ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
22, 1989
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY
)
(Clinton Power Station),
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 88-97
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
SHELDON
A.
ZABEL,
ESQ., ATTORNEY-AT-LAW,
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER;
AND
KATHLEEN C.
BASSI, ESQ.,
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Marlin):
This matter comes before the Board upon
a request for
variance
initially filed
on June
3,
1988 and amended February 17,
1989 by petitioner,
Illinois Power Company
(IPC).
IPC is
a
public
utility
headquartered
in Decatur,
Illinois.
IPC has
a
service territory of approximately 15,000 square miles
and
employs approximately 4,600 people.
IPC provides electrical
service
to
an estimated
543,000 customers.
(Am. Pet.
at
2).
IPC
owns and operates
a nuclear-fueled electrical generating station
located
in
Clinton,
Illinois.
In
conjunction
with
construction
of
the
Clinton
Power
Station
(Station),
IPC constructed Clinton
Lake.
This
artificial
cooling
lake
was
formed
by damming two
streams,
Salt
Creek
and
its
north fork, downstream
of their
confluence.
Water
is
withdrawn
from
one
arm
of
the
lake
to
cool
the
condensers
and
discharged
into
the
other
arm.
This
amended
petition
For variance concerns the thermal effluent limitations
imposed upon the discharge.
IPC seeks
a variance from these
thermal limitations until October
1, 1990.
A hearing was held
on
the petition on April 10—11, 1989,
at which one member of the
public attended.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) recommends
that
the variance
be granted, but disagrees
as
to
the
conditions
to
be
imposed.
BACKGROUND
Prior to the present proceeding, IPC filed
a petition
in
1980 seeking an alternative thermal
limitation
From that required
by Rule 203(i)(4)
of the Board’s Water Pollution Rules
and
Regulations.
(35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 203(i)(4).)*
On May 28, 1981,
the Board entered
its Order providing that the daily average
temperature of discharges
shall not exceed 99°Fduring more than
1Y)—177
—2—
12 percent
of the hours
in
a twelve-month period
(i.e.,
44 days)
and shall at no time exceed 108.3°F.
(IPC
v.
IEPA,
PCB 81-82,
42
PCB 145
(June
25,
1981); IPC
v.
IEPA,
PCB 81-82,
41 PCB 501
(May
28,
1981).)
When IPC began plant
testing the Station
it discovered
that
temperatures
in the discharge exceeded those predicted
in prior
studies upon which
the thermal standards were
set.
According to
IPC:
Cooling
water
(flume)
discharge
temperatures
during the summer of
1987 were observed
to be
greater
than
those
which
would
have
been
expected
For
the
power
levels
being
experienced.
These
observations
led
IPC
to
conclude
that
the
thermal,
limits
in
the
Station’s
NPDES
permit
for
the
flume
discharge
to
Clinton
Lake
may
preclude
full
power
operation
oC
the
Station during
a
very
warm and dry
summer.
r~c
retained Edinger
in
early
1988
to
model
the
cooling
characteristics
of
the
lake
with
Station
operating
data
that
reElected
changes
in
Station
design
since
the
modeling
performed
by
Edinger
in July,
1979.
IPC also retained
Environmental
Science
and
Engineering,
Inc.
(ES&E)
to
assess
the
incremental.
impact
of
the
thermal
discharge
on
the fishery
of
the
lake
based
on
the
Edinger
modeling
efforts.
The
modeling
studies
confirmed
the
current
thermal
limits
were
inadequate
and
the
biological assessment
indicated the impact on
the
Fishery
on
the
lake
would
not
substantially difFer
From that determined
for
the July,
1979 modeling.
(Ex.
H
at
2).
In the instant proceeding,
IPC seeks
a variance until
October
1, 1990 from the temperature limitations imposed
by L~e
Board
in
its
May 28,
1981 Order.
tPC seeks
to have these
limitations modified
to provide
that
the daily average
temperature
shall
not exceed 99°FFor more
than 16.5 percent oF
the hours
in twelve-month periods
(i.e.
,
60 days)
and
shall
at
no
time exceed 106.5°P. Additionally,
IPC
requests that the
temperatures
be
monitored
at~ the
edge
of
a
26-acre
semicircular
“mixing
zone”
rather
than
at
the
second
drop
structure
oF
the
discharge
flume
as
pr.esently
provided.
(Am.
Pet.
15-16).
Rule 203(i)(4)
is
now
codified
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
302.211(e).
101)—
178
-3-
The Agency agrees
that
compliance with the present
temperature
limitations imposes
an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon
IPC.
However,
the Agency disagrees with IPC as
to
the scope
of relief
to be afforded under
the variance.
The
Agency recommends
that the variance be granted for a five-year
period or until
such time as the Board acts upon
IPC’s petition
for site-specific rule change,
whichever occurs
first, provided
that
IPC files
its site-specific petition by April
1,
1991.
The
Agency also recommends
that IPC’s thermal effluent limits shall
not exceed 99°Fin excess of
56 days during
a fixed calendar year
of January
1
-
December
31
(as opposed
to the current rolling
calendar period) and shall
at no time exceed 108.3°F.
Lastly,
the
Agency
recommends
that
the
monitoring
point
remain
at
the
second
drop
structure
of
the
discharge
flume.
(~gency’s
Rec.
at
9-12).
In
its post-hearing brief,
IPC states
that
it does not
object
to the five-year variance period nor does
it object
to the
fixed calendar modification.
IPC does object
to being required
to file its site-specific petition by
a date certain.
IPC
further
states that its main concern
is
the imposition
of thermal
limitations
rather than the location of the monitoring point.
Accordingly,
IPC asserts
that,
if the second drop structure
of
the discharge flume
is retained
as the monitoring
point,
the
daily average thermal limits
should not exceed 99°Fin excess
of
90 days and shall
not at no
time exceed 110.7°F.
The parties
agree
that the normal increase in temperature
across the condenser
is 19.5°F.
(IPC Ex.
H at
6;
Tr.
I
at 18-19;
Agency’s Post-H Brief
at
3).
Consequently,
if the daily average
intake
temperature exceeds 79.5°F,the 99°Flimitation will be
exceeded.
TPC supports its request for
a variance with studies
and models which analyze the weather conditions of
the summers
of
1955 through 1988 and the frequency
in years
in which
a given
temperature and duration would be expected
to recur
to predict
lake temperatures under assumed operating conditions and summer
weather conditions
(frequency
-
duration analysis).
(IPC Ex.
D,
B and J).
According to
IPC, this data indicates that,
in
a
“normal” summer (i.e.,
a
summer which has
a likelihood
of
recurrence once every
two years or more
frequently),
the 99°F
limitation would be exceeded
60 days,
assuming the current
monitoring point
and operation at full power.
(IPC Ex.
0 at
39.)
For purposes of determining the circumstances under which
Station operation would exceed the daily maximum limitation
of
108.3°F, IPC submitted data which predicts the daily average
discharge
temperature for a once-in-ten—year summer
to be
108.9°F.
(IPC Ex. D at
32.)
In a once-in-thirty-year
summer,
the daily average temperature
at the discharge
Flume would reach
109.2°Fon seven
days.
(Id.)
The Agency’s recommendation that IPC he allowed
to exceed
the 99°Fdaily average
for
56 days
is based upon an analysis oF
the summer of 1988 and its effect on Clinton Lake.
(IPC Ex.
I,
I
fl0-~l79
—4—
Attachment 1.)
The Agency characterizes the summer of 1988
as
one of “severe” weather conditions,
but accepts
TPC’s data which
classifies
it as
a once-in-eleven or twelve-year summer.
The
Agency added the 19.5°Ftypical rise
in temperature across
the
condenser
to the actual. intake temperatures during the 1988
summer to determine that there were
55 days between June and
September where
the 99°Flimit was exceeded.
(Id.)
The Agency bases its recommendation that
the maximum
temperature remain at 108.3°Fon the fact that,
during the summer
of
1988,
TPC
had to derate on only two days
to avoid exceeding
this limit and this was only because of
a problem with one of
three water circulating pumps.
(Tr.
I
at
51.)
The parties also differ
as
to the probable environmental
impact of granting the requested relief.
IPC contends that
a
balanced and diverse fishery will
be maintained
under
the
proposed limitations.
The Agency asserts
that the adverse
effects of continually exceeding the 99°Flimit have not been
quantified.
Therefore,
the Agency proposes that
a more cautious
approach be taken
by utilizing
its proposed limitations.
COMPLIANCE PLAN
The principal purpose of the requested variance
is
to allow
time for IPC to collect data which
it believes
is necessary
to
make
the requisite demonstration before the Board
for a new site-
specific thermal. standard.
Consequently,
IPC’s
plan for
achieving compliance with the thermal effluent
standards
is
to
petition the Board
for site-specific relief.
According to this
plan,
IPC will collect data during the summer of 1989 while
operating the Station
at design conditions
(full
power),
unconstrained by the present thermal standards,
analyze
this data
and prepare the documentation necessary for
a new site-specific
standard.
IPC anticipates
that
its petition or
site—specific
relief
will
be
ready
for
filing
by
March
of
1990.
IPC
believes
that
the
specific
thermal
standard
to
be
requested
will
be
the
same as
the limitations requested
in the instant variance
proceeding.
IPC considered
several alternative means
of achieving
compliance before deciding upon the plan discussed
above.
Specifically, IPC considered
the alternative supplemental cooling
schemes of
a trimming cooling tower and discharge
flume spray
modules.
(IPC
Ex.
F).
These alternatives were rejected by IPC
because they would require
the investment
of additional
capital.
According to IPC’s
study,
the total capital investment
for
a
coolHng tower would
be
S1.3,505,000 and
S16,2.2’~,O00
for
Sj~3~
fl~UiL1ICS
.
(IPC
Ex.
F
aL
6).
TPC
also
ev~.Li~tLc1the
desirability
of
reduc
ing
power
levels
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
present
limitations.
(IPC
Ex.
C).
This
alternative
was
also
rejected on
the basis
of
cost.
IPC analyzed the costs associated
with derating during the summer of 1988 and concluded
that
“a
10.7
capacity derating coincident
with system peak demand
100-ISO
—5—
corresponds
to
a 1989 revenue requirement
loss
of
$76.6
million”.
(IPC
Ex.
G).
The prospect of filing for site—specific regulatory relief
does not obviate
the need
for a compliance plan
in
a variance
proceeding,
however, the Board has recognized
that
some factual
circumstances prompt some flexibility regarding this
requirement.
(Anderson Clayton Foods
v.
IEPA, PCB 84-147
(January 24, 1985).)
The Board has granted
a variance
in the
absence of
a concrete
compliance
plan where more information
regarding
new
technology
needed
to
be
gathered
in
order
to
recommend
methods
of
compliance
or, alternatively,
regulatory
changes.
(Id..)
Similarly,
the Board granted
a variance even
though
a
petitioner
did
not
present
a
compliance
plan where the
technology
did
not
exist
for petitioner
to reasonably reach
compliance.
(Mobil
Oil
Company
v.
IEPA,
PCB
84-37
(September
20,
1984).)
The
Board
concluded
that
the
conducting of research
aimed
at
finding
a means
of
coming
into
compliance
could
be
accepted
as
a compliance plan.
(Id.)
Lastly,
the Board has
recognized
a rare exception to the compliance plan requirement
where
the variance requested is of
a limited duration,
the
environmental impact
is minimal and petitioner has made good-
faith efforts
to remain
in compliance.
(General Motors Corp.
v.
IEPA,
PCB
86-195
(February
19,
1987).)
The Board concludes
that,
under the instant circumstances,
the lack of
a concrete compliance plan does not bar the granting
of
a variance.
IPC has experienced conditions
at the Station
substantially different than those predicted
in prior models and,
as discussed below, has demonstrated
that the expected adverse
environmental impact resulting from
its proposed limitations
is
minimal
and temporary.
Moreover,
the parties agree
and the
evidence demonstrates
that
it
is not reasonable to expect IPC
to
immediately comply with the current
thermal. limits.
HA..RDSIIIP
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
IPC
contends
that compliance with the present thermal
standards
imposes
an
arbitrary
or
unreasonable
hardship for two
reasons.
First,
IPC
asserts
that the current limitations may
require
it
to
derate
(i.e.,
operate
at less than full power)
without
any
corresponding
beneficial
environmental
impact.
Secondly, IPC alleges
that
it
is prevented from collecting data
in support of
a new thermal standard while constrained by the
present limitations.
The Agency agrees
that compliance with the
current thermal limitations imposes
an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon IPC.
The Agency disagrees, however,
with the
relief necessary
to alleviate this hardship.
To the extent that IPC
is contending that the possibility of
derating
to avoid exceeding the thermal standards
in and of
itself constitutes
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,
the
Board must disagree.
The existence of such regulations presumes
that, under certain circumstances,
a power plant may be required
100—131
—6--
to derate.
The costs associated with derating may constitute
hardship.
Additionally, the record does
not indicate that there
is
no adverse environmental impact associated with increased
thermal disharge,
but rather that the impact
is expected
to be
minimal in regard
to the fishery.
IPC also asserts that
the possibility that
it will
be
constrained
in its effort
to collect site-specific data imposes
an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.
The Board disagrees with
this contention to
the extent that IPC suggests that the only way
to avoid the imposition
of such
a hardship is to allow it
to
discharge without any thermal constraints pending an
investigation into the actual effects
of this discharge.
However,
IPC does qualify this assertion by recognizing that
it
should
be subject
to reasonable constraints designed to avoid an
adverse
environmental
impact
while
in
the
process
of
collecting
its
data.
The Board
notes
that
there
are
many
circumstances
where discharge of
a substance
into the environment
in order
to
study its effects would be irresponsible.
IPC presented substantial evidence
in support of
its
contention
that
its proposed thermal limitations would not have
a
significant
adverse environmental impact on the fishery
in
Clinton
Lake.
However,
the Board notes
at
the outset that,
contrary to IPC’s assertion,
the Board
is not bound
by its
prior
finding that
~‘one-unit operation will not produce unacceptable
lake conditions”.
(PCB 81-82 at
4).
Just
as IPC
is relying on
updated data and improved modeling
in seeking higher thermal
limits,
the Board may reach
a different conclusion
today than
in
1981 based upon more current information.
IPC’s request
is based
upon lake temperatures predicted for
a once-in-thirty-year summer
as set forth
in the Generalized Longitudinal-Vertical and
Hydrodynamics and Transport model
(CLVHT).
This report was
initially
prepared
utilizing
the
USEPA
protocol
for
assessment
of
thermal
effects
and
modeling
results
based
upon
the
summer
of
1987.
(PC
Ex.
E
at
2.)
The
report was updated by
the prepared
testimony
of
Richard
Hall,
applying
USEPA
protocol
in
the
same
manner
to GLVHT modeling results based
upon data from the summer
oF
1988.
(IPC Ex.
K
at 4.)
The results of
the CLVHT once-in-thirty-year
summer study
were compared
to the 1980 LARM study which
Formed
the
basis
of
the Board’s decision setting
the present thermal standards.
(IPC
Ex.
K at
4.)
This comparison indicates
that:
1)
impacts on
adult
survival habitat
are minimal and similar
to
the 1980 study
for most Representative Important Fish Species
(RIS),
although
habitat
for survival of channel catfish
is reduced
from
82
perc~nt.
to
Y)
preent
end
survival.
h~hitat
For
w~uit~
crappie
dec
i
c~ Jul.y
~iic1
A.~gusL
~os
un~vai1.ab1e
;
2)
L~T1p~ICL~
ou
adult
growth
habitat
ace minimal
and similar
to the 1980 study
for most
RIS,
but
less
for
carp
and
channel
catfish,
and
habitat
for
growth
of
white
crappies
is
unavailable
in
July
and
August
under
the
1980
study
and
only
minimally
available
under
the
CLVHT
study;
3)
habitat
availability
or
spawning
was
not
evaluated
100-1~2
-7—
during the 1980 study, but under
the GLVHT study,
spawning for
most RIS is restricted
to April
and May.
Also,
bluegill spawning
is not available
in May and June and
is
restricted
in July and
August and white crappie spawning is not available under the
GLVHT study; and
4)
in general, embryo survival restrictions are
less severe than the spawning restriction for each RIS and month
and,
consequently, the availability
of spawning habitat
is
a
better determinant
of impact on RIS.
(IPC Ex. K at 4-5 Table 1.)
The specific findings of
the GLVHT study were tempered by
several comments.
Testimony indicates that the evaluation
represents
a conservative utilization of USEPA protocol as well
as
a conservative approach in
general.
in that it does not
consider what IPC characterizes
as the “beneficial.
impacts of
increased temperatures
in cooling lakes”
as demonstrated
by an
extended growing season and early initiation of spawning.
(TPC
Ex.
K at
5.)
Lastly, while the study indicates
an impact on the
available habitat
of white crappie,
this species would be
severely impacted even without Station operation under severe
summer weather conditions.
(Id.
at
6.)
IPC also presented expert testimony regarding the inherent
conservatism of USEPA protocol and the results
of environmental
monitoring
of biological effects
at Clinton Lake during the two
summers of Station operation.
Lastly,
IPC introduced
a letter
from the Director of the Department
of Conservation
(DOC) which
stated that
DOC had no reason
to oppose the variance
(IPC,
Ex.
0).
Specifically,
the Director opined that, although there were
three minor
fish kills on Clinton Lake
in August of
1988,
these
kills had no significant or permanent impact upon the fish
population.
(Id).
Based upon this testimony,
evidence and the
study discussed above,
IPC asserts that under modeled once-in-
thirty year summer conditions, operation
at full power under the
proposed limitations will not adversely impact on the maintenance
of
a balanced and diverse fishery at Clinton
Lake.
The Agency questions the accuracy of
the CLVHT study,
insofar
as the summer of 1988
is
concerned, because
of the lack
of
inflow data.
According to
the Agency,
the GLVHT study
inaccurately predicted lake temperatures
to be cooler than those
actually occurring in 1988.
The Agency argues that because of
this inaccuracy,
the model underestimates the adverse
environmental effects.
Based
upon this discrepancy,
the Agency,
preferring
to err on the side of caution,
rejects IPC’s assertion
that its proposed limitations
will not have an adverse
environmental impact.
The Board
finds
that immediate
compliance with the present
thermal limitations impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship
upon
IPC.
In entering its order
in PCB 81—82 setting the present
thermal standards,
the Board relied upon
a modeling study
utilizing the Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model
(LARM
1).
Subsequently, updated models based on plant operation show that
the predictions
contained
in LARM
1 are
no longer applicable.
100—183
—8-
Additionally, the data relied upon by the Agency reflecting the
actual operating conditions
of the summer of 1988 indicates that
it
is unrealistic to constrain IPC to the 99°F/44day thermal
limitations.
The primary question then
is what conditions should
be imposed under the variance to alleviate this hardship, yet
maintain the quality of the biological community of Clinton Lake.
DISCUSSION
As
a practical matter,
Clinton Lake was constructed
as
a
cooling lake.
It also has substantial recreational benefits.
The lake
is not
a closed system and has substantial impact on
the
stream
it
impounds.
Operation of
the station
can affect the lake
and upstream and downstream habitats.
The ultimate regulation of
this
facility must take all these matters into account.
On balance, the Board
sees no particular benefit
to denying
the bulk of IPC’s variance request.
The requested limits will
be
consistently reached only in
a worst-case year and
it
is
not
likely that
such a year will occur
during the
term of this
variance.
If such
a year does occur,
the expected impact on the
fisheries
is expected
to be minimal and
is reversible.
Unlike
some discharges,
hot water will not leave
a permanent residue
in
the environment or necessitate extensive cleanup.
The Board
notes
that
IPC has presented almost
no information
on biological organisms other than fish
in the RIS group.
There
are clearly adverse imnpacts on several of these species.
It
is
not clear
that
a lengthened growing season offsets impacts
on
spawning and
survival, but the evidence
indicates that overall
sport fishing
is
not seriously harmed, and
is in many ways
enhanced,
by the expected thermal discharges.
It
is ironic that
the white crappie which make up 94 percent of the sport
fishing
catch may be totally eliminated
from the lake during some years.
(Ex.
E.
at
34
and
114).
In
any
future
proceeding,
the
Board expects
IPC wIll discuss
the effect of thermal discharges
on invertebrates and other
vertebrates
as well as sport
fish.
Such information would be
useful
in addressing overall environmental impact.
IPC correctly points out that cooling lakes
in Illinois
operate under
a variety of thermal limits.
It also states
that
on the basis of heat rejection rate
to surface
area or volume,
Clinton Lake
is
lightly loaded compared to other Illinois cooling
lakes.
This discussion does
not consider several items
that
would shed light
on the equity question.
Such factors as shape,
depth,
location on
a stream
in
relation
to
its
he~dwct ‘rs,
pe~tL
LOfl
of
1: Lake ~nd outlet,
and
~
~nLo
ar~ out
~n
the
lake
could all
impact
on
ability
to
dissipate heat
or
impact
the
environment.
Given
the questions raised by IPC,
it may he wise
to take
a
comprehensive look at
the whole matter of thermal discharges.
100—
1.
-9-
IPC presented
a limited number
of compliance options.
In
reviewing the record
it became clear that temperature increases
when one of the three circulating water pumps
is down.
The
provisions
of
a backup pump may help achieve compliance when one
pump needs repair.
IPC may also wish to consider adding some
type of heat conducting device
to the flume
to passively conduct
heat from the water and radiate
it to the air.
CONDITIONS
MONITORING POINT
Presently,
the monitoring point
for the thermal limitations
is the second drop structure of the discharge flume.
IPC
proposes that compliance with the thermal standards
at Clinton
Lake should be determined
at the edge of
a 26-acre semicircular
mixing zone where the water temperature would be cooler than at
the present monitoring point.
The Agency asserts
that the
present monitoring point
should be retained.
The Agency does not
recommend use of
a mixing zone because
of the accompanying
regulatory requirements
and practical problems associated with
the use of
such
a mixing zone.
IPC’s principal support
for use of
a mixing zone
is that
the
Board has incorporated the use of
a mixing zone
in prior
proceedings involving cooling lakes.
(See,
CIPS
v.
IEPA,
PCB 77-
158 and 78-100 consolidated
(March 19,
1982);
CIPS
v.
IEPA,
PCB
78-271 (August
21, 1980).)
However, as the Agency points
out,
cooling lakes have varying characteristics.
There
is no
consistent use of
a mixing zone as
a monitoring point, nor
-is
there
a consistency as
to the thermal limitations
imposed.
(IPC
Ex.
H at 19-20.)
The Board’s approval of the use of
a mixing
zone
at
other cooling lakes does not necessitate the use of
a
mixing zone
at
Clinton
Lake.
IPC has failed to provide any compelling reason
to change
the monitoring point from the present location.
As IPC
recognizes, the primary concern
is
that the imposition of the
thermal limitations be appropriate for the chosen monitoring
point.
Therefore, the current monitoring point will
be
retained.
THERMAL
LIMITATIONS
IPC
argues
that,
if
the
second
drop
structure
of
the
discharge flume
is maintained
as the monitoring
point,
the
daily
average thermal limits should not exceed 99°Fin excess of
90
days
in
a twelve-month period and shall
at
no time exceed
110.7°F.
(IPC
Ex. H
at 22.)
The Agency recommends
that
the
daily average thermal limits
shall
not exceed 99°Fin excess
of
56 days and shall
at no time exceed 108.3°F.
(Agency Rec.
at
11.)
IPC’s
99°F/90-day
limitation
is
based upon the “frequency-
duration analysis” which predicts lake
temperatures
for
100—185
-10-
statistically ranked summers.
(IPC Ex.
D and H.)
Based upon
this modeling study,
IPC predicts that the daily average thermal
limits will exceed 99°Ffor at least
89 days
in
a twelve-month
period assuming full operation and a once-in-thirty-year
summer.
Accordingly, IPC’s
requested relief is based
upon a
worst-case scenario.
The Agency’s recommendation of
a 99°F/56day limitation
is
based upon the fact that IPC only exceeded the 99°Flimit on
55
days during 1988.
While the Agency recognizes
the need for
modeling,
it places less credence on the modeling predictions
because of
the occasional discrepancies between the predictions
and actual lake temperatures.
IPC argues that the Agency’s position is flawed because
summer conditions more severe than those of 1988 are clearly
possible
so that the limitations proposed by the Agency could
operate
to unduly restrain
IPC.
On
the other hand,
the Agency
argues that
there
are only 92 days between June
1 and August
31
and that
to grant
the requested 90-day relief
is
to,
in effect,
impose no limitations
upon IPC.
The Board
finds that IPC’s criticism of the Agency’s
reliance upon the summer of 1988 as
the sole basis
for its
recommendation
has merit.
Simply because
IPC only exceeded the
99°Flimit on
55 days during 1988, does not mean that identical
limitations will suffice during the variance period.
The Board
is reluctant
to impose conditions
with which
a petitioner cannot
realistically comply.
Yet,
the Board also agrees with the Agency
to the extent that any permanent relief afforded IPC should not
necessarily be based solely upon
a once-in-thirty-year
summer
worst-case scenario.
As previously noted,
the thermal
limitations imposed need not
be so broad as
to avoid all
possibility of derating.
The
Board
concludes
that
the
thermal
limitations
suggested
by IPC
at
the second drop structure of the discharge
flume
are
appropriate
for this variance.
These limits are based
on the
assumption that all three circulating pumps
will
be operating
during warm weather unless
IPC cannot operate
a pump because
it
is not
in working order.
The Agency raised questions about
the
potential impact of the discharge
from
Clinton
Lake on Salt
Creek.
Given
that thermal inputs will raise lake temperature,
there may
be
a downstream effect.
IPC will,
therefore,
be
ordered
to
monitor
the
temperature
of
the
discharge
from
the
dam
on
at
least
a
daily
basis.
IPC
may
choose
to
monitor
selected
downstream locations
if
it believes
this might
prove useful.
\NC
i-
I)LJ~A’Fi
o~
This
variance
will
expire
on
the
date
requested
by
TPC.
It
will allow sufficient
time For IPC
to file
for an extension or
site-specific relief prior
to
the summer of
1991.
There
is
no
reason
to force
PC
to file
a
site specific by a date certain or
100—186
—‘i-
to
grant
a
5
year
variance.
The
Board
notes
that
its
findings
in
the instant variance proceeding are not binding on any future
proceeding for site-specific relief.
The Board also notes that
IPC may wish to consider the alternative
of an adjusted standard.
CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL LAW
Both IPC and the Agency maintain that the Board may grant
the relief requested by IPC or recommended by the Agency
consistent with the Clean Water
Act.
(33 U.S.C. sec.
1251 et
seq.
CONCLUSION
In view of the hardship demonstrated,
as well
as the minimal
projected environmental effects expected during the term of this
proposed variance,
the Board
Finds
tht adequate proof
has been
presented that
immediate compliance with the thermal limits
entered
in PCB 81-82 would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship upon
IPC.
Accordingly,
the variance will be granted
subject
to the conditions outlined
in the Order below.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Illinois
Power Company is hereby granted
a variance
from the
thermal limitations
imposed
in
the
Board’s Order of May
28,
1981
(PCB 81-82) for its Clinton Power Station subject
to the
following conditions:
1.
This
variance
begins
June
22,
1989
and
expires
on October
1,
1990;
2.
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;
3.
IPC
shall
monitor
the
temperature
of
water
discharged
from
Clinton
Lkae
to
Salt
Creek
on
at
least
a
daily
basis;
and
4.
Within
45
days
after
the
date
of
this
Opinion and Order,
Illinois Power Company
shall execute and send
to:
100— 187
-12-
Illinois Environmental. Protection Agency
Attention:
Pat Lindsay
Division of Water Pollution Control
Compliance Assurance Section
2200 Churchill Road
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
a
certificate
of
acceptance
of
this
variance
by which
it
agrees
to
be
bound
by
the
terms
and
conditions
contained
herein.
This
variance
will
be
void
if
Illinois
Power
Company
fails
to
execute
and
forward
the
certificate
within
the
45-day
period.
The
45-day
period
shall
be
in
abeyance
for
any
period
during
which
the
matter
is
appealed.
The form
of the certification shall
be as
follows:
CERTIFICATION
I,
(We)
,
having
read
the
Opinion
and
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
in
PCB
88-97,
dated
June
22,
1989,
understand
and
accept
the
said
Opinion
and
Order,
realizing
that
such
acceptance
renders
all terms and conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
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.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I,
T)orothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby
cert
ify
that
the
nb~ve
Opinion
and
(~rder
wa.s
aJopLc~I
On
LEe
~2
~
(lOy
of
-~L~
~
,
1~J~9
,
by
a
vote
of
~/
~-‘
.
~.
~
Dorothy M.$unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100—188
