ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 24, 1978
    CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
    )
    COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—90
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    THOMAS COCHRAN, NORTHRUP, HANNA, CULLEN
    & COCHRAN,
    APPEARED ON
    BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
    REED NEUMAN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):
    This matter comes before the Board for a determination, as
    required by Rule 203(i) (5) of Chapter 3, Water Pollution Regu-
    lations that thermal discharges from Central Illinois Power
    Company’s (CIPS) Grand Tower Power Station have not caused and
    cannot be reasonably expected to cause significant ecological
    damage to receiving waters. A hearing was held on May 31, 1978.
    No members of the public attended. At that time, the Agency
    stated its
    opinion
    that thermal discharges from the power station
    will not cause significant ecological damage to the Mississippi
    River (R.10). All data referred to in this Opinion are from the
    Thermal Study prepared for CIPS by R.W. Beck and Associates pur-
    suant to the requirements of Procedural Rule 602.
    Grand Tower Power Station, located at mile 81.65 on the
    Mississippi River, has a gross power generation capacity of
    202 MW, resulting in heat rejection of 1.501 x 109 BTU/hr. (Ex.
    la). Cooling water, withdrawn from the Mississippi at a rate
    of 363.5 cfs is applied to the steam condenser and discharged
    back to the river with a temperature rise of 12—17°F (p.2-i)
    During the winter months, this once through cooling water flow
    is reduced to 181.8 cfs. and induced temperature rise across
    the condenser is increased to 34.40°Fat maximum capacity
    (p.2—i)
    31—267
    —2—
    The Thermal Demonstration submitted in this proceeding
    includes actual ‘and theoretical plume studies as required by
    Procedural Rule 603(c). These studies indicate that the plume
    created by Petitioner’s thermal discharge is of the “shoreline-
    attached” variety (p.3—4) and covers an area of less than two
    acres even during low flow conditions of autumn and winter (p.
    3—16). The projected plume size under “worst-case” iconditioris
    during these seasons would be 11 acres in winter and 18 acres
    in autumn (p.3-17).
    Biological studies on the effects of Petitioner’s thermal
    discharge on zoop1a~nkton, phytoplankton, benthos, fish and the
    riparian habitat indicate that ecological damage is highly
    unlikely (pp.4-3, A-1—A—6). Under normal and even “worst-case”
    conditions, a thermal plume of significant
    size is likely to
    result only in winter, when the ambient
    temperature will mini-
    mize its
    effect.
    During the summer season when ambient tempera-
    ture is high, the plume is normally limited to an insignificant
    area. Under extreme “worst—case” ~conditions the plume might be
    as large as five acres but would still have a minimal adverse
    effect on aquatic biota.3 The effects of the thermal discharge
    are minimized further by the large dilution factor afforded by
    the Mississippi River.4 The Thermal Demonstration also addressed
    the potential effect on recreation and commercial fishing.
    The
    study concluded that these activities will not be adversely
    affected (p.4—6).
    It is the Opinion of the Board that Petitioner’s
    Thermal
    Demonstration contains the information required by Procedural
    Rule 602. The Board finds that thermal discharges from CIPS’
    1The worst-case condition is a computer simulation of the effect
    of having,
    simultaneously, the lowest seasonal river flow, high-
    est temperature and peak power generation (See p.3-l7).
    2The extreme worst—case condition is a combination of the 7 day,
    once in 10 year low flow and the maximum temperature of record
    (See p.3—l7).
    3me computer model predicts a 5 acre plume within which temper-
    ature may be above 94°F (p.4-4). This may be lethal to certain
    nonmotile and sensitive organisms. Fish are predicted to avoid
    such an area, thereby escaping any potentially lethal effects
    (p.4—5).
    4cooling water discharge averages less than 1 of river flow
    (See Table 3—1, p.3-l8).
    31—253
    —3—
    Grand Tower Power Station have not caused and cannot be reason-
    ably expected to cause significant ecological damage to
    receiving waters. Petitioner has, therefore, satisfied the
    requirements of Rule 203(i) (5) of Chapter 3 of the Board’s Regu-
    lations.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of
    the Pollution Control Board that
    the
    Petitioner has complied with Rule 203(i) (5) of Chapter 3 of
    the Regulations by demonstrating that its thermal discharges
    from the Grand Tower Power Station have not caused and cannot
    be reasonably expected to cause significant ecological damage
    to receiving waters.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
    were adopted on the~/”__dayof
    ~
    ,
    1978 by a vote
    of
    ~
    .
    ()
    Christari L. Moff9~,~Clerk
    Illinois Pol1uti6t~~’ControlBoard
    31—269

    Back to top