ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18, 1979
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
R77—17
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATION
)
AMENDMENTS:
COOLING LAKES
OPINION AND ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
Goodman):
On December
8,
1977 the Board, on its own motion, proposed
an amendment to Rule 104 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution and
authorized hearings on the proposed amendments and publication
thereof.
Hearings were held
in this matter on September 12,
1978 in Springfield and on September 14,
1978 in Chicago.
The Board proposal hearing was precipitated by
a Third
District Appellate Court decision entered November 4,
1977 in
Environmental Protection Agency v.
Central Illinois Light Co.,
54 111.3rd 155, which reversed the Board’s finding in a similar-
ly entitled case,
PCB 75—387,
23 PCB 107.
The court found that
even where a natural stream has been dammed to form an impound-
ment, the withdrawal of more than one-half of the impounded
waters from some other source will relieve the impoundment of
regulation as an artificial cooling lake.
The Board felt that
such an interpretation was unfortunate,
to the extent that
it
might allow the conversion of protected waters of the State
to treatment works without benefit of any environmental protec-
tion.
On that basis, to assure
the environmental quality of
existing protected waters
of the State when physically altered
for cooling purposes by impoundment,
damming, etc., the Board
proposed to change the definition of an artificial cooling
lake in Rule 104 of Chapter 3:
Water Pollution to be amended
as follows:
Rule 104:
“Artificial Cooling Lake” means any manmade
lake,
reservoir or other impoundment, construc-
ted by damming the flow of a stream,
which
is
used to cool the water discharged from the con-
densers of
a steam—electric generating plant
for recirculation in substantial part to the
condensers,
and includes any such manmade lake,
reservoir or other impoundment where flow from
the dammed stream and any natural
runoff into
such manmade lake, reservoir or impoundment
from any surrounding, adjacent or upstream
watershed constitutes
or contributes five per-
cent
(5)
or more
of the water entering, im—
,~s_c/,
7
—2—
pounded
in,
used for cooling purposes
in con-
nection with,
or discharged by any means from
such manmade
lake,
reservoir or other impound-
ment.
~t the hearings
it became apparent that this definition
of artificial cooling lake was causing confusion.
Testimony
and questions by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
Illinois Power Company, Central Illinois Public Service Com-
pany,
and Commonwealth Edison Company
indicated concern with
respect to the new language.
Of special concern was the 5
figure which limited the total amount of
a so—called natural
water that could be utilized by an artificial cooling
lake.
As the testimony and questioning continued,
it became obvious
that numerically limiting the existing phrase “substantial
part” was not going to be possible.
Since the existing lan-
guage
is very general, the Board can find no reason to exacer-
bate the issue with additional numerical
terms.
A cooling
lake may have so many different aspects depending upon its
use, the terrain in which it is contained,
its size, etc.,
that its definition must necessarily be very broad.
Although the Board disagrees with the Appellate Court’s
findings with respect to the particular situation which was
reviewed, we find it necessary to retain the existing broad
definition of artificial cooling lake and to continue to apply
it on a case-by—case basis.
The Board,
therefore, dismisses
the proceedings herein.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that R77—17,
Water Pollution Control Regulation Amendments:
Cooling Lakes,
be and is hereby dismissed.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here y certify the
a ov
Opinion and Order were
adopted on ~he
/ 3
day of ______________________, 1979 by
a vote of
4/-0
Christan L.
off
erk
Illinois Pollutio
ntrol Board