ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    25,
    1972
    In the matter of
    JOINT APPLICATION OF
    )
    #71-20
    COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
    AND
    )
    IOWA-ILLINOIS
    GAS
    & ELECTRIC
    CO.
    )
    (QUAD CITIES PERMIT)
    )
    (PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF
    PERMIT)
    OPINION
    AND
    SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (BY MR. LAWTON):
    On November
    15,
    1971,
    a permit to operate
    a new nuclear genera-
    ting station consisting of two 809—mw Boiling-Water Reactors at
    the Quad-Cities
    plant near Cordova, Illinois,
    on the Mississippi
    River was issued to Applicants.
    Section 5 of the permit provides
    as follows:
    “5.
    Heated Water Discharges
    (a)
    With the discharge improvements described
    in the
    Supplement
    to Appendix C of the Application
    as Amended, Units
    1
    and/or
    2 may be operated until April
    1,
    1972, at
    a total output
    not
    to exceed 809 mw, without regard to the heat limitations
    of
    regulations
    SWB-l2 as amended by #R70-l6 or of successor
    regulations, provided that:
    (i)
    until operation of the diffuser is achieved,
    effluents shall not exceed ambient river
    temperatures by more than 12°F;and
    (ii) within thirty days after receipt of this
    permit,
    the permittees
    shall submit
    a state-
    ment regarding the feasibility and cost of
    installing spray modules to reduce the heat
    discharged
    in the interim before completipn
    of the diffuser.
    The Board upon receipt of
    such statement will take such further action
    as appears appropriate.
    (b)
    On and after April
    1,
    1972,
    Units
    1 and
    2 shall be
    operated only in full compliance with
    all provisions
    of SWB-l2
    as amended by #R70-16
    or of successor regulations, with regard
    to heated discharges.~
    #R70-16
    (Mississippi River Thermal Standards)
    now embodied
    in our
    comprehensive water regulation
    in addition to specifying monthly
    4
    405

    temperature maximums prohibits an increase of water temperature
    above ambient
    in
    excess of 5°F.outside of the mixing zone.
    On March
    1,
    1972,
    a petition for modification of paragraph
    5
    was filed with the Board seeking
    a variance from the Mississippi
    River Thermal Standards for
    a period between approximately April
    20,
    1972 until August 15,1972,
    at which
    time the installation of the
    diffuser discharge contemplated by paragraph
    5 above will have
    been completed.
    Hearing was held on the petition.
    The delay in the diffuser discharge installation
    is
    a consequence
    of the refusal until recently, on the part of the State of Iowa to
    allow construction of the diffuser discharge.
    Originally,
    it
    was
    contemplated that testing of the Quad-Cities units would be made during
    the winter months when the ecological impact would be minimal.
    How-
    ever,
    the pendency of an injunction proceeding
    (now resolved)
    in the
    U.
    S.
    District Court for
    the District of Columbia prevented such
    testing from taking place.
    Petitioners propose a program
    of testing
    and use
    of the reactors ~to assure proper operation and to meet summer
    peak load demands prior to the installation of the diffuser discharge.
    We grant the modification,as
    proposed, in the form set forth
    in
    our
    order,
    for the
    reasons more fully discussed in this Opinion.
    We
    find
    that while permitting departure from the Mississippi River Temperature
    Standards will have some adverse effect on the biota, such damage
    is
    neither severe nor irreversible.
    We further find that failure to
    permit
    such departure from the Mississippi River Temperature Stan-
    dards will impose restrictions
    on power generation having detrimental
    consequences
    to the entire community far in excess of
    the limited
    environmental damage consequential
    to the variation permitted.
    Applicants request authority
    to continue
    the testing of units
    which began on April
    1,
    1972 when the AEC issued a 20
    license for
    each
    unit,
    at
    a station capacity level not in excess
    of 809-MW.
    Petitioner anticipates
    that the AEC percentage allowance will be
    increased.
    It is anticipated that 55 days will be needed for testing each
    unit in order to bring it up to full capacity although the testing
    of each will be carried on simultaneously and be coordinated so that
    the maximum output at no time of testing will exceed a total of 609-
    MW.
    Testing of Unit No.
    2 might
    take less than the anticipated
    55
    days
    (R.26l7).
    Applicants have Contended that testing in order
    to
    demonstrate
    full power capabilities of both units
    is necessary to
    insure maximum station reliability and availability during system
    load emergencies or a forced outage of one unit.
    Subsequent
    to the
    completion of the testing operation,
    Applicants contemplate that each
    unit will operate nornally at
    200 mw capacity until the diffuser discharge
    4
    406

    is in operation.
    One or both units will be brought up to
    500 mw
    in the event weather forecast and early estimate of emergency help
    available from other companies indicate that the Quad-Cities capa-
    city will be needed.
    Operation above 500 mw for either or both
    units,
    resulting in a total station output in excess of 1,000 mw
    will not occur until after Commonwealth Edison has interrupted
    service to those of
    its customers whose service agreements allow
    such interruption,
    and in no event,
    shall total station output
    exceed 1,000 mw
    for more than eight hours in any day.
    Quad-Cities power capacity is needed to assure the meeting of
    summer peak electrical loads resulting from the projection of
    the
    probable power demands and anticipated outages.
    Total owned and
    purchasedcapacity of Commonwealth Edison is 14,286 megawatts
    (Com-
    monwealth Edison Exhibit 100).
    The predicted peak load is 12,600
    megawatts while the projection of outages varies from 2,100 mw
    to 3,900 mw.
    A figure of 2,600 mw is assumed for purposes of this
    proceeding.
    This anticipated reduction in power-generating capacity
    is
    a consequence of
    low sulphur coal limitation, non-turbine tempera-
    ture limitations,
    fast start peaking units, miscellaneous limitations
    and forces outages of entire units.
    With
    a total capacity of 14,286
    raw,
    a peak
    load of
    12,600 mw and
    a projected outage of 2,600
    mw,
    Commonwealth Edison would need
    a total of 914
    raw from Quad-Cities
    to meet
    the peak.
    It
    is anticipated that this would occur on approx-
    imately seventeen occasions, being the average number of weekdays
    on which 90° F.
    is exceeded in Chicago
    (R.2583)
    From the foregoing,
    it would appear that an amount
    in excess
    of
    300
    raw and on occasion in excess
    of 900
    it~
    would be
    required by Edison from Quad-Cities Station during the hot summer period
    of 1972.
    The evidence
    also supports
    the position that the load de-
    mands and capacities of
    Iowa—Illinois,
    Iowa Pool
    and MAIN are
    such
    that the Quad-Cities
    capacity will be necessary
    to insure adequate
    power availability from these sources
    for emergency situations,
    particularly during the summer months
    in order to meet peak demands
    (R. 2590—2607)
    The consequence of the increased power generation prior to the
    installation of
    the diffuser discharge must be considered in terms
    of
    the increase in temperature at the various levels of power generation
    and its anticipated affect on the biota.
    Frank
    A.
    Palmer,
    Superintendant of the Quad-Cities Station testi-
    fied
    that
    with
    the
    power
    generation
    indicated,
    the
    water
    temperature
    at
    the
    plant
    discharge
    point
    for
    the
    two
    units
    is
    estimated
    as
    follows
    (H. 2618)
    4
    407

    Two units
    at 200 NW:
    8 degrees
    One unit at 200
    and the second at
    500 MW:
    12 degrees
    Both units
    at 500 MW:
    16 degrees
    One unit at 500
    and one at 809
    raw:
    19.5 degrees
    Both units
    at 809
    raw:
    23 degrees
    Evidence
    in the record indicates that the river flow at the end of
    April will be
    170,000
    cfs,
    declining
    to as l~was 26,000
    cfs
    in
    August.
    The shape and direction of the plume from the side jet dis-
    charge suggests
    that the flow will be along the Illinois shore and
    that one—half of the water having discharge temperature will encompass
    the small islands on the Illinois side downstream from the plant
    (R.2643),
    The report on bioiogiôal effects
    submitted at the hearing
    indicates
    a
    possibility
    of
    slight changes
    in spawning time and
    maturation
    rates
    for
    fish
    spawning
    at
    that
    location
    but
    little
    likeli-
    hood
    of
    a change in total fish population or
    a change in the population
    dynamics.
    Lethal
    temperature
    effects
    are
    not
    likely
    to
    occur
    during
    the
    testing
    period
    because
    the
    water
    temperature
    during
    that
    time would range from
    55°
    in
    April
    to
    80°
    in
    late
    June.
    Some
    concern
    was expressed over
    the biological
    effects
    during
    the
    period
    of
    July
    and
    August prior to the bperation of the diffuser discharge.
    During
    this period some young of the year of walleye Sauger pike, white
    crappie and black crappie,
    may
    be killed if
    the
    ambient
    temperature
    is greater than 91°F.
    The net result would be
    a shift in the species
    composition of the community favoring the more temperature tolerant
    types
    (carp, carpsucker,
    large-mouthed bass, bluegill and drum)
    over
    those
    less tolerant
    (northern pike,
    crappie, sauger and walleye)
    How-
    ever,
    the environmental report states that after the use of the side-
    jet discharge
    is discontinued
    in August,
    1972,
    any displaced species
    will repopulate
    the affected area within
    a relatively brief period.
    Nor will temperature decrease following decrease in power generation ap-
    pear to have any substantial adverse effect.
    While elevated temperatures
    may disrupt behavorial habits associated with spawning,
    reduce the
    rate
    of fertilization,
    increase egg mortality,
    increase
    the rate of
    development to a point that hatching occurs at an unfavorable
    time
    and lower the viability of the larvae, even
    a limitation on production
    in this region during the test period will have little or no effect
    on the
    fish population dynamics within Pool 14
    R.
    2648)
    Further,
    the island area where the thermal impact would be riost
    pronounced accounts for less than 10
    of
    the habitat in Pool 14 below
    the Quad—Cities station and any changes that may occur
    in the biota
    will be of little significance
    in the total ecology of
    this pooi.
    Any damage
    to the benthic communities
    is
    likewise expected to be
    minimal.
    In summary,
    it is the conclusion of
    the witness testifying on
    an
    ecological
    impact
    that
    the
    anticipated
    affects
    of
    the
    interim
    operation
    of
    the
    side-jet
    discharge on
    the total ecology of Pool 14
    appear to be minimal during the testing period when an increase of
    11.5°F. will not be exceeded.
    If the units are operated so that an
    4
    408

    increase is above 11.5°F., some environmental impact
    is
    likely.
    Assuming maximum operation of the station will cause increase to
    23°above ambient,
    immature fish unable
    to move
    from the area would be
    killed and benthic populations would be affected.
    Likewise,
    depletion
    of dissolved oxygen would have an adverse effect.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing consequences of such temperature
    increase,
    it is believed that the repopulation will occur and that
    recovery of
    the fishery would result within a period of two to three
    years
    (R.2656),
    In
    order
    to
    minimize
    such
    environmental
    impact,
    Applicants
    pro-
    pose
    to
    keep
    plant
    operation
    at
    or
    below
    400
    mw,
    increasing
    it
    beyond
    ~±is
    point
    only
    to
    the
    extent
    load
    demands
    require
    such
    increase.
    An
    eight
    hour
    limit
    on
    capacities
    above
    a
    total
    of
    1,000
    MW
    generation
    is
    also
    provided
    and
    service
    to
    interruptible
    customers
    would
    be
    interrupted
    when
    total
    output.
    exceeds
    1,000
    megawatts.
    We
    grant
    the
    modification
    as
    proposed
    because
    in
    our
    view
    the
    impact
    on
    the
    community
    likely
    to
    result
    from
    the
    suspension
    of
    electrical power during peak demands as
    a consequence of outages and
    other emergency situations is far greater than any likely damage
    to
    the ecology resulting from temperature increases of the river prior
    to installation of the diffuser discharge which damage, while substan-
    tial, would be reversible.
    Our original permit, which is modified by this
    Order,
    was granted
    pursuant to Section VI(a)
    of the Environmental Protection Act and re-
    lated essentially to radioactive emissions.
    Because of the affirni~ance
    by the Supreme Court of the United States of the 8th Circuit Court’s
    decision in Minnesota v. Northern States Power Company,
    447 Fed.
    2d
    1143
    (1971), holding that regulation of radioactive emissions from powei
    plants is preempted by the Federal Government,
    jurisdictional doubts
    have been raised concerning our permit authority generally.
    However,
    what Applicants seek by
    the present proceeding is,
    in substance,
    a
    variance from the limitations of #R70-l6 limiting thermal emissions in-
    to the Mississippi
    River.
    Our jurisdiction
    to promulgate and vary
    regulations of this nature
    is
    in no way affected by the Northern States
    Power Company decision,
    irrespective of what our permit authority may
    be as
    a consequence of the case.
    Applicants have correctly pursued
    their remedy before
    us.
    We treat petitioner’s request
    as avariance
    petition and grant
    it on that basis.
    This opinion constitutes
    the findings
    of fact and conclusions
    of
    ~aw of the Board.
    4
    409

    SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
    Paragraph
    5(b) of
    the permit dated November 16, 1971
    is deleted
    and in lieu thereof,
    the following paragraph
    is added allowing a
    variance from the Mississippi River Temperature Standards,
    #R70-l6:
    5.
    (b)
    On and after the date of this
    order, Units
    1 and
    2 shall be operated in full compliance with all provisions
    of SWB-l2 as amended by 4~R70—l6and or successor regulations
    with regard to heated discharges, except that until the
    diffuser discharge
    is installed and operating, but no
    later than August 15,
    1972, Units
    1 and
    2 may be operated:
    (1)
    For the purpose of testing either Unit up to its
    rated capacity of 809 MW,
    effluent temperatures during
    this period shall not exceed ambient river temperatures
    by more than 12 degrees
    F.;
    (2)
    For the purpose of meeting customer demands
    for
    electrical power,
    in accordance with
    the following operating
    steps:
    (a)
    At
    a
    total
    output
    not
    to
    exceed
    400
    MW;
    or
    (b)
    On any day when the applicants’
    daily
    load
    forecasts
    (including
    bona
    fide
    requests
    for
    emergency
    ~wer
    from
    other
    companies)
    exceeds
    the total estimated capacity available to them
    from any source
    (not including the last 182 MW of
    capacity from Powerton Units
    1 through 4),
    at a
    total output sufficient
    to meet the~dai1y load
    and in no event more than a total output of 1,000
    MW,
    or
    (c)
    On any day when the applicants’
    load
    forecasts
    (including bona
    fide requests
    fur emergency
    power
    from other companies)
    exceed the
    total estimated
    capacity
    available
    to
    them
    from
    any
    source
    (not
    including
    the
    last
    182
    MW
    of
    capacity
    from
    Powerton
    Units
    1
    through
    4)
    by
    an
    amount
    sufficient
    to
    require
    more than
    1,000
    MW
    total
    output
    from
    Units
    I
    and
    2,
    at
    any
    level
    of
    output
    required
    to
    meet
    the
    load,
    provided
    that
    total
    station
    output
    shall
    not
    be
    raised
    over
    1,000
    MW
    until
    after
    Commonwealth
    Edison
    has
    interrupted
    service
    to
    those
    of
    its
    customers
    whose
    service
    agreements
    allow
    for
    such
    interruptions.
    In
    no
    event
    shall
    total
    station
    output
    exceed
    1,000
    MW
    for
    more
    than
    eight
    hours
    fr
    any
    day.

    (d)
    The
    biological
    effects
    of
    operatIon
    at
    more
    than
    400
    NW
    without
    the
    diffuser
    tlischarge
    ~‘all
    be
    monitored
    by
    the
    applicants,
    and
    the
    results
    of
    such
    monitoring
    program shall be reported to the Environmental Protection
    Agency not later than December
    1,
    1972.
    I,
    Chris-tan Moffett, Clerk of the
    Illinois Pollutio~ontrol Board,
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Opinion
    was
    adopted on the ~
    ‘day of April,
    1972,
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    _____
    to
    /
    4— 411

    Back to top