ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August
3,
1978
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF
)
PCB 77-82
THERMAL
STANDARDS FOR ZION
AND
WAUKEGAN
GENERATING STATIONS
MESSRS.
A. DANIEL FELDMAN
& GLEN E. NELSON, OF ISHAM, LINCOLN
& BEALE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
MS. BARBARA SIDLER, SENIOR TECHNICAL ADVISOR, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
MR. MICHAEL
BERMAN
APPEARED ON BEHALF OF CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This case
is before the Board pursuant to Rule 410(c) of the
Board’s Water Pollution Regulations.
In its petition of January
12,
1977 and amended petition of February 1,
1977,
Commonwealth
Edison Company requests that the Board allow the following stand-
ard to apply to Edison’s Zion and Waukegan Generating Stations:
present capability of the Station in terms
of maximum heat rejection andwater usage.
The present capability for each plant,
in terms of heat
rejection and water usage,
respectively,
is:
17.33 x l0~BTU/hr.,
and
2.236 x 106 gpm for the Zion Station; and approximately 5.301
x l0~BTU/hr. and 0.758 x 106 gpm for the Waukegan station.
The requested determination
would relieve both stations from
Rule 206(e) (1) (A) (iii)
of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations.
This rule imposes a limitation on thermal discharges to Lake
Michigan of 3°Fabove natural temperatures beyond the mixing zone.
Edison also requested the alternative standard from the USEPA.
Pursuant to Section 316(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (FWPCA), Edison submitted the required demonstration to Region
V and to the Board.
The Board was notified of Region V’s decision
to grant the alternative standard on June 30,
1977.
A hearing was held on May
23,
1977 at the Illinois Institute
for Environmental Quality.
Citizens for A Better Environment
(CBE)
requested and was granted Leave
to Intervene.
Neither CBE nor
31—151
—2—
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) presented any
evidence or called any witnesses.
Members of the public were
present, and one,
Mr. Clark B. Rose,
made a statement and examined
witnesses.
Edison’s experts were in agreement that virtually no damage
was being done to the Lake Michigan environment as
a result of
heated discharges from the two Edison stations.
Evidence from
the experts’
studies showed no disruption of the zooplankton
community (R.l7).
There was some evidence that chlorination from
the Waukegan Station may have
a more significant effect on phyto—
plankton and periphyton than changes in water temperature.
How-
ever,
it was noted that most of the chlorine in the area comes
from sewage treatment,
and there
is only minimal evidence of any
chlorine impact
(R.8l,
83)
Similarly, while some changes in the relative abundance of
various kinds of fish have been noted, these changes are moi~e
attributable
to competition among the species than to thermal
changes in the environment
(Testimony of Dr.
Gerking,
P.6).
No
fish kills were observed as
a result of the thermal effluent.
At Zion,
the thermal mortality rate was approximately 1;
so low
that it does not pose a serious threat to the population
(R.88).
However, fish and their eggs or larvae have been killed when they
become entrained in the intake water and are swept into the intake
structure.
The fish become impinged on cleaning screens and are
eventually killed.
It was suggested that a design change might
remedy the situation
(R.l08-l09)
The Agency recommends granting the alternative standard, but
CBE objects
to the absence of opinions of recognized independent
experts on Lake Michigan.
The Board finds that the evidence sub-
mitted indicates that the environmental damage to the Lake is
minimal, and we note that Edison has promised to continue study-
ing possible damaging effects on the Lake in the future
(R.20).
For these reasons,
the Board grants Edison’s request for the
al~ernativestandard.
In his statement,
Mr. Rose voiced two objections concerning
the location and notice of hearing.
For the convenience of all
interested parties,
the hearing was held in Chicago
(R.32).
The
tentative hearing date of April
22,
1977 was set on March
30,
1977
and published in the Environmental Register of April
11,
1977.
The final hearing date of May 23,
1977 was set on May
3,
1977 but
came too late for publication in the next issue of the Register.
However,
notice of this date was published in the Chicago Tribune
31—152
—3—
at some date prior to the hearing
(R.36).
Mr. Rose’s main concern
was based on the r~eedfor public participation at Board hearings.
The Board has always been acutely aware of this need and has
encouraged openness and public participation.
The record was held
open until June
25,
1977,
and notice of this was published in both
the Environmental Register and a Waukegan newspaper with county-
wide circulation in Lake County
(R.145).
No other public comment
was received.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Orderof the Pollution Control Board that:
1)
Pursuant to Rule 410(c)
of Chapter
3, Petitioner’s
present capabilities
in terms
of heat rejection
and water usage shall apply to thermal discharges
in lieu of those standards
set forth in Rule 206(e)
(1) (A) (iii)
2).
The Agency shall modify Petitioner’s NPDES permit
to reflect this change
in standard,
if the permit
does not already reflect such change.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby cer~,ifythe above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
3’~
day of
,
1978 by
avoteof_________________
~
~.
7~Q#’
/~cJ
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
31—153