ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 21, 1978

CITY OF SPRINGFIELD,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

P~B

78—23

PCB 78—52

CONSOLIDATED

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

)

AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

MR.

ROBERT

H.

WHEELER,

OF

ISHAN,

LINCOLN

AND

BEALE,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

PETITIONER;

MR.

REED

NEUMAN,

OF

THE

OFFICE

OF

THE

ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Goodman):

The

City

of

Springfield

(City)

submitted

a

Petition

for

Specific Thermal Standard pursuant to Rule 203(i) (10) of the

Board’s Water Pollution Regulations

(Chapter

3)

on

February

2,

1978.

The Petition was docketed PCB 77—23.

On February

24,

1978,

the City submitted a Rule 203(i) (5)

Petition, which

was docketed PCB 78-52.

The Board consolidated the two pro-

ceedings on March

2,

1978.

A consolidated hearing was held on

June

12, 1978,

in Springfield.

No citizen witnesses appeared.

The subject of these proceedings is the thermal discharges

from the City’s Lakeside and Daliman electric generating facili-

ties to Lake Springfield,

a man—made, 4,234 acre cooling lake

with 57 miles of shoreline.

These facilities include Lakeside

I,

a

35 megawatt

(MW) facility scheduled for retirement in 1981,

Lakeside II,

a 106 MW facility which is to be placed on cold

stand-by when Lakeside

I is retired, and Dailman,

a plant with

two existing boilers each with approximately

80 MW capacity and

a third 180 MW

unit

scheduled to begin service in July of this

year.

All of these generating facilities are cooled using lake

water on a once-through cooling cycle.

There are separate

intake

and discharge facilities for the Lakeside plants and the Dailman

plant.

31—463

---

—2—

Rule 203(i) (5)

requires the owner of a source of thermal

effluent to demonstrate to the Board that discharges from that

sOurce have not caused and cannot be reasonably expected to cause

significant ecological damage to the receiving waters.

Rule

203(i) (10)

allows a source to obtain a thermal standard for dis-

charges to a cooling lake different than the thermal water quality

standards of Rule 203(i)

if the source demonstrates that the

cooling lake will be environmentally acceptable and within the

intent of the Act.

The City proposes that the following tempera-

ture limitation, based on historic and projected operating con-

ditions, be applied to its thermal discharges:

The thermal discharge to Lake Springfield

from the Lakeside plant shall not exceed

99°more than 5

of the hours in the

12—month period ending with any month and

the discharge from the Dalirnan plant shall

not exceed 99°more than 8

of the hours

in

the 12-month period ending with any month

and at no time shall any discharge exceed

109°.

As part of its showing pursuant to both Rules

203(i) (5)

and 203

Ci) (10),

the City has submitted a thermal standard study of Lake

Springfield dated August,

1977,

by Betz Environmental Engineers,

Inc.

In addition, the City presented several witnesses at hearing.

The

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(Agency)

at hearing and in its

brief supported the City’s position.

The City’s Exhibit

2

indicates that the temperatures

in

the

discharges from seven separate condensers at Lakeside measure

as

high as 108°Fand that condenser discharge temperatures from the

2 Dallman condensers measure as high as 113° (R.26).

Condenser

discharge temperatures at Lakeside have exceeded 100°as much as

7.6

of the year for one boiler, and at Dalirnan individual con-

denser discharges have exceeded 100°as much as 6.2

of the year.

Temperatures exceeding 90°occurred in Lakeside condenser dis-

charges 14.9

of 1976 and 24

of 1977,

and in Daliman condenser

discharges

20.2

of 1976 and 23.6

of 1977.

Based upon these

actual measured temperatures,

the City alleges its proposed

standard is representative of recent operating conditions at

Lake Springfield.

The City furthermore indicates that the

addition of Dallman Unit

3 is not expected to cause higher

temperatures than those experienced, although it may increase

the 5°mixing zone

(R.29,

58—59)

The record contains much information about the effect dis-

charges at these temperatures have upon Lake Springfield.

Mr.

Charley Narbut, District Fish Biologist in Sangamon County for

31—464

---

—3—

the Department of Conservation, appeared at the hearing and

entered into the record a letter containing the results of

electro—fishing surveys of Lake Springfield conducted by the

Department in 1963,

1972, 1975 and 1977

(R.9).

The surveys

evaluated five species of sport fishes:

largemouth bass,

bluegill, channel catfish,

flathead catfish, and white

crappie.

The conclusion of the surveys was that the fish pop-

ulations had remained stable throughout the years.

The channel

catfish and flathead catfish populations are considered to be

among the top in the state.

Mr. Marbut concluded that this

fishery is growing and expanding and is expected to provide

excellent fishing

(R. 14—15).

Dr. William Walker presented the results of the thermal

study of Lake Springfield done by

Betz

Environmental

Engineers.

A study of the thermal plume indicated that both the Lakeside

and Dailman

heated

effluents

remain

near

the

upper

five

feet

of

the lake water so that even though the 5°mixing zone may be

exceeded occasionally,

a safe zone of passage for fish is always

maintained beneath the plume.

Measurement indicated this zone

of passage contains sufficient dissolved oxygen levels to allow

fish to avoid undesirable temperature conditions.

Dr. Walker

also testified about surveys of existing aquatic populations on

the lake conducted under his direction.

The populations sampled

were algae,

zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.

In addition, Dr. Walker compared data from Lake Springfield to that

for

5 other Illinois lakes.

He concluded

that

the

overall

aqua-

tic

ecosystem

and

water

quality

of Lake Springfield is in healthy

condition for an aging lake and is without a general adverse

environmental effect.

He testified that there

is no evidence

of significant ecological damage due to the thermal discharges.

In addition,

Dr. Walker testified that because Dailman Unit

3

is designed to maintain a temperature change no higher than

previously experienced in the North Basin of the lake, no detri-

mental effect is expected from the addition of the Dallman

3

discharge.

Finally, his analysis of seven important fish species

(including a stomach analysis) revealed that adequate spawning

habitat is present,

that fish were avoiding high temperatures

and seeking the safe “zone of passage” beneath the warmer thermal

plume, and that there was

a wide and sufficient food source for

fish in Lake Springfield

(R.69—74).

Mr. Paul Bonarisinga, with the City, testified about alter-

natives to establishing a specific thermal standard.

These

include cooling towers,

a spray canal,

an extended discharge

pipe,

or a modified discharge channel

(R.32).

Although all of

these alternatives would allow the City to meet current mixing

zone requirements, only cooling towers or a spray canal would

31—465

---

—4—

result in compliance with maximum discharge temperatures.

How-

ever, both the cooling tower and spray canal, which would cost

approximately $13,500,000 and $10,000,000, respectively, would

create

dangerous

fogging

and

wet

conditions

on

the

interstate

highway next to the plant and would create an acid mist when

combined

with

emissions

from

the

plant.

Rule 203(i) (10) (cc) specifically provides that at hearing

the discharger must demonstrate with respect to the lake:

(1)

..

.

conditions capable of supporting

shellfish,

fish,

and

wildlife,

and

recre-

ational uses consistent with good manage-

ment practices, and

(2)

control

of

the

thermal

component

of

the

discharger’s

effluent

by

a

technologically

feasible and economically reasonable method.

The

Board

finds

that

the

City

has

met

its

burden

of

Droof.

In

addition,

the

Board

finds

that

the

City

has

met

its

Rule

203(i)

(5)

burden of proving that discharges from Lakeside and from Dallman

1 and

2 have not caused and cannot be reasonably expected to cause

significant ecological damage to Lake Springfield.

The Board notes,

however, that the City will be required to comply with Rule 203(i)

(5) with respect to Dallman Unit

3,

a new source, within five to

six years after commencement of operations.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It

is

the

Order

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

that:

1)

The thermal discharge to Lake Springfield from

the Lakeside plant shall not exceed 99°more than

5

of the hours in the 12-month period ending with

any month and the discharge from the Dailman plant

shall not exceed 99°more than

8

of the hours

in

the 12-month period ending with any month and at

no time shall any discharge exceed 109°.

31—466

---

—5—

2)

The City of Springfield has complied with Rule

203(i) (5)

of Chapter

3 in that it has proven that

the thermal discharge from its Lakeside Plants

I

and II and from its Dailman Units

1 and 2 has not

caused and cannot be reasonably expected to cause

significant ecological damage to the receiving

waters.

I, Christan L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby ~rtify

the above Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

~

day of

~

,

1978 by

a

J

rr~L

Christan

L.

floffè

,

Clerk

Illinois Pollutio

ontrol Board

31—467