ML20042A665
| ML20042A665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1981 |
| From: | Goodman I ILLINOIS, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042A610 | List: |
| References | |
| PCB-81-82, NUDOCS 8203230662 | |
| Download: ML20042A665 (10) | |
Text
.
l '-
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
( June 25, 1981 ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, ET AL., ) .
)
Petitioners, )
)
- v. ) PCB 81-82,-
) ,
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, )
)
Respondent. ) .
MR.. SHELDON A. ZABEL and MS. CAROLYN A. LOWN, Schiff, Hardin &
Maite, appeared on behalf of Petitioners, .
MS. MARY V. REEMANN and MR. ROBERT C. THOMAS, Technical Advisors, appeared on bahalf of yespondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):
, This Opinion supports the Order entered on May 28, 1981.
t On August 7, 1980 Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc.
(IPC) filed a petition to allow a daily average condenser effluent' temperature limitation of 99*F (37.2 C), and an absolute limitation of 108.3*F (42.4*C),'to' Lake Clinton when only one generating unit of the Clinton Power Station (Clinton Station) is operating. The prior regulatory proceeding relating to Lake Clinton (R75-2) had established a 96'F absolute limitation as alternative to that temperature which would have been required pursuant to Rule 203(i)
(4) of Chapter 3, the Board's Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.
That alternative temperature limitation was imposed pursuant to the procedure set forth in Rule 203(i)(10) and was listed as a regulation at Rule 203(i)(ll).
l The instant petition, first docketed PCB 80-143, proceeded as a regulatory natter (R80-17) pursuant to the procedure in Rule 203(i)(10), as ordered by the Board on September 4, 1980. On October 17, 1980, the Board ordered that hearings for docket R80-17 include proposed deletion of Rule 203(i)(11), which merely lists any alternative thermal effluent limitations granted by the Board pursuant to the procedure in Rule 203(i)(10). No objection 4 to this Order was made by anyone either in writing or during the hearing on December 12, 1980. On May 14, 1981 the Enar d ordered that the record of the IPC proceeding be incorporated into adjudi-j catory proceeding PCB 81-82. On May 28, 1981 the Board issued a proposed Order deleting Rule 203(i)(11) (R80-17) and an Order granting alternative thermal limitations from Clinton Station en r u-- ^
- 81-82)-
8203230662 8203'15' PDRADOCK05000pgg A
. y . .
- 2 4
Lake Clinton is an artificial cooling lake for nuclear-fueled
( Clinton Station currently under construction in DeWitt County by IPC. The station is designated to operate two generating units, each with a maximum capacity of 950 megawatts (net). The 5,000-acres lake was formed by damming two streams, Salt Creek and its -
north fork, downstream of their confluence. Water will be withdrawn from one arm (the north fork) to cool the condensers .
and will discharge into the other arm (Salt Creek) of the lake.
On July 31, 1975, prior to the final Order in~R75-2, the Board granted IPC variance from Rules 203(i)(5) and 402. The terms of this variance were then incorporated into Rule 203(i)(11) on August 14, 1975 in R75-2. The scope of this' proceeding extended to all the terms of t'he variance Order, as well as to daily average and absolute maximum temperature limitations given one-unit.
operation. On Sept' ember 30, 1975 the USEPA issued NPDES Permit No. 0036919 imposing similar terms to the variance--specifically, an absolute thermal limitation of 96*F and 'the use of spray cooling modules to achieve it (Pet., p.2). All of the above legal proceedings concluded before construction of Clinton Station was completed and at a time when two generating units were planned for service. It is the delayed startup date of the second unit, for some ten years, which prompted this petition.
At hearing, IPC updated and supplemented its demonstration f' under Rule 203(i)(10) (which had been presented in 1975 for the variance petition, the proceeding R75-2, and the USEPA pursuant to $316(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S1251, et seq.).
That modeling study was inherently nonrepresentative of cooling lake temperatures and currents, and it.s results as to Luke Clinton were at the time unverifiable because Lake Clinton had not then been created (R.14-15). In 1977 the Laterally Averaged Reservoir Model (LARM) uas developed by a person whom IPC's consultant had hired regarding the demonstration in this proceeding. This model l
represents a vast improvement in 1975 modeling techniques; not l
only can it account for longitudinal and vertical physical characteristics of a cooling lake, meteorological data and hydrological data, but it can include the effects of various hydraulic structures of a power station.
LARM's results were validated using data derived from the year 1978; its results are not valid for early or late summer, although the results which are valid are conservative for several reasons. The year 1978 was the fourth warmest summer in the past i 26 years, and 1955 the first warmest. Results were projected for 92% and 100% foadings, where an average loading of only 87% will occur (R.16-8). Finally, the temperature criteria which establish j minimum and maximum temperatures for fish and other lake life
- behaviors (e.g., survival, reproduction, cold shock) are inten-tionally conservative ones (R.30-2). Consultants of IPC who
( testified at hearing concluded that LARM for Lake Clinton was i verified from 1978 year data (and that therefore its results are reliable) (R.19); the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) was without reservation at hearing as to these matters
=- . _ - _ ._. - ___
3 o .
(R.81). The Board notes that no person contra'dicted any witness'
(' testimony. The Board finds that the modeling results afford reliable predictions and finds that any question of reliability as to early or late summer periods is more than answered by the conservative nature of many data points and assumptions used as input. .
The modeling was performed to support the proposition that one-unit operation without any temperature limitation upon Clinton Station discharges will produce lower overall cooling lake temperatures than will two-unit operation at an absolute maximum limitation of 96*F, the prior applicable limitation. IPC's .
petition seeks 99*F as a daily average maximum limitation, and
- 108.3*F as an absolute maximum limitation, during one-unit l operation only. ,
LARM's resul'ts were that the maximum possible temperature which would be discharged by one-unit operation at .100% loading would be, under the warmest summer conditions, 108.3 F. Other results were that tempe,ratures over 96 F would occur only at lake bottom in the immediate vicinity of the condenser discharge point and only at relatively . shallow surf ace levels in the remainder of the lake. One-unit ope' ration wo61d result in lower lake temper--
ature than two-unit operation at a maximum limitation of 96 F except at the intake st'ructures (R.18-9). Finally, 81% of the volume of the lake's upper arms will warm to no higher than 9C*F f and would therefore be available for temperature refuge (R.72).
Only rarely would one-unit operation cause temperatures to exceed
' 96*r outside the months of July through September, and then they would not exceed 96.5 F.(R.22). :
IPC also produced evidence on the impact of its thermal effluent upon the ecological aquatic balance of the diverse bio-
- logical community within the lake. IPC performed a survival and grcwth analysis of the same eight species of fish. analyzed in its 1975 study and of the trophic level plants and animals (which are than are fish). Four families less sensitive to high temperaturg h' j(,j'of f1Y;hTwith dEf terent reedingQoa cullheads and temperature sensitivities, and white and black were chosen. The species of blac crappie may not be representative of species found in Illinois cooling lakes (R.25-6, 61).
The ecological analysis considered both 1955 and 1978 years l
l data, particularly meteorological and stream flow conditions, except that regarding reproduction the assumption was made that conditions in 1955 alone, regardless of the existence of heat input from Clinton Station, would severely inhibit reproduction. A further assumption was made that only the bluegill and channel catfish species spawn during the July-to-September months (R.23).
The entire LARM demonstration was dependent upon the l reliability of certain critical temperatures used as input. IPC~
followed USEPA protocol on the matter (R.23-4), although USEPA's temperature criteria do not account for adaptation, genetic variability, or for water body type (R.31-2), and therefore are
4 s
not cooling lake-specific. These critical. temperatures, derived
( from literature in the field, were compared with LARM's modeling of lake temperature distribution to determine the extent and location of areas having too-warm temperatures for survival and growth during the warmest periods of the summer months. Historical monitoring records of IPC were used to define the preferred (or most typical) habitats within the lake for each species. The use of this procedure was conservative in nature to the extent that other areas of habitat are available for spawning. The areas of preferred habitat were then compared with areas modeled to ha.ve acceptable survival temperature limitations to determine the percentage of each preferred habitat area which would be available ~
for each species' spawning (R.24).
The results, given one-unit operation without any maximum temperature limitation, were that the five fish species which are most representative of those found in Illinois cooling lakes will maintain their populations; that there will.be more available preferred habitat areas for spawning purposes; that'there will be no cold shock impact (o.a., in the event that Clinton Station ceases its thermal discharge); and that beyond the immediate
~
vicinity of the condenser, a minimum degree of trophic impact will occur (R 24-6). Again, even these the favorable results are based on USEPA's thermal criteria, the several conservative factors:
warmer-than-average meteorological conditions, and the limitation of spawning areas to preferred rather than available habitats.
Finally, IPC's lease to the Illinois Department of Conservation
(
of 10,000 acres in and around Lake Clinton, and its joint efforts with that Department to enhance use of the lake as a sport fishery (R.27 ), will assure that one-unit operation over the next ten years will not result in the spoiling of the lake for recreational use or as a sport fishery. The Board is satisfied that one-unit operation will not produce unacceptable lake conditions.
Furthermore, IPC produced evidence, derived from data from existing Illinois cooling lakes, that the total net impact of its thermal input will have less adverse ecological impact than the demonstration indicates. This is primarily because of the fact that spawning dates are caused by acceptable temperatures generally, rather than by acceptable temperatures at the right time of year (R.35-6). Even though one-unit operation given 1978 weather con-ditions would eradicate 20% of the bluegill and 55% of the channel catfish preferred spawning habitats (R.34), and given 1955 weather conditions would not enable black and white crappie to survive (R.41), the relatively warm year-round temperature conditions in the lake can offset any reduction in fish populations. Fish stocking can also offset any reduction. Not only can coolingunlike lakes provide protection against unseasonably cold weather, natural lakes (R.36, 38), but cooling lakes provide an extended growth season (which can extend the fishing season) and, finally, seem to~ increase fish size. Clinton Lake will average over 50 F for ten of twelve months (R.38-0). These findings have support
( in several studies done during the mid-1970's.
, , . 5
(- The rew its of one study were that although the short-tern --
maximum surv;eal temperature for largemouth bass fry is 80.6 F, growth of this species was almost doubled at exposure to temper-atures of 86 *P as oppose'd to 68 *F (R.37). This is further evidence of the conservative nature of the LARM results which are based.
upon critical temperature limitations. Studies of Baldwin Lake found that, although during the entire month of July of 1980 temperatures at the intake structure of the power station exceeded the short-term maximum survival temperature fo'r crappie by 5 F, these fish survived even without established preferred habitats and with only a single limited area of refuge, which are not tht conditions at the Lake Clinton (R.41). The Board notes with -
interest the testimony that artificial lakes which are not cooling lakes typically thrive as fisheries for five years but then decline, whereas Lakes Baldwin and Sangchris have thrived as fir?eries i for e
eleven and fourt.cen years respectively (R.43).
There is much evidence in the record of continued efforts to monitor survival and growth of the fish populations of Lake Clinton and the continued development of the area as a fishing and.recrea-tional site. Vertical p,rofiles of water chemistry, derived from samples of 23 parameters t,aken at 1-meter-depth intervals at eight-
~
lake and two downstream , lake locations, are being gathered for
~
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity (R.43).
Testimony established th,at fish are more sensitive to low oxygen 7
levels than to high temperature levels, but that oxygen depletion occurs at' levels below the twenty-foot stratum where preferred s
habitats are found (R.58-0). When the lake was first filled, oxygen levels were approximately 4 parts per million in the top eight meters ~of the lake; however, this situation is improving (R.68-9). Fish and trophic level plants and animals are monitored quarterlyat seven lake and two downstream lake locations. The Department of Conservation performs a fishery survey and IPC a fisherman's creel survey (R.44). These activities serve not only to detect changes in the lake's ecology, but to establish various types of baseline data which will be useful in assessing impact of two-unit operation, expected in the year 1991. IPC's studies can distinguish between the effects of its stocking the lake and the effects of its thermal input (R.64).
Neither the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency nor the Illinois Department of Conservation have objected to IPC's petition.
Similarly, by letter of September.19, 1980 to the Agency the USEPA expresses approval. The Board has received no public comment from persons or entities other than the Agency and Illinois Power Company.
Although the temperature limitations in Rule 203(i) (4 ) may be achieved by the installation of spray cooling modules, IPC j asserts that not only is this technology over five years old, but
, when two-unit operation begins ten or more years from now, IPC 1 would like to have flexibility to consider other appropriate control methodologies. Furthermore, as Illinois Power Company's t
1 6
...e*
- 6 I
L l
'[ '
comment points out, the Agency's permit issuance authority could be compromised were the Board to require the use of only a specific technology prior to the time that Clinton Station is operated with both generating units when other technology exists which can provide 1
adequate environmental protection. The Board finds that the use of -
spray cooling modules is unnecessary to meet the limitations in its
- Order of May 28, 1981. -
IPC testified as to the necessitp of impos'ing conditions similar, to'those imposed in the prior variance, e.g.: . (1) submittal l of a lake management plan to the Department of Conservation; (2) i allowing the public access to the lake for recreational < purposes;
- (3) the invocation of specific startup and shutdown procedures to minimir,e the affects of cold shock; (4) developing the lake's ecological' environment; and (5) regular reporting of environmental data to the Agency.' At hearing the Agency offered no evidence or ,
objection to deletion of these conditions. The Agency's comment
- (issued undcr RBO-17) recommends that most'of these conditions j should remain in cffect; the responsive comment of Illinois Power
! Company refutes the Agency on every point. The Board finds that,
! for the reasonryexpressed in this opinion, none of the conditions remains necessary. -
! The Board finds 'that compliance with Rule 203 (1)(4 ) by IPC at j this time would impose an arbitrary hardship upon it. Not only l /
are cooling mudules, the sole existing technology for compliance, extremely expensive ($29 million in 1983 dollars, August of'1983 being the scheduled date of startup of the initial generating unit, R.51, 71), but there is no evidence in the record of the impact of cooling modu'les upon the ecological community. Their installation
- will disrupt lake currents and, therefore, change preferred habitat j locations and sizes. Moreover, they can create area fogging and 1 are capabic of emitting particulate matter. The Board is not convinced that better technology at a lower cost will not exidt in the future such,as to make a large expenditure at this time, and during interin operations before both units become on line, unreasonable. The evidence in this record compels the conclusion that one-unit operation will produce insignificant effects on the ecalogical community of. Lake Clinton.
This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Board in' this matter, j I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
' control Boag'd, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted on the 45' day of %W _/ , 1981 by a vote of
- 0 .
g
. Vu ; T) '//
{ Christan L. Moff9 ,, lerk Illinois Polluti6n ~ ntrol Board i . ;
. . - - _ _ _ - - . , - - . _ , - - , _ , . . . _ . _ . - . . . . . _ . . . . _ _ , _ _ .m.,
. - _ = . ._. - - -_~ _ - . . . ..
/ .
F], )
le -
' eyN
'b
'^cO,", ,fRibb,h!"S ^ ' " " ' " POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 560*R W ikd W)e&
NELS ERNER i-JOAN G ANDERSON 309 WEST WASHINGTON STREET SUITE 300 WE ST E RN SPRINGS. iL LINOIS CHICAGO, ILLINOtS 60606 IHVIN G. GOODMAN TELEPHONE
. OAK BROOK. lLLINOIS 312 793 3620 r,
August 24, 1981 TO ALL PARTIES CONCERNED:
RE: R80-17, IN THE MATTER OF: REPEAL OF RULE 203 (i) (11) (aa) OF CHAPTER 3:
WATER POLLUTION RULES AND REGULATIONS Enclosed please find a certified ccpy of the PROPOSED OPINION adopted on August 20, 1981 for the above captioned matter.
Very truly yours, Q Q o i, Christan L.
Clerk of the Boar
'}
Encl.
t i
4
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD August 20, 1981 IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
REPEAL OF RULE 203(i)(ll)(aa) OF CHAPTER 3: ) R80-17 WATER POLLUTION RULES AND REGULATIONS )
PROPOSED OPINION OF THE BOARD (by I. Goodman):
This Opinion is in support of the Order adopted on May 28, 1981, which initiated first notice of repeal of Rule 203(i)(ll)(aa; of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Rules and Regulations.
A proposal was filed before the Board by Illinois Power Company, Soyland Power Cooperative, Inc., and Western Illinois Power Cooperative, Inc. (IPC) on August 7, 1980 to amend Rule 203 (i)(11)(aa), which listed alternative thermal effluent standards and limitations for Lake Clinton, an artificial cooling lake con-structed for the operation of Clinton Power Station by IPC. On October 17, 1980 the Board ordered the scope of the hearing for that proposal to include whether Rul'e 203(i)(11)(aa) should be deleted as an unnecessary listing of alternative limitations and standards applicable to cooling lakes. No objection from IPC, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), or other persons or entities was received by the Board. Hearing was held on December 12, 1980 meeting the requirements of Rule 203(i)(10).
On May 14, 1981 the Board ordered that that part of R80-17 concerning IPC's petition for alternative thermal standards be mado docket PCB 81-82, and that the instant docket retain the Board's proposal to delete Rule 203(i)(11)(aa). The proposal to delete the rule is not substantive in nature. On May 28, 1981 the Board issued an order proposing deletion of the rule.
On June 28, 1977, the Board had amended Rule 203(i)(10)(cc) to provide for an adjudicatory hearing for petitions seeking thermal limitations alternative to those required by Rule 203(i)(4).
Alternative limitations granted pursuant to Rule 203(i)(10)
Previously were listed in Rule 203(i)(11)(aa). (R77-7.)
The Board finds that no purpose is served by Rule 203(i)(11)
(aa), and that in fact the rule is in conflict with the specific procedure given in Rule 203(i)(10) for alternative standards.
There is confusion as to whether Petitioners who seek alternative standards should seek to anend the rule which lists them (203(i)
(11)(aa)) or to obtain relief pursuant to the specifically estab-lished procedure (203(i)(10)). The problem is exacerbated when, as was the case with IPC, a petitioner already operates under alternative standards but seeks amendments to those alternative standards, s
2 The resulting confusion serves only to increase delay and to make relief more costly to obtain, both for Petitioners and for the Board and the Agency.
For these reasons the Board deleted Rule 203(i)(11)(aa).
Alternative standards, when granted via Rule 203(i)(10), shall be enforceable by NPDES permit rather than by both permit and Board rule. Deletion of the rule, being procedural in nature, in no way affects or conflicts with the Act, the Clean Water Act, or other applicable statutes.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution that the above opinion was adopted Control on Board, the Q0 N dayhereby of k}4certify 9 # , 1981 by a vote of 8. n .
O t<_ )XY*lCSb Christan L. Moffet lerk Illinois Pollution ntrol Board l
l l
- .S a
.y h$,
J STATE OF ILLINOIS DON A LD P. S ATCHE L L o
a cfao,A nT!',;s,",""^~ POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD *^"" " ^ ' " * '5 309 WEST WASHINGTON STREET SulTE 300 NE JOAN G ANDERSON H C AGO. L INO'S M sT E MN SPR8NGS. ILL*N0'S CH3CAGO. ILLINOIS 60G06 IRVIN G GOODMAN TE'E""0NE 1 O Aa BROOK, #LLINOa5 312 793 3620 October 14, 1981 TO ALL PARTIES CO!iCER!iED:
4 RE: R80-17, I!! THE MATTER OP: REPEAL OF RULE 203 (i) (11) (aa) OF CHAPTER 3: WATER POLLUTIO!! RULES A!iD REGULATIO!iS i
! 1 Enclosed please find a certified copy of the ADOPTED RULE, FI!iAL ORDER of the Board adopted on October 8, 1981 in the above cap-tiened matter.
Very truly yours, Mw %
ev ,
3 Christan L. Moffett Clerk of the Board ;
- Enclosure cc
- Environmental Control Divisions, Office of the Illinois Attorney General Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
! CLM/pw I
)
. . . _ - . _ - _ _ , . . - ., , . . . , , . , , . , _ , . . _ , _ _ , , , . . - _ . -