Site Description Report

Fisk Generating Station

	111 West Cermak Road

Chicago, IL 60608

August 4, 2009

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  As part of its site
visit to the Crawford Generating Station, EPA also collected information
on Midwest Generation’s Fisk Generating Station (Fisk).

Facility Description

Fisk is located on a 40 acre site on the South branch of the Chicago
River (just above the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) in downtown
Chicago.  The facility began operations in 1903 and operates under NPDES
permit IL0002178; the permit expired April 30, 2005 and has been
administratively extended.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Fisk is a coal-fired generating station with one generating unit and a
total generating capacity of 348 MW.  The unit came online in 1959.  The
facility operates as a baseload generating station, providing both
electricity and voltage support to the Chicago area.  The facility has
one scheduled outage per year for maintenance; outages vary from 10-50
days, depending on the extent of activities required.

Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

Fisk withdraws once-through cooling water from a shoreline CWIS located
near the end of a 1000 foot long intake canal.  The facility’s two
single speed circulating pumps have a combined design intake flow (DIF)
is 323 million gallons per day (mgd), including service water.

Water passes through a trash rack and into one of 4 screen bays, each
with an 8 foot wide coarse mesh (3/8”) traveling screen.  Screens are
rotated on a timer and debris and fish are deposited in a perforated
basket for dewatering and eventually disposed of in a landfill.  The
design through-screen velocity is 1.69 feet per second (fps).

The facility’s NPDES permit does not contain any 316(b) requirements.

The facility’s discharge point is approximately 1000 feet upstream of
the intake canal.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

Fisk conducted impingement and entrainment sampling in 2004-2005 in
preparation for complying with the now-suspended 2004 Phase II rule. 
Weekly impingement samples (not impingement mortality) were collected
for a 24-hour period.  A total of 1622 organisms were collected,
consisting of 26 species; eight species comprised 94% of the biomass
collected.  The projected total annual impingement was 32,987 organisms
per year. See Attachment B.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

In 2008, Midwest conducted a feasibility study for converting several of
its plants to closed-cycle cooling.  The study (conducted by Sargent &
Lundy) concluded that there is sufficient space to install wet cooling
towers at Fisk, but that the cost would be approximately $120 million. 
(See Attachment A.)  Facility representatives stated that financing and
other considerations would likely render installation of cooling towers
at this site impractical.

Debris Handling

Fisk screens a very large volume of trash from the river; approximately
60 tons of trash is removed each year.  Facility representatives noted
that Fisk is not permitted to return its screen wash water to the canal.
 Loading from other types of debris does not appear to be a major
operational concern.

Repowering/Future Uses

EPA did not collect any information about repowering at this site.

Cooling Ponds

	

There are no cooling ponds onsite.

Ownership

Fisk is owned by Midwest Generation, an investor-owned company and
subsidiary of Edison International.

316(a)

The facility’s NPDES permit does not contain any 316(a) limits.  The
Ship Canal is a man-made waterway, designed to convey POTW effluent and
is manipulated to provide flood control for the City of Chicago, as well
as accommodate heavy commercial barge traffic.  As such, it has less
stringent water quality standards for most pollutants, including
temperature.  Although Fisk discharges to the South Branch of the
Chicago River (just upstream of the official beginning of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal), it is subject to the same less stringent
thermal limits.  The station has been consistently able to meet the
existing thermal limits such that no 316(a) variance has been required.

Ash Handling

Fly ash is sent to an offsite landfill due to the use of activated
carbon injection (ACI) for mercury control.  The ACI system has been in
service since July 1, 2008; prior to the start-up of this unit, fly ash
was sold for beneficial reuse..

Air Emissions Controls

Fisk uses electrostatic precipitators for particulate control, overfired
air for NOx reduction, and activated carbon to remove mercury.

Attachment A		Engineering Diagram for Cooling Tower Locations at Fisk 

Attachment B	Executive Summary of Final Draft Impingement Mortality and
Entrainment Characterization Study, Fisk Station December 2007

	

Attachment A—Engineering Diagram for Cooling Tower Locations at Fisk

Please see the attached materials.

Attachment B—Executive Summary of Final Draft Impingement Mortality
and Entrainment Characterization Study, Crawford Station December 2007

Please see the attached materials.

 Fisk operated the first all steam-driven station in the US.

 Fisk’s gross capacity factor for 2009 was 59.6%.

 Per state law, the facility is prevented from returning anything back
to the waterbody.

 The study assumed that mechanical draft towers with plume abatement and
drift eliminators would be installed and that existing structures on the
site would need to be relocated.  The study did not consider permitting
or other technical feasibility concerns (e.g., conflicts with existing
piping); it was a capital cost estimate.

 PAGE   

 PAGE   3 

