ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
25,
1981
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, ET AL.,
)
Petitioners,
v.
)
PCD
81—82
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. SHELDON
A. ZABEL and
MS.
CAROLYN A. LOWN, Schiff,
Hardin
&
Waite,
appeared on behalf of Petitioners;
MS. MARY V. REHMANN and MR.
ROBERT C. THOMAS, Technical Advisors,
appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by
I. Goodman):
This Opinion supports the Order entered on May
28,
1981.
On August 7,
1980 Illinois Power Company,
Soyland Power
Cooperative,
Inc., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.
(IPC)
filed a petition to allow a daily average condenser effluent
temperature limitation of 99°F(37.2°C), and an absolute limitation
of 108.3°F(42.4°C),to Lake Clinton when only one generating unit
of the Clinton Power Station
(Clinton Station)
is operating.
The
prior regulatory proceeding relating to Lake Clinton
(R75—2) had
established a 96°Fabsolute limitation as alternative to that
temperature which would have been required pursuant to Rule 203(i)
(4)
of Chapter
3,
the Board’s Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.
That alternative temperature limitation was imposed ?ursuant
to
the procedure set forth in Rule 203(i)(10) and was listed as
a
regulation at Rule 203(i)(ll).
The instant petition, first docketed PCB
80—143, proceeded
as a regulatory matter
(R80—17)
pursuant to the procedure
in Rule
203(i)(10),
as ordered by the Board on September
4,
1980.
On
October 17,
1980,
the Board ordered that hearings
for docket
R80—17 include proposed deletion of Rule 203(i)(ll), which merely
lists any alternative thermal effluent limitations granted by the
Board pursuant to the procedure in Rule 203(i)(10).
No
objection
to this Order was made by anyone either in writing or during the
hearing on December 12,
1980.
On May
1.4,
1981 the Board ordered
that the record of the IPC proceeding be incorporated into adjudi-
catory proceeding PCB 81—82.
On May
28,
1981 the Board issued a
proposed Order deleting Rule 203(i)(ll)
(R80—17) and an Order
granting alternative thermal
limitations from Clinton Station
to Lake Clinton
(PCB 81-82).
42—145
2
Lake Clinton is an artificial cooling
lake for nuclear—fueled
Clinton Station currently under construction in DeWitt County by
IPC.
The station is designated to operate two generating units,
each with a maximum capacity of
950 megawatts
(net).
The 5,000—
acres
lake was formed by damming two streams, Salt Creek and its
north
fork, downstream of their confluence.
Water will be
withdrawn from one arm (the north fork)
to cool the condensers
and will discharge into the other arm
(Salt Creek) of the lake.
On July 31,
1975, prior
to the final Order in R75—2,
the
Board granted IPC variance from Rules
203(i)(5) and 402.
The terms
of this variance were then incorporated into Rule 203(i)(ll)
on
August 14,
1975 in R75—2.
The scope of this proceeding extended
to all the terms of the variance Order, as well
as to daily average
and absolute maximum temperature limitations given one—unit
operation.
On September 30,
1975 the USEPA issued NPDES Permit
No.
0036919 imposing similar terms to the variance-—specifically,
an absolute thermal limitation of 96°Fand the use of spray
cooling modules to achieve it
(Pet., p.2).
All
of the above
legal
proceedings concluded before construction of Clinton Station was
completed and at a time when two generating units were planned for
service.
It is the delayed startup date of the second unit,
for
some ten years, which prompted this petition.
At hearing,
IPC updated and supplemented its demonstration
under Rule 203(i)(10)
(which had been presented in 1975 for the
variance petition,
the proceeding R75—2, and the USEPA pursuant
to §316(a)
of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C.
§1251, et seq.).
That modeling study was inherently nonrepresentative of cooling
lake temperatures and currents,
and its results
as
to Lake Clinton
were at the time unverifiable because Lake Clinton had not then
been created (R.14—15).
In 1977 the Laterally Averaged Reservoir
Model
(LARM) was developed by a person whom IPC’s consultant had
hired regarding the demonstration in this proceeding.
This model
represents
a vast improvement in 1975 modeling techniques; not
only can it account for longitudinal and vertical physical
characteristics of
a cooling
lake,
meteorological data and
hydrological data, but it can include the effects of various
hydraulic structures of a power station.
LARM’s results were validated using data derived from the
year 1978; its results are not valid for early or late summer,
although the results which are valid are conservative for several
reasons.
The year 1978 was the fourth warmest summer in the past
26 years,
and 1955 the first warmest.
Results were projected for
92
and 100
loadings, where an average loading of only 87
will
occur
(R.16—8).
Finally,
the temperature criteria which establish
minimum and maximum temperatures for fish and other
lake life
behaviors
(e.g.,
survival, reproduction, cold shock)
are inten-
tionally conservative ones (R.30—2).
Consultants of IPC who
testified at hearing concluded that
LARM
for Lake Clinton was
verified from 1978 year data
(and that therefore its results are
reliable)
(R.19); the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) was without reservation at hearing as to these matters
42—146
3
(R.81).
The Board notes that no person contradicted any witness’
testimony.
The Board finds that the modeling results afford
reliable predictions and finds that any question of reliability
as to early or late summer periods is more than answered by the
conservative nature of many data points and assumptions used as
input.
The modeling was performed to support the proposition that
one—unit operation without any temperature limitation upon Clinton
Station discharges will produce lower overall cooling lake
temperatures than will two—unit operation at an absolute maximum
limitation of 96°F,the prior applicable limitation.
IPC’s
petition seeks 99°Fas
a daily average maximum limitation,
and
108.3°Fas an absolute maximum limitation, during one—unit
operation only.
LARM’s results were that the maximum possible temperature
which would be discharged by one—unit operation at 100
loading
would be, under the warmest summer conditions, 108.3°F. Other
results were that temperatures over 96°Fwould occur only at lake
bottom in the immediate vicinity
of the condenser discharge point
and only at relatively shallow surface levels
in the remainder of
the lake.
One—unit operation would result
in lower
lake temper-
ature than two—unit operation at a maximum limitation of 96°F
except at the intake structures
(R.18-9).
Finally,
81
of the
volume of the lake’s upper
arms will warm to no higher than 90°F
and would therefore be available for temperature refuge
(R.72).
Only rarely would one—unit operation cause temperatures to exceed
96°Foutside the months
of July through September,
and then they
would not exceed 96.5°F (R.22).
IPC also produced evidence on the impact of its thermal
effluent upon the ecological aquatic balance of the diverse bio-
logical community within the lake,
IPC performed a survival and
growth analysis of the same eight species of fish analyzed
in its
1975 study and of the trophic level plants and animals
(which are
less sensitive to high temperatures than are fish).
Four families
of
fish, with different feeding loads and temperature sensitivities,
were chosen.
The species
of black bullheads and white and black
crappie may not be representative of species found in Illinois
cooling lakes
(R.25—6,
61).
The ecological analysis considered both 1955 and 1978 years
data, particularly meteorological and stream flow conditions,
except
that regarding reproduction the assumption was made that conditions
in 1955 alone, regardless
of the existence of heat input from
Clinton Station, would severely inhibit reproduction.
A further
assumption was made that only the bluegill and channel catfish
species spawn during the July-to-September months
(R.23).
The entire
LARN
demonstration was dependent upon the
reliability
of certain critical temperatures used as input.
IPC
followed USEPA protocol
on the matter
(R.23—4),
although USEPA’s
temperature criteria do not account for adaptation,
genetic
variability, or for water body type
(R.31—2), and therefore are
42—147
4
not cooling lake—specific.
These critical temperatures, derived
from literature
in the field, were compared with LARM’s modeling
of lake temperature distribution to determine the extent and
location of areas having too—warm temperatures for survival and
growth during the warmest periods of the summer months.
Historical
monitoring records of IPC were used to define the preferred
(or
most typical) habitats within the lake for each species.
The use
of this procedure was conservative in nature to the extent that
other areas of habitat are available for spawning.
The areas of
preferred habitat were then compared with areas modeled to have
acceptable survival temperature limitations
to determine the
percentage of each preferred habitat area which would be available
for each species’
spawning
(R.24).
The results,
given one—unit operation without any maximum
temperature limitation, were that the five fish species which are
most representative of those
found
in Illinois cooling
lakes will
r~aintaintheir populations; that there will be more available
preferred habitat areas
for spawning purposes;
that there will
be no cold shock impact
(e.g.,
in the event that Clinton Station
ceases its thermal discharge); and that beyond the immediate
vicinity of the condenser,
a minimum degree of trophic impact will
occur
(R.24—6).
Again,
even these favorable results are based on
several conservative factors:
the USEPA’s thermal criteria,
the
warmer—than—average meteorological conditions,
and the limitation
of spawning areas to preferred rather than available habitats.
Finally,
IPC’s lease to the Illinois Department of Conservation
of 10,000 acres in and around Lake Clinton, and its joint efforts
with that Department to enhance use of the lake as a sport fishery
(R.27), will assure that one—unit operation over the next ten years
will not result in the spoiling of the lake for recreational use or
as a sport fishery.
The Board is satisfied that one—unit operation
will not produce unacceptable lake conditions.
Furthermore,
IPC produced evidence, derived from data from
existing Illinois cooling lakes, that the total net impact of its
thermal input will have less adverse ecological impact than the
demonstration indicates.
This is primarily because of the fact
that spawning dates are caused by acceptable temperatures generally,
rather than by acceptable temperatures at the right time of year
(R.35—6).
Even though one-unit operation given 1978 weather con-
ditions would eradicate 20
of the bluegill and 55
of the channel
catfish preferred spawning habitats
(R.34), and given 1955 weather
conditions would not enable black and white crappie
to survive
(R.41), the relatively warm year—round temperature conditions
in the lake can offset any reduction
in fish populations.
Fish
stocking can also offset any reduction.
Not only can cooling
lakes provide protection against unseasonably cold weather,
unlike
natural lakes
(R.36,
38), but cooling lakes provide an extended
growth season
(which can extend the fishing season)
and,
finally,
seem to increase fish size.
Clinton Lake will average over 50°F
for ten of twelve months
(R.38-0).
These findings have support
in several studies done during the mid—1970’s.
42—148
5
The results of one study were that although the short-term
maximum survival temperature
for largemouth bass fry is 80.6°F,
growth of this species was almost doubled at exposure to temper-
atures of 86°Fas opposed to 68°F(R.37).
This is further evidence
of
the conservative nature of the LARN results which are based
upon critical temperature
limitations.
Studies of Baldwin Lake
found that,
although during the entire month of July of 1980
temperatures at the intake structure of the power station exceeded
the short—term maximum survival temperature for crappie by 5°F,
these fish survived even without established preferred habitats
and with only a single limited area of refuge, which are not the
conditions at the Lake Clinton
(R.41).
The Board notes with
interest the testimony that artificial lakes which are not cooling
lakes typically thrive as fisheries for five years but then decline,
whereas Lakes Baldwin and Sangchris have thrived as fisheries for
eleven
and
fourteen years respectively
(R.43).
There is much evidence in the record of continued efforts
to
monitor survival and growth of the fish populations of Lake Clinton
and the continued development of the area as
a fishing and recrea-
tional
site,
Vertical profiles of water chemistry, derived from
samples of
23 parameters taken at 1—meter—depth intervals at eight
lake and two downstream lake locations,
are being gathered for
temperature, dissolved oxygen,
pH,
and conductivity
(R.43).
Testimony established that fish are more sensitive to
low oxygen
levels than to high temperature levels, but that oxygen depletion
occurs at levels below
the twenty—foot stratum where preferred
habitats are found
(R.58—O).
When the lake was first
filled,
oxygen levels were approximately
4 parts per million in the top
eight meters of the lake;
however, this situation is improving
(R.68—9).
Fish and trophic level plants and animals are monitored
quarterlyat seven lake and two downstream lake locations.
The
Department of Conservation performs a fishery survey and IPC a
fisherman’s creel survey
(R.44).
These activities serve not only
to detect changes
in the lake’s ecology,
but to establish various
types of baseline data which will he useful
in assessing impact of
two—unit operation, expected in
the
year 1991.
IPC’s studies can
distinguish between
the
effects of its stocking the lake and the
effects
of its thermal input
(R.64).
Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency nor the
Illinois Department of Conservation have objected to IPC’s petition.
Similarly, by letter of September 19,
1980 to the Agency the USEPA
expresses approval.
The Board has received no public comment
from
persons or entities other than the Agency and Illinois Power
Company.
Although the temperature limitations in Rule 203(i)(4) may
be achieved by the installation of spray cooling modules,
IPC
asserts that not only is this technology over five years old, but
when two—unit operation begins ten or more years from now, IPC
would like to have flexibility to consider other appropriate
control methodologies.
Furthermore,
as Illinois Power Company’s
42—149
6
comment points out,
the Agency’s permit issuance authority could
be compromised were the Board to require the
use
of only a specific
technology prior
to the time that Clinton Station is operated with
both generating units when other technology exists which can provide
adequate environmental protection.
The Board finds that the use of
spray cooling modules
is unnecessary to meet
the
limitations
in its
Order of May
28,
1981.
1PC testified as
to the necessity of imposing conditions
similar
to those
imposed
in the prior variance,
e.g.:
(1)
submittal
of a lake management plan to the Department of Conservation;
(2)
allowing the public access
to the lake
for
recreational purposes;
(3) the invocation of specific startup and shutdown procedures to
minimize the affects of cold shock;
(4) developing the lake’s
ecological environment; and
(5)
regular reporting of environmental
data to the Agency.
At hearing the Agency offered no evidence or
objection to deletion of these conditions.
The Agency’s comment
(issued under R80—17) recommends that most of these conditions
should remain
in effect; the responsive
comment of Illinois Power
Company refutes the Agency on every point.
The Board finds that,
for the reasons expressed in this Opinion, none of the conditions
remains necessary.
The Board finds that compliance with Rule 203(i)(4) by IPC at
this time would
impose an arbitrary hardship upon
it.
Not only
are cooling modules,
the sole existing technology for compliance,
extremely expensive
($29 million in 1983 dollars, August of
1983
being the scheduled date of startup of
the
initial generating unit,
R.51,
71), but
there
is no evidence
in the record of the impact of
cooling modules upon
the ecological
community.
Their installation
will disrupt lake currents and,
therefore,
change preferred habitat
locations and sizes.
Moreover,
they can
create area fogging and
are capable of emitting
particulate
matter.
The Board is not
convinced that better technology at a
lower
cost will not exist
in the future such as to make
a
large
expenditure at this time,
and during interim operations before
both
units become on
line,
unreasonable.
The evidence
in this record compels the conclusion
that one—unit operation
will produce
insignificant effects on the
ecological community of Lake
Clinton.
This Opinion
constitutes the findings ot fact and
conclusions
of law of the Board
in this matter.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify
that the
above Opinion was adopted
on the
~
day of
~
.
—,
1981 by a vote of
Christan L. Moff~,t1~,Clerk
-
Illinois Polluti~n~controlBoard
42—1.50