ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
October
19,
1978
CENTRAL
ILLINOIS
PUBLIC
SERVICE
)
COMPANY
(HtJTSOMVILLE
POWER
)
STATION)
,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 78—108
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
THOMAS L.
COCI1R1~N,ATTORNEY AT
LAW,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER.
WILLIAM 3.
BARZANO,
JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
This matter comes before the Board for a determination
pursuant to Rule 203(1) (5)
of Chapter
3: Water Pollution
Regulations as to whether the thermal discharges from Central
Illinois Public Service Company’s
(CIPS)
Hutsonville Power
Station have not caused and cannot be reasonably expected to
cause significant ecological damage to the receiving waters..
CIPS filed its original petition in this matter on April 18,
1973.
A hearing was held on July 11,
1978.
There was no
public participation in this matter.
The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
(Agency) has not filed a reconmtendation nor
did it present any testimony at the hearing.
All data referred
to in this opinion are from the Thermal Study prepared for
CIPS’ Hutsoriville Power Station by R.
W. Beck and Associates
pursuant to Procedural Rule 602.
The Hutsonville generating station
is located on the Wabash
River at mile 173.9 near the town of Hutsonville, Illinois
(p.
1—1).
Hutsonville has four units:
Units
1 and
2 are
peaking units and have a generating capacity of 32 MW each,
Units
3 and
4 are the base load and have a generating capacity
of
83MW
each
(p. 1-1).
Total gross station capacity is
230
t~w
(p.
1-1).
Wabash river water is used for once—through con-
denser cooling
(p.
2-1).
Maximum capacity is 401 cfs for all
four units.
Water is pumped from the river through condensers
for each
unit
(p.
2—1).
Meat is rejected to the cooling water
from the steam condensers at a rate of 1668 million BTU/hour
—2—
at maximum plant generation
(p.
2—1).
The resultant temperature
rise of the cooling water at maximum flow is 18.4 F.
Normally
all cooling water pumps
(two per unit)
are operated
(p.
2-1).
During the winter only one pump is used, resulting in higher
cooling water temperature rise
(p.
2—1).
Across the condensers
the range of induced temperature rise is
12 F to 19 F
(p.
2-1).
Both actual and theoretical plume studies were included in
the Thermal Study as required by Procedural Rule 602(c).
The
predominant discharge behavior configuration for typical flows
is
a shore—line attached
plume
(p.
3—9).
For low flow cases,
fully mixed river conditions with exponential temperature
decay are utilized in conjunction with the initial plume con-
ditions from the shore-attached analysis
(p.
3-9).
DATA SUMMARIZED FROM THEORETICAL PLUME STUDIES
FOR TYPICAL CONDITIONS IN THE WABASH RIVER AT
THE HUTSONVILLE STATION
(p.
4—15)
Cross—Section
Surface
as Percent
Area
of Total
In Acres
River Flow
Within
Within
Ambient
River
Designated
Designated
River
Flow
Isotherms
Isotherms
~TFM
Season
Temp(F)
in cfs
3F
5F
7F
3F
SF
7F
(F)
Winter
36.5
11,000
0.1 ~0.1 0.1
11
4
—
0.7
Spring
53.6
18,700
~.0.140.1
0.l
6
0.4
Sunixner
77.0
7,200
0.3 ~0.1
‘0.1
16
9
1.0
Fall
62.6
4,000
1.2
0.2 .~0.1
29
19
8
1.8
4~FM
represents fully—mixed condition.
Figures based on 100 percent generation
(230 MW) and condenser
cooling water flow of 401 cfs, except for winter when flow is
50 percent.
31-664
—3—
With worst-case conditions the isotherm occupies the entire
river cross-section.
DATA SUMMARIZED FROM THEORETICAL PLUME STUDIES FOR
WORST-,CASE CONDITIONS IN THE WABASH RIVER AT THE
HUTSONVILLE
STATION
(p.
4-17)
Downs treamn
Distance in
Miles
for
Heat
Dissipation
in
Ambient
River
Designated
River
Flow
XFM
Percentage
Season
Temp(F)
in cfs
in Feet
25
50
FM
(F)
Winter
47.3
1700
1200
17
40
4.3
Spring
69.8
6100
1200
40
96
1.2
Summer
88
2900
1000
17
40
2.5
Fall
78.8
1250
1000
7
16
5.9
represents the distance below the discharge where the water
is essentially fully—mixed
(less than
2 F gradient).
represents
the
increase
in
temperature
at
the
fully-mixed
condition.
Figures are based on 100 percent generation
(230 MW)
and
condenser cooling water flow of 401 cfs, except for winter
when flow is
50 percent.
An assessment of ecological damage was made during the time
period of April 1973—May 1974
(p.
4—1).
This study included
the following parameters and components:
temperature, dissolved
oxygen,
chlorine, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos and fishes
(p.
4-1).
The study made a number of conclusions.
During the
period of 1973—1974,
a period of relatively normal river flow,
significant ecological damage did not occur
(p.
4—13).
The
study
further states that under typical conditions, with the predicted
thermal discharges, significant ecological damage is unlikely
(p.
4-13).
Both predicted worst—case conditions and extreme
worst-case conditions will cause substantial ecological damage
to the river, even without thermal discharge
(p.
4-13).
Under
full power generation and with the latter two conditions
—4—
significant
ecological
damage
would
occur
below
the
discharge
(p.
4—13,
4—14).
PROBABLE
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGE BY
THE HUTSONVILLE STATION ON THE WABASH RIVER
UNDER
WORST-CASE AND EXTREME WORST-CASE
CONDITIONS
(p.
4—18,
4—19)
Case and
Season
Worst-Case
Winter
Physical Conditions
Ambient
temp.
is 47.3 F
and ~TFM
is 4.3 F.
River Flow is 1700 cfs.
Probable BiolOgical Effects
A T is sufficient to increase
biological productivity even
further.
Increase in temp-
erature below plant plus low
river stage will tend to
increase fish density for
many miles below the plant.
Significant ecological damage
is unlikely.
Worst
—
Case
Spring
Ambient temp.
is
69.8 F, and ~T~1.1
is 1.2 F.
River Flow
is 6100 cfs.
AT not sufficient to cause
significant chanjes over ~o—
discharge condition.
Ambient temp.
is
88
and .~TFMis 2.5 F.
River Flow is 2900
cfs.
Additional
oxygen
depletion
below
discharge
is likely.
Localized areas between dis-
charge and XFM (1000
ft)
will
experience heat stress.
Blue—
green algae will increase.
Benthic organisms experience
lethal conditions.
Fish avoid
this
area.
Below
Xp~~the4T
will
influence
the
river
for
miles.
Thermophilic bacteria
and algae increase even further.
Benthic community experiences
increased stress and lethality.
Fishkill episodes increase.
Interference with fish
movements
including entry to mainstream
from tributaries,
is
likely.
Significant ecological
damage
is likely.
Worst—Case
S
urnmer
F
31—666
—5—
PROBABLE
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
TABLE
(Continued)
Caso
and
Season
Worst-Case
Fall
Physical
Conditions
Ambient
tempt
is
78.8
F,
and
4&TFM
is 5.9 F.
River
Flow
is
1250
cfs.
Probable Biological Effects
Effects depend on timing.
Thermal discharge in early
fall will probably stress
biota;
higher temperature
in late fall will increase
biological
productivity
even
further.
Growth of juvenile
fish
will
be influenced by4T.
Strain on carrying capacity
of river may be exacerbated.
Fishkills possible in early
fall.
Blockage of fish
movements not likely.
Extreme
Worst—Case
Condition
Ambient
temp.
is
90
F,
and~FM
is
5.9
F.
River
Flow
is 1250 cfs.
Further oxygen
depletion
below
discharge
is
likely.
Severe thermal stress and
lethal effects on all trophic
levels
for
considerable
dis-
tance
below
discharge.
Ex-
tensive growths of thermo-
philic bacteria and algae.
Blue—green algae become
dominant.
Fishkills become
common occurrence.
Inter-
ference with fish movements
occurs
for
many
miles.
Significant
ecological
damage
is highly probable.
These are highly infrequent occurrences
(p.
4-14).
The history
of plant generation indicates that full power generation on a
daily average basis occurs infrequently
(p.
4-14).
Consequently,
the
combined
events
of
river
flow,
ambient
temperature
and
thermal
discharges
which
could
cause
significant
ecological
damage
are
highly
improbable
(p.
4-14)
31—667
—6-
SELECTED
DATA
ON
THE
PROBABLE
JOINT
OCCURRENCE
OF
VARIOUS
COMBINATIONS
OF
FLOW
AND TEMPERATURE
AT
THE
RIVERTON
STATION
ON
THE
WABASH
RIVER
(p.
4-2 0)
Total
Number
of
Flow
(cfs)
Temp.
F
(C)
Days/lO
Years
Comments
Equal to or
88
(31)
5•3
£.~TFMis 2.5 or
less
than
3000
90
(32)
1.8
more.
2900
88
(31)
About 5.3
This is the worst—
case summer con-
dition; ~TF~.1is
2.5
F.
Equal to or
88
(31)
0.9
~TFM
is 3.7 or
less
than
2000
90
(32)
0.1
more.
Equal to or
88
(31)
0.3
~TFM
is
4.9
or
less than 1500
90
(32)
0.1
more.
1250
90
(32)
~0.l
This is the ex-
treme worst-case;
~TFM
is 5.9 F.
The
Board
notes
that
the
above
table
indicates
that
CIPS
has
the
potential
to
cause
a
violationof
Rule
203(i)
(4)
of
Chapter
3.
Thus
it
would
be
required
to
derate
its
Hutsoriville
Power
Station
whenever the thermal discharge would raise the Wabash River
temperature above the permitted maximum temperatures.
The Agency made no effort to contest these conclusions and
no recommendation was made.
The Board is satisfied that the
possibility
of
ecological
damage
due
to
the
thermal
discharge
is
sufficiently
remote
so
as
not
to
be
“reasonably
expected”.
The Board finds that the thermal ~discharges from CIPS Hutsonville
Power Station have not caused and cannot reasonably be expected
to cause significant ecological damage to receiving waters.
Petitioner has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of
Rule 203(i) (5)
of Chapter
3.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions
of
law
in
this
matter.
31—668
—7—
ORDER
it
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that
the
Petitioner has complied with Rule
203(i)
(5)
of
Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Regulations by demonstrating that its thermal
discharges
from
its
Hutsonville
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
ce~tify
the
above
Opnion
and
Order
were adopted or~the ___________day of
_____________,
1978
by a vote of
Sj_~
Illinois Polluti
:ontro.
Board
31—669