LbINU

Id

P~IF~

fUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

~Tune

22,

1978

ELECTRIC

ENERGY,

INCORPORhIE1),

)

Petitioner,

V.

PCB

78—42

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Respondent~

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Goodman)

This

matter

comes

before

the

Beard

ton

a

determination,

as

required

by

Rule

203(1)

(5)

of

Chapter

3

of

the

Regulations,

that

thermal

discharges

have

not

caused

and

cannot

he

reasonably

expected

to

cause

sign

f:i.

cant ecological

damage

to

receiving

waters

Petitioner

Electric

Enercjv,

Incorporaned,

operates the Joppa

Generation

Station

on

the

Ohio

River.

Once

through

cooling

water,

withdrawn

from

various

depths

of

the

river

at

an

average

rate

of

880

cfs,

is

applied

to

the plant~saverage heat

discharge

of

4.1

x

iO~ BTU/hr

arid returned at

the

surface

100

yards

downstream.

The

cooling

water

discharge

averages

less

than

1

of the river’s

low

flow

level

and creates a plume

(based

on

a

5°

isotherm)

which

is

usually

less

t~the

3.

acres

in

area

and

5

feet in depth.

On

September

1~ 1977,

pursuant

to Rule 410(e)

of Chapter

3,

Petitioner

was

granted

a

permit

modification

for

the

standards

in Rules

201(a)

and

203(1)

(3)

of

Chapter

3

to

allow plumes

of

greater than 26

acres

(:CB

77~l24)

The

proceedings

and

“Demonstration”

prepared in support

of the Petition

for

Modification

are incorporated

in the record

of this case.

The

Demonstration

contains

the information

required in the present proceeding by Rules 602(a),

(b)

and

(d)

of Chapter

1.

On

March

10,

1978,

the Board granted Petitioner’s

motion to waive

the

requirement in Rule 602(c) (3) that theoreti-

cal

plume

studies

identify isotherms

at

3°F

intervals, and

---

acc~ptedthe

p

e studies included

in

Petitioner~s Demonstration

an

bOB

~7~l~4

i.

?.

Dc

charge

on

ph

Iis~.

Tie

rupti

i

(Den

which

exceeds

minimal

die

a

Deaorc~

~a~o

6~2

n

u’c~

citron

studied

tne

effects

of

the thermal dis~

lankton,

zooplank+on,

macroinvertebrates and

s

of

the

study

inde~ate

minimal ecological dis~

tration

pp.83,

90,

94,

100)

despite a discharge

rent

water

temperature

y more than 20°F.

This

ion

is

due

mainly

tn

rapl~

mixing and cooling

p,S)

which

resulta

in

di~ipation of the plume in

monstration

p.2~t)

SC

ic

cC

~

~c

Xe

C

flJ

it.

~

to

of

this

studl

the

Ag~n

y recommended that

Petiti

~

c

&

ted

the

modi~

~acaon

sought

in

PCB 77~124,

In

ice

of

ad

~eona1

recommendaft

is

in

this

proceeding, the

Agercy

hu~

~

t~rmed

the

positiot

taken

whc~

modification was

s)lght,

that

sagnificant

ecological

hait

is caused by Peti~

titner

thee

i~chcirge.

cc

ee~a arch

Lae

i

~

cmi rinds that thermal

ci

tr~nei

~

~

~ccat

i

c’c

m

t

caused

and

cannot

~

t~ cais~

t~

ocological

damage

~

eetitione~

tea,

ticorofore,

satisfied

the

3~~S)

u

~najLas

e

~t

the Board’s

Regu

a

the

Pollution

Co~trol

Board

tnat

tue

pii~d

aiti

Rule

eJ~i)(a~

of

Chapter

3

0

I

~rotistrating

Lhcic

it~

‘1 a

ma!

discharges

iLli

hauie

not

causec

anci

cannot

~)O

reason—

t~

aiqniri~ait

ccoixyecal

damage

to

Ti

S

~

cencius

etC

t

Petiti

the

~

L~5

cit

cff

act

a

i

cc

it

ecu:

I

LUIISLItULOS

the

bodrd’s

findings of fact

and

a

iii

this

matter

OrWJiR

~L

L~Ot

ru~

cc

VccLt.

Lccriett,

Glee

the

illinois

Pollution

cce,i~ity

the

e~ve

OpiiiLcic

and

ccrder

day

ci

,

1978 hi

a

Illinois

Po11uti~