ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 27, 1978

CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE

COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 77—158

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

THOMAS L. COCHRAN, SORLING, NORTHRUP, 

HANNA,

CULLEN & COCHRAN,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;

ANN L. CARR, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLINOIS,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

On May 31, 1977 Central Illinois Public Service Company

(CIPS) filed this Petition pursuant to Rule 203(i) (10) of the

Board’s Water Pollution Regulations, Chapter 3 (Regulations).

Rule 203(1) (10) provides for Board promulgation of specific

thermal water quality standards to be applied to an artificial

cooling lake upon satisfactory demonstration to 

the

Board that

the lake will be environmentally acceptable. Hearing was held

in this matter on October 2, 1977; there were no members of the

public present, and no public comment has been received by the

Board.

I

leon

Luke, LIie subject of this 

Li

Lion,

is

wi ar 

Lifi—

cial cooling lake formed by the construction of a dam across

the McDavid Branch of the East Fork of Shoal Creek in 1963.

The purpose of the lake was to supply cooling capacity for CIPS’

Coffeen Power Station located in Montgomery County a few miles

south of Coffeen, Illinois. Due to the rolling terrain in this

area, the lake formed by the dam has the convoluted configuration

shown 

in

Figure 1. The average depth of Coffeen Lake is 18 feet;

the maximum depth is 52 feet. The dam is about 1200 feet from

the East Fork of Shoal Creek, the first 350 feet of that distance

30-77

//~

—

—P..——

DRAWPIG

cip~cO1~EEuLkKE

—3—

being a concrete spiliway. The area between the spillway and the

East Fork of Shoal Creek consists of an earthen channel with trees,

dirt, etc. The Station’s condenser cooling water travels through

a half-mile flume which discharges over a spillway into the Lake.

The total length of the cooling water path from the discharge point

to the intake point is about 4 miles, the cooling loop running from

discharge to intake without entering that portion of the Lake which

is upstream from the intake.

The Lake was designed orginally to serve as a settling basin

for overflow from the ash ponds and also received runoff from the

coal pile, regenerative wastes, and various other effluents re-

sulting from the operation of the Station (R. 323). Coal is brought

to the Station by conveyor belt from the mouth of a mine located

adjacent to the Power Station. From September, 1966 until July,

1969, the Lake was leased to the Illinois Department of Conser-

vation and was officially open to the public. The Department of

Conservation terminated its rights as Lessee in 1969, apparently

due to an internal administrative decision assessing priorities.

In 1964, 250,000 large mouth bass fingerlings were released by

the Department of Conservation, and in 1966, some fiddler channel

catfish were released by a local club, and a private individual

released some 200 white crappies. CIPS has undertaken no fish

management practices of any kind, and since 1969 the Lake has not

been opened to the public, although some people continue to fish

the Lake as trespassers (R.52, 79) 

All of the foregoing infor-

mation was -taken from CIPS’ Thermal Demonstration (TD) 

unless

otherwise noted.

Rule 203(1) (10) states that a Petitioner must meet certain

requirements before the Board will promulgate specific thermal

standards to be applied to Petitioner’s discharge to an artificial

cooling lake. The first requirement is that all discharges from

the artificial cooling lake to other waters of the state comply

with applicable provisions of Rule 203(1) (1—4) 

In general this

Rule requires that there be no abnormal temperature changes that

may adversely affect aquatic life, that the normal daily and

sr~nsrnu

1

eml)(rflLlr(’

fi

uctuat~ons

he Ifid 1 nI

iied, 

hut I he max imuin

tempera Lure r i se above natural

tempera Lures ~hu I. I not exceed

and that the water temperature at representative

locations in the

main river shall

not exceed the maximum limits 

which are

indicated

during more than 1 of the hours in the 12 month period ending with

any month. In addition, at no time shall the water temperature at

such locations exceed the maximum limits as indicated by more than

3°F. The indicated maximum temperature of interest to this pro-

ceeding is 90°F.

30-79

4—-

It is apparent from the data and the briefi; presented by both

parties that little or no discharge 

other waters of the State

has occurred since Coffeen Lake was established in 1965. The

Agency argues that CIPS has fai:Led -to show compliance with Rule

203(i) (1—4) since nO studies

have been done either on the receiving

water, Shoal Creek,- -or on the effect upon it by discharges from

Coffeen Lake. Considering the apparent lack 

of discharge to

Shoal

Creek, the Board finds that any studies made by CIPS would have

been, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, misleading and non-

conclusive. In order to measure the impact of a discharge, one

must first presume the existence of a discharge capable of having

an impact. The Board finds in this case U~t such a discharge has

not existed with-respect to Coffeen Lake arid 

therefore finds CIPS~

presentation witI~i respect to 203(i) (10) (aa) sufficient.

Rule 203(i)(l-0)(bb) provides that the heated effluent dis-

charge to Coffeen Lake must comply with al:L applicable provisions

of Chapter 3 other than Rule 203(1) (1-4). Data and testimony

presented by CIPS (R.l4) along with a variance granted by the

Board in PCB 77-221, convinces the Board that CIPS is in compli-

ance with Rule 203(i) (10) (bb) 

In addition, the Agency, on page

5 of its brief herein states “the EPA does not in this 

proceed-

ing dispute the general allegation of

CIPS that Rule 203(1) (10)

(bb) has been complied with”.

Rule 203(i) (10) (cc) calls for a demonstration by CIPS to the

Board that Coffeen Lake will be

environmentally 

acceptable and

within the intent of the Act

notwithstanding the 

proposed speci-

fic thermal standard. Such- a

showing must include, but is not

limited to,

conditions capable of supportinq shellfish and wildlife

and recreational uses consistent

with good r n~gement practices

and consideration of the control of the th. ii component of the

discharger’s effluent by a technologicall’, L~asible and economic-

ally reasonable method. At the hearing held herein CIPS presented

its Thermal Demonstration along with two addenda designed to keep

the demonstration current (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). The Agency

led

a response to .CTPS 

‘

presenta t:. ion recomm ‘ud i 

~uj

the I      the a 1 

ter—

nate 

thermal limits requested

be

denied,

The Agency

points out;

t:hat; the water temperatures

in Coffeen Lake are quite high when

compared with noncooling lakes in

Illinois, that CIPS had failed

to discuss the possibility of modification of a flow pattern of

the cooling water or utilization of the cool hypolimnetic layer

by mixing, and that CIPS had failed to address -the environmental

impact 

of a proposed increase

in the amount of water pumped from

Shoal Creek to achieve a discharge over the spiliway of the dam.

Testimony at the hearing by Richard J. Grant, CIPS’ water

quality engineer, concerning the possible modification

of the

30-80

—5—

cooling loop to include the surface area of the entire Lake, indi-

cated that such a project

would be very expensive. 

In addition,

since the area in question is the upstream portion of the Lake,

additional equipment would have to

be installed to treat the higher

level of collodial silica which 

occurs due to the influx

of runoff

at that point (R.l4—20).

More importantly,

such a modification

would, while lowering the average temperature of the hot portions

of the Lake, destroy the portions of the Lake which are now at a

much lower temperature and undoubtedly used by the fish as a refuge

during the hot summer months when temperatures within the 

cooling

loop are uncomfortable for them. The result could be a Lake

whose

entire area is uncomfortably warm for the fish and provides no place

for them to find refuge. The higher tempera-Lure within the 

limited

cooling loop would also afford a higher

rate of heat transfer per

square foot of surface area of heated water, although total heat

evolution from the Lake would necessarily have to be the same in

either case assuming constant lake temperature. The Board finds,

therefore, that the known existing conditions are preferable to

the unknown results of a very expensive modification to the cooling

loop. The same evaluation applies to the possibility of mixing the

cool lower levels of the Lake with the heated portions within the

cooling loop.

Section 10 of the Thermal Demonstration addresses the techno-

logical feasibility and economic reasonableness of controlling

the thermal component of-the discharge through the use of cooling

towers. The estimated construction and equipment cost and capi-

talized operating costs for Coffeen Lake as developed by Sargent

and Lundy amounts to approximately $20,000,000. In addition CIPS

points out the well known environmental problems concerned with

the plume from cooling towers. The Agency did not address the

question of cooling towers.

The major question in this matter is whether Coffeen Lake

will be capable of supporting shellfish, fish and wildlife and

recreational uses consistent with good management practices, even

if such uses are not actually instituted. In the Opinion support-

ing the Order 

in the Cooling Lakes Regulation, P75—2, adopted on

September 29, 1975, the Board made the following comment concern-

ing Sub—section (cc) (1) of the Rule:

Under subsection (cc) (1), it is not absolutely

required that there be a fishery, or that an

artificial cooling lake provide recreational

or any other uses except that for which it was

designed. One public comment pointed out that

factors besides generating plant operations

might prohibit a recreation facility.24 But

30-81

it is nonetheless felt hhat; by 

requiring such

conditions in a lake we will

have taken a sig-

nificant 

step in proLe-e~±x;qwater quality.

Qualitatively, while the end use of a body

of water is indeed

important, and may be weighed

by the regulatory process, 

the Board is most

con-

cerned with assuring water quality sufficient to

allow these (fishery and recreational) and any

other beneficial and ecologically—sound uses. We

may not require that water he properly and bene-

ficially used; we must raquirc ~at it can be used

(emphasis added).

In this case, Coffeen Lake is not officially 

being used for any

purpose other than that for which ii: was designed. The question

before the Board therefore is whether or not conditions exist

which might allow for uses as noted in Section (cc) (1) of Rule

203(i) (10)

Most of 

the testimony adduost

oh the hearing concerned the

plants and animals constituting Lhe food chain in the Lake and

their ability to support a fishery. The quick answer to the

question is that Coffeen Lake does 

indeed

contain a variety 

fish including those stocked previously 

as noted above. There

was no indication in the record

that 

the Lake sustains any par-

ticularly dramatic fish kills, there being 

in fact only three

recorded during the life of 

the

Lake, 

apparently the worst of

which concerned some 80 to 100 gizzard sh -d found during the

period of startup of the second unit (R-4’-SS, Thermal Demon-

stration Figures 8a-1, 8a—2) 

In addition, evidence presented

at the hearing indicates’that fishing 

doe

occur on the Lake not-

withstanding the fact that there is no i---  .Lic access thereto. The

Agency, while not seriously 

questioning

the existence of a fishery

in Coffeen Lake, does question the condition of that fishery and

its continued viability in the future.

jenera 

I I.y

questioneng tOe amount (1  1a1 a used 

by Ci PS

to support; i l:s Thermal I)ernonstrritio;i 

thc Aqency spec;Lfical ly

questions the condition of the 

fish, the

abundant concentrations

of blue-green algae, the continuing drop of 

alkalinity and bicar-

bonates over the last eleven years, 

and the ability of the fish

to survive the heated water during the summer months. The Agency’s

questions focus primarily upon what might be the future of Coffeen

Lake rather than its existing conditions. Although the Board

would agree with the Agency that the. 

data presented by CIPS might

well be described as minimal in both quality and quantity, we

find that it is sufficient when considered along with the history

and the present situation of the Lake. As an example, -the ability

30~-82

—7—

of the fish to survive the heated water during the summer months

has certainly been proven. There have been no recorded fish

kills of any consequence during Lee entire life of the Lake, and

the fish stocked some twelve years previous are still present in

the Lake in quantities sufficient to attract fishermen despite

the lack of subsequent stocking or fishery management during that

period. The Board finds that survival of fish subsequent to a

single stocking for a period of twelve years is sufficient evi-

dence that Coffeen Lake in its present condition will support a

viable fishery. The Board again emphasizes that it is not

necessary that CIPS create and sustain a fishery in Coffeen Lake

but rather that Coffeen Lake be in such a condition as to allow

the presence of a fishery.

With respect to the other concerns of the Agency about the

concentration of algae and the drop of alkalinity and bicarbonates,

the Board finds that these concerns, altho~wjhlegitimate, go more

to the chemical and physical condition of Oaffeen Lake than to the

effects of the thermal constituent of dPi discharge. The Board,

however, is concerned about these conditions in Coffeen Lake and

about the effect of the changes, including construction of a new

treatment plant and proposed continuous discharge over the dam,

now being instituted and proposed by CIPS to correct them, especi-

ally with regard to the effect upon the -temperature of Coffeen Lake

and Shoal Creek. (P.91, 92, Thermal Demonstration). Because of

this concern, the Board finds that a permanent specific thermal

standard for Coffeen Lake is not warranted at this time. The Board

will set interim thermal standards for Coffeen Lake as requested by

CIPS for a period of three years. At 

the end

of that three year

period and upon a showing before the Board by CIPS that Coffeen

Lake meets the criteria of Rule 203(i) (10).. ;hese specific thermal

standards shall become permanent.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDI~R

it is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.  For the period of time ending three years from

the date of this Order, the thermal discharge

to Coffeen Lake from Coffeen Station shall not

result in a temperature measured at the

outside

30-83

—8—

edge of the mixing zone

in

Coffece rake ex-

ceeding 98°F during more

than 

8.2 percent of

the hours in the twelve

month 

period

ending

with any month, and

in any event shall 

at no

time exceed 108°F.

2.  If at the end of the three 

year

p-;-riod rioted

in (1) above, Central 

Illinois

Puhlic Service

presents evidence which 

convinces the Board

that Coffeen Lake meets the crite; i-s of Rule

203(i) (10), the interim limits no 

~it

in (1)

above shall become permanent spee i     ic 

thermal

standards for Coffeen Lake..

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of

the Illinois 

Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion 

and Order were

adopte~on 

the

day of~~L~   

1978 by a vote

~--

Christan b.-

Mdf~~t, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

30—84