for such discharges;

or

(3)

be

the subject of

 a Regulatory change

 if Edison thought the thermal

limitations were neither necessary nor reasonable.

We noted in Sangchris’ next appearance before the Board that

Edison chose the last of those possibilities.

 On January 22,

 1975,

Edison submitted a Regulatory Proposal to exempt all “artificial

cooling lakes”* from the Board’s thermal discharge limitations.

In the Matter of:

 Water Quality and Effluent Standards Amendments,

Coolin9 Lakes,

 P75—2,

 18 PCB 381

 (Order),

 18 PCB

 661,

686

 (Opinion)

Although the Board did not grant the general relief requested

by Edison

 in that Proposal, we did set standards by which individual

artificial cooling lakes could receive specific thermal standards

appropriate under the circumstances.

 While Edison had also asked

for such standards for Lake Sangchris,** the Board found that Edison

 had failed in one specific regard:

 While Edison had successfully

shown that thermal discharges into the lake had not historically

*

 Sangchris

 falls within the class,

 “artificial cooling

lakes”;

 see,

 18 PCB at

 686.

**

 The standard asked by Edison in R75—2

was:

The temperature of the condenser cooling discharge from Kincaid

station shall not exceed 107°Fexcept that for

 5 percent of the hours

in any 12-month period ending with any month during which time ex-

cursions shall be allowed up to a temperature not to exceed 122°F.

28-10k

—3—

caused

environmental

p:~c~iems,

Edison had not demonstrated that

the requested specific

 I’

 ~aa1 discharge limitations were those

which had led to our en~.Lronmentalfindings.

 The Board stated

that, “amy

 standard which we may set for Lake Sangchris would

be,

 in effect,

 the historic fact for that lake.”

 18 PCB at 712.

Not having received the requested specific thermal standard in

R75-2,

 Edison saw its burden

 in this matter as threefold:

1.

 A demonstration that the environmental findings

of the Board with regard to Lake Sangchris had not changed

since our decision in R75-2.

2.

 A demonstration that the cost of alternative

or supplementary cooling methods for condenser coo1~nq

water discharges from Kincaid to Sangchris remains,

as

found in R75—2, unreasonable.

3.

 A demonstration of the actual discharge tempera-

tures

from Kincaid to Sangchris during the period for

which we found no environment--~i.,harm (the “historic fact”).

Edison’s case

 in this matter was organized accordingly,

 and we shall

follow the same order

 in reviewi:;~jthe evidence before us.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

In Both PCB 73-245, -248

 (consolidated)

 and R75-2, the Board

found that Lake Sangchris was “environmentally acceptable.”

 That

finding was more conclusive in R75-2, where the Board examined

extensive testimony and documentary evidence regarding the lake.

(In fact,

 most of the evidence received by the Board

 in R75-2 either

concerned Sangchris directly or extrapolated from data gathered

there.)

*

Although the Record in R75-2 contained other useful reports

concerning Sangchris,

 the most valuable testimony came from studies

performed by the Illinois Natural History Survey, which was then

(and still is) engaged in a long-term study of the lake.

We

shall

not reiterate all of our findings with regard to Lake Sangchris

in

this Opinion.

 Our Opinion in R75-2 contains numerous specific

 discussions and should be referred to for more complete coverage.

18 PCB at 695,

 696—700,

 702—705,

 707—712.

*

 The Board noted

 JE~75-2that Edison “bore the brunt of

the evidentiary burden” there and commended

it for the completeness

and comprehensiveness of its presentation.

 18 PCB at 695.

28-1 09

—4--

Irs~

~‘

•

need

 note

only

those

 findings with regard to Sang-

chrL~wh~onhave

been updated by

the

 Natural History Survey and/or

discussed in this

proceeding.

 There have been,

 since the Board’s

consideration in

R75-2,

few chenges

Lake

Sangchris’

biota,

(R.75)

A representative

of the Natural

History

 Survey characterized the

lake as

 ~romarkably stable” with few

changes during three years of

sampli.ij,

 (Id.).

 While fish populations fluctuate, this

 is thought

to be a

 iatural

condition,

 unrelated to operations

 at Kincaid or

its thermal load upon the lake,

 (R. 76-77).

 The only general anomaly

noted in

the

Record was to the effect that the lake is apparently

aging slowly;

it

 is “of an age where the fish population ought to

be going drastically downwards,

 and it is not.”

 (R.84).

In fact,

 some of the potential problems noted

 in ou~

Opinion

in R75—2 have

apparently been resolved.

 We noted,

 18 PCB at

 709,

that there was a problem in the lake with bluegill stunting.

 Testi—

many indicated,

 however, that this is

 a common problem with lakes

and reservoirs

 in Illinois;

the

fish simply

outbreed the available

food supply,

 (R,72,73).

 Carp reproduction failure, also noted as

a problem, may in fact be due to pesticide discharges into the lake

from surrounding

farmlands,

(Economic

Impact

Ex.

p.32).

At

any

rate,

 the presence

 carp

is

i~

n~cessarily

desirable.

Exhibit

 9 in this proceedinc~,

the

 Annual

Report for FY 75,

submitted

b

 the Natural History

Survey,

 contains an extensive

description of the ecology of Lake Sangchris covering most fish,

as well as all other flora and fauna of the lake,

 (see,

 §S2-4,

6-10),

 That

report covers much that was discussed in R75-2, as

well as considerable new data,

 and does not indicate any signifi-

cant problem.

 Although there are thermal effects, they are not

deleterious.

 (See,

 e.g., pp.4.42-4.44).

The conclusions

reached

R75—2

remain

unchanged.

COMPLIANCE COSTS

In R75—2 the Board also examined closely the costs

 of compli-

ance without

existinq

thermal

sLandards

Kincaid

station.

The

Board

discussed

various

alternatives,

including

cooling

towers,

spray canals,

 and variations

those

methods.

PCB

689-695.

In this case we have not only more extensive data on the costs and

problems associated with those technologies, but also have the costs

or problems

which

 might be associated with other potential compliance

methods

principally

 modification of station operation to assure

compliance.

 The source of this additional data is the Economic

 Impact Study

prepared

by tte Illinois Institute for Environmental

Quality under Public Act 79—790,

 (requiring such studies).

In

addition

 to meeting the requirement of P.A.

 79-790,

 the Institute

study give’

ocn~iderable,

 helpful detail from the technical/merits

records

 ~oncerninq Sangchris to illustrate and justify the economic

alternatives ~

resented.

28-110

—5--

We estimated in

‘

 that a mechanical draft cooling tower

at Lake Sangchris would.

 st approximately $25 mIllion,

 18 PCB at

690.

 Edison~sestimate

 ,~f ~22.086 million and $24.646 million

are reported in the Institute’s Economic Impact Study,

 (Economic

Impact Ex.

 I at 23,26).

 A similar sized mechanical draft cooling

tower for Central Illinois Public Service Company

S

 Newton power

station

 is estimated at $27.976 million, and the Institute gave an

estimate of $l2/kW which,

 in 1976 construction dollars, would amount

to $24.8 million.

The figures given

 in R75—2 for natural draft cooling towers

have similarly inflated.

We

there

estimated,

PCB

691,

 a cost

of approximately $31 million; estimates

 in the Economic Impact

Study

 are greater, amounting to $43.4l7 million ~conomic

 Impact

Ex.

 1, Table 5),

 or $37,156 million for Newton,

 kid.,

 Table 8).

Since our last discussion of spray canals,

 the cost has also

gone up; the Institute has found that,

 “The unit did not meet the

manufacturer’s expectations..~at least

 520 modular spray units

would

 be required at the Kincaid station.”

 (Economic Impact Ex.

1

at 26.)

 In R75-2 we estimated that only 130 modules would be

required for Kincaid.

 Although th’

 ~osts have not risen propor-

tionately

 (from 38 million to 40 mislion),

 it would appear that

spray modules would probably be a~

xtremely expensive alternative

to Lake Sangchris

 as a cooling ms~hanismfor the station.

The Institute estimated that if Kincaid were to attempt to

meet existing standards by modifying operations ~t Kincaid,

the

maximum

 plant loading would be

275

with

 three pumps operating,

and 360 mW with four pumps,

 (id., at 11).

 Using an average auxil-

iary power cost to estimate the cost of such reduced operation,

the Institute estimated that annual costs for such compliance

would be $25.6 million for a three pump operation and $18.9 million

 for a four pump operation,

 (Id.,

 at 14),

Without reiterating the Institute’s entire study, we should

note that it also discussed other alternatives, such as

 the cost

of compliance with an absolute standard of 99°F., (e.g., Table 14,

alternative

D).

 The Institute also considered the cost to

consumers, business, and

industry

for

the

various

possible

alterna-

tives,

 on total and annual bases.

 The study went so far as to

consider replacement costs,

 which are

not

included

rate—making

calculations,

 (Id., at

54),

The

study

noted

 that,

 “tjhe

 real

impact will be felt when replacement generating capacity is built

at a cost increase of about 4.6 times.”

 (Id.,

64.)

28-111

—6—

Although the Instif

 ~e did initially question Edison’s proposal

of 111°F.,preferring

 as. excursion figure of 107°F.,this was later

somewhat modified at hearing,

 (Economic Impact Ex.

 1, p.64;

 Economic

Impact R,14,45).

 The essence of the Institute’s

 study was that,

“Both economic and environmental considerations favor the proposed

 standard.”

(Economic

Impact

Ex.

 1 at

 64.)

 Ernest L. Hardin, the

study’s principal author,

 stated at hearing that,

 “ilin

 the absence

of significant environmental damage,

 the proposed standard is clearly

the

least

costly.”

(Economic

Impact,

R.l9.)

The Institute did qualify its recommendation in the Economic

Impact Study, however,

 to the extent that it felt that more study

is needed with regard to the effects of very hich temperatures on

the aquatic biota,

 (Id.),

 The Institute stated that, while Sangchris

is “certainly the most studied cooling lake in Illinois,’

IL

would

still prefer the Board to “defer setting a maximum temperature limit

until

 more is known of the effects of peak and sustained high tempera-

ture discharges.

 Lessons learned at Lake Sangchris can be applied

elsewhere.”

(Id,)

OTHER ECONOMIC IMPACT

The Institute study also discusses the economic impact of the

proposed Regulation,

 other alternatives,

 and compliance with the

existing standard on the various sectors delineated in Section 6(b)

of the Act.

 This analysis weighed both the costs and benefits

associated

with

the

various

alternatives

with

respect

the

entire

spectrum of possibilities shown there.

 In essence, that analysis

showed that while there might be little immediate effect on electric

utility rates,

 a longer term examination of the costs associated

with compliance at any standard other than that proposed by Edison

is unfavorable.

 Although the study is designed so that costs and

benefits can be independently weighed

 (see, p.48),

 the study,

“suggests that the environmental certainties of the existing cooling

lake operation are to be slightly preferred over the more costly

alternatives which would limit the heat discharged into the lake

by modifying the load carried by Kincaid station.

 The offstream

cooling alternative shows

 a significant increase in the environmental

costs and

 a declining trend in benefits.

.“

 (Id.)

We agree.

 Our analysis of the Institute’s study and the testi-

mony presented with regard to it by the Institute and Edison leads

us to conclusion that no significant environmental benefit is to be

gained by requiring discharge temperatures lower than those histori-

cally experienced,

 and that the high costs associated with such

additional limitations are therefore unjustifiable.

28-112

—7—

TEM~

ERATURE

EXPERIENCE

As noted above, the Board found in R75-2 that the only ingredient

 missing and needed for the Board to set a specific thermal standard

was hard evidence as to the actual

 temperatures

 of Kincaid thermal

discharges.

 Based on our analysis above,

 that remains true:

The

environmental quality of Lake Sangchris remains good, and the costs

and

economic

impact

associated

with

meeting

existing

standards

are

unreasonable.

 In this case, however, Edison has supplied the neces-

sary discharge temperature data.

Edison used 1975

 to provide temperature figures in addition

to those submitted in R75-2.

 Data from that year

indicated

that

99°F.was exceeded

5.2

percent

 the time, with a maximum tempera-

ture experience

 in 1975 of 110.5°F. (rounded to 111°F.).

 (See, e.g.,

R.17)

Edison found, however, that the

 1975 capacity factor of Kincaid

was only 43 percent,

 as compared

 to a

five—year

average

percent.

Edison therefore arrived at the requested

 7 percent excursion limit

by multiplying the 5.3 percent

excorsion

experience

1975

the

ratio of that five—year average capacity

factor

the

1975

capacity

factor,

 (Id.).

The Record in R75-2 did contain a

 significant

 number

 of tempera-

ture readings for Kincaid and Sangchris,

 (including locations in

Sangchris so close to the discharge canal as

effectively

reflect

discharge

 temperatures,

 there being

little

temperature

change

the

 discharge canal).

 (See,

 e.g., Exhibits 6-E,

 6—I,

 6-J,

 6-K,

7,

10, and

 various testimony in R75-2.)

 In this case Edison has also

entered exhibits demonstrating discharge temperatures,

 (Exs.

6,

8).

These exhibits support the testimony referred to above on discharges

from Kincaid into Sangchris.

 Additional data for 1969 and 1973

was also supplied,

 (Ex. 11).

Apparently to assure itself of receiving the requested limit,

Edison has been quite conservative in

 its request.

 Edison discounted

some very high readings as “aberrations,” assuming that the monitoring

equipment was not functioning,

 (e.g., Economic Impact R.52).

Similarly,

 the 1969 data indicates that it could be difficult to

meet the requested standard;

in

1969,

107°F.

was

exceeded

322

times.

In addition,

 the Institute has assumed that higher temperatures

than those requested either have been or would be experienced during

hot, dry summers.

 To meet the requested standard, there is

a

 potential

annual cost for load reduction of about $2.8 million,

 (Economic

Impact

Ex.

 1 at

 18).

28-113

—8—

We find that the temperatures requested in Edison’s Proposal

here are

 in fact temperatures conservatively representative of

historic operating conditions at Kincaid station.

 In light of

that finding,

 and in conjunction with our other findings as to

environmental and economic effects of the existing and proposed

standard, we feel that Edison’s Proposal has been justified.

The Agency,

 while recommending a change in its “comments”

in lieu of a Brief, has suggested that the Board set either month-

by-month discharge limitations or condition the specific standard

requested upon a requirement that the capacity and operating load

of Kincaid station remain unchanged.

 We feel that neither of

these limitations

 is necessary inasmuch as the standard requested

by Edison will itself limit the station during the critical summer

months to historic operating conditions,

 and temperatures ~o1eterious

to aquatic life are unlikely to occur outside of the summer months.

It is plain that the limits requested by Edison pertain primarily

to the hot summer months, and that the

 7 percent excursion limit

will be used largely during those months.

 We shall,

 therefore,

set the standard as requested by Edison.

We also note that the standard set here effectively removes

any thermal limitations which might be implied from Rules

201

(mixing zones)

 and 402

 (violation of water quality standards).

Inasmuch as we have set no conditions

as

 a part of this proceeding,

the second portion of Edison’s request

 is superfluous and shall be

dropped.

Finally,

the

Hearing

Officer

denied,

(R.l3),

Commonwealth

Edison’s motion of July

27,

 1976, requesting that the hearings

in

this matter be held jointly and concurrently with those required

under Rule 203(i)

(5)

Chapter

3..

expected,

however,

that

the

existing

Record

with

regard

Lake

Sangchris

will

satisfy

the

showing requirements of that Rule and that Edison’s burden under

203(i) (5) may be satisfied at hearing by a motion to include the

existing record into the record of any such proceeding.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

law

the

Board

this

matter.

ORDER

The following new Rule 203(i) (11) (bb),

 Lake Sangchris,

is

hereby

adopted,

and

the

existing

Regulations

Chapter

Water

28-114

—9—

Pollution, are amended in conformity therewith:

(bb)

 Lake Sangchris

The thermal discharge to Lake Sangchris shall meet

the following standards and conditions:

(1)

 The effluent temperature shall not exceed

99°F.during more than seven

 (7) percent

of the hours in the 12-month period ending

with any month and shall at no time exceed

111°F.

Christan

Moffett,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, hereby certify theAal?ove Opinion and Order were adopted on

the

 j3~I1

 _day ~

 1977 by a vote of___________

CAc~7~

Christan

 L. Moft)~,)Clerk

Illinois po1lutié~—~ontrolBoard

28-115