ILLI NOl S

POLL!JTIO.N

CONTROL

BOAR!)

January

26,

1984

CENTRAL

ILLINOIS

PUBLIC

SERVICE

COMPANY

(NEWTON

POWER

STATION

UNIT

#1),

Petitioner,

)

POE

83~84

ILLINOIS

ENVIRO!~4ENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR.

T~KENT

COCH.RAN,

SORLING7

NORTHRUP,

HANNA,

CULLEN

&

COCHRAN, APPEARED ON

BEHALF

OF

PETIT:tONEP;

MR. DAVID RIESE:R,

ATTORNEY

AT

LAW,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

THE

RESPONDENT

0

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(By

J.D.

Dumelle):

This matter

comes

before

the

Board

upon a July

5,

1983

petition for

hearing

pursuant

to

:35

Iii.

Mm.

Code 302,211(f)

filed on

behalf of

the

Central

Illinois

Public

Service

company

(CIPS).

The Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency (Agency)

filed a

recommendation

that the Board rule

in favor of

CIPS on September

9, i983~

Hearing

was held on

November 2,

1983,

CIPS filed its brief on November 22,

1983

to which the Agency responded on December 8,

1983.

In September,

1977 CIPS

commenced

commercial operation

of Unit No,

1 at the Newton

Power Station

in Jasper County.

Condenser cooling water generated

from that unit is discharged

into Newton Lake,

a man-made lake constructed by CIPS, which

also serves as the source

of cooling

water,

Section 302.211(f)

requires CIPS to

demonstrate that

the

heated effluent discharged

from Newton Unit No,

1

has

not caused

and cannot be reasonably

expected to cause significant ecological damage to the

receiving waters,

Newton

Lake,

In

order

to make this demon-

stration, CIPS has

compiled

data prior

and subsequent to the

commencement of Unit No.

1

operations

including its own

investigations,

Illinois Department of

Conservation surveys

and outside consultant

evaluations,

The

majority of the

pre—1979 data has been previously submitted to the Board

through the proceeding under Section 302.211(j) which

56~79

---

established specific

thermal. standards for Newton Lake

(Central

Illinois

Public_Servi~eç~an

v.

Illinois

Environmental Protection

Agency,

PCI3

No.

78—271,

39 PCB 342,

August 21,

1980),

The Agency states

that

a thorough

teview of the information

presented by CIP~

was conducted by

pe~onnelfrom the

Standards Unit,

the

Lakes

Program

and the ~mbient Monitoring

Unit in Marion.

The

Agency concluded that

due to the recent

initiation of Unit No,

2

operations

“there could be no final

determination of

the

impact

of

Newton

Power

Statiow o~the

ecology

of Newton Lake,

However,

it

was

concludedthat CIPS4

is

correct

in stating that the operatiox~

of

Ui~tNo,

1 has

not

ca~~d

and can not

reasonably

be

expected

to.., ~ause

signi~~rit

ecological

damage

to Newton

Lake”

(Agency

Rec.

p. 1).

The

Agency

based

its

COnClUSiOnS

on

an

examination

of

four major

trophic

levels:

~hytoplankton,

zoopiankton,

macroinvertebrates

and

fishes.

It

also

considered

temperature

and dissolved oxygen

profiles

of

Newton

Lake.

The only witness at

hearing was

Deborah Bruce,

a

biologist

for

CIPS, who testified

that

“Newton Lake

supports

a

healthy

and

diverse

fish

community

that~s

typical

of

Illinois

impound-

ments

and

does

not:

exhibit:

any

significant

environmental

stress”

(P.

13),

That

conclusion

was based

upon

species

diversity

and

fish ahundance~ condition, growth rate

and

population

structures

(R.

14).

She

stated

that “Newton Lake

has

a

similar

diversity”

to

Coffeen

Lake,

Lake

Sangchris

and

Lake

Shelbvville

and.

that

biornass

estimates

for

sport

fish

are

greater

in

Lake

Newton

than

the

other

lakes

based

upon

the

data

in

Exhibits

7—9 and 11—12

(R.

16—19).

She

went

on

to testify

that

the overall

growth rate,

reproductive capacity

and condition of

the

fish

in

Newton

Lake

is

similar

to or

better

than

the

other

lakes

and

that

Newton

Lake “is a

viable

fishery

and

...

very healthy

and

diverse”

(R.

20—22).

Bruce

also

testified

regarding wildlife

and

recreation

around

Newton

Lake.

Based upon an

Illinois

Natural

History

Survey,

a

Department

of

Conservation

publication

entitled

“Outdoor

Highlights” and

visual

observations,

she

concluded

that

there

is

a “tremendous

number of migratory

waterfowl,”

that

240

acres

on the east side

of the Lake

have

been

leased

to. DOC

for

prairie

chicken management,

and

thatNewton

Lake

is one

of

the

best fishing

lakes

in

the

State

(.R.

22—25. and

r:x,

10).

Finally,

she

concluded

that “provided

that

the

load

factors do not

change,

there shouldn~tbe

...

any significant

56-80

---

3

ecological damage’ and that no such changes are anticipated

(R. 26).

As

noted

above,

the

Agency

does

not

disagree

with

that

conclusion,

although

it

does

point

out

some

concerns.

It

notes that the dominance of the phytoplankton population

during summer

and fall

by

blue—green

algae

and periodically

láwer

density

and diversity

of

phytoplankton,

macroinvertebrates

and

fishes

in

the

warm

water

arm

of the lake indicate some

ecological

stress

due

to

the

thermal

discharges,

but

also

notes that ‘other conditions such as the overall abundant

and diverse pbytoplankton and zooplankton populations,

stability of the macroinvertebrate community and

...

ecological stress (Agency Rec. p.2,

Exs.

7 and 8).

anoxia

Agency concern (Agency Rec. p.2 and Ex.

conditions are ‘typical of lakes exhibiting summer thermal

stratification,

and

CIPS

has

provided an adequate demonstration

that, under Unit No.

1. operation, suitable temperatures were

available to the fish population’ (Agency Rec. p.2).

The only two potential problems noted by the Agency

concerning the operation of Unit No. 1 are a potential for

non—compliance with 35

11.

Mm. Code 3O2.211(j~1)and the

‘failure of stocking efforts to establish a walleye sport

fishery in Newton

Lake’

(Agency Rec. p.3).

However, the

Agency does not find these potential problems to be

ecologically significant, and the Board agrees.

The

Board therefore finds that Unit No. 1 of the Newton

to cause significant ecological damage.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

Central Illinois Public Service Company

has

demonstrated

pursuant to 35 Ill. Mm. Code 302.211(f) that discharges

from its

Newton

Power Station Unit No. 1 have not caused and

cannot

be

reasonably

expected

to

cause

significant

ecological

damage

to

the

receiving

waters.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

56-81

---

I,

Christan

L.

Mof~et

~

of

L~e

11:Lnois

Pollution

Control

Board~ hereby

ce:rtify

that

Lh~ above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

~:n

ttc

~

aay

of

1984

by a

vote of

,

/

(r~1~mnL,

Moffett,

CJ/4±~k

.:il~io~

Pollution

Control