ILLINOTh

~OLNUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

Fehr~:av

28,

1974

i~oo~

be

tina~

PCB

73—482

~~7j~’T~T

PRO’i

AGENCY,

Respondea.

~r.

~b~Idon

A.

ZaP~G, Attorney,

on behalf of Petitioner;

Mr.

JoLn

T. Bernb~, Attorney,

on behalf of

Respondent.

JNL~N

~GN,ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Seaman):

~vember

14,

1973,

Illinois Power Company filed

a

~aI~:a(~

for Variance which this Board found to be

so

lackPn~

in

substance

and detail that Petitioner was

ordered

tD

f~e an amended petition.

Petitioner

submitted

the

roqn~rect

information

on January

14,

1974.

Petitioner

is the owner and operator

of

a coal—fired

tOectric power generating station near Hennepin,

Putnam

onnty1

Illinois.

Petitioner requests

a three—month variance

~:om

tTh December

31,

1973 compliance date required by Rule

(raspended and total dissolved solids)

of Chapter

3:

vinter

Pollution Regulations

of Illinois.

The

Agency,

in

its Recommendation,

states that wastewater

from

otitioner~s generating

station

is presently discharged

Gii:ec~1~v into

the Illinois

River via two separate waste

~t~oans.

One waste

stream

is made up of untreated wastewater

from Pntitioner~s demineralizer regenerant,

ash hopper overflowr

from Unit

I and

2 Boilers,

and non—contact condenser

cooling

water.

The second waste stream is composed of wastewater

from Petitioner’s

Unit

1 and

2 ash basin lagoons.

Petitioner

suomits

no information on this point.

The Agency Recommendation informs

us that Petitioner’s

ash basin lagoons rarely discharge

an effluent due to evapo-

ration and due

to percolation attributable

to the permeable,

sandy soil

of the locale and that Petitioner’s

untreated

wastewater discharge does not have

a noticeable adverse en-

vironmental

impact upon the

Illinois

River.

We note

thth

broad conclusions of this nature would better aid our de-

liberations

if supported by specific

data.

The term “manly”

is not helpful

in this context and the effluent percolated

through sandy soil might well reach the river by

a

different

route,

Test

results

of

recent Agency

effluc:nt:

qr

P

550Oles

i.naiicate

the

following:

---

—2—

Suspended

Total

Dissolved

Date

Solids

(mg/i)

Solids

(mg/i)

Jan 1/73

8

360

Sep 25/73

85

480

Petitioner obtained Agency approval of Project Completion

Schedules and an Agency Construction Permit for re—routing

and collecting of the Unit

1

&

2 ash hopper overflows and

demineralized regenerant wastewater into the Unit

1

&

2

ash basin lagoons for treatment prior to release into the

River.

The Agency believes that the completion of these

projects will assure compliance with Rule 408.

The permits and associated Project Completion Schedules.

show the anticipated completion date to be December 31,

1973.

Petitioner alleges that the mechanical work associated with

its project cannot be completed before March

31,

1974,

and

variance is sought to that date.

The primary reason advanced by Petitioner to justify

the grant of the subject variance is the alleged delay

encountered in procuring materialsand equipment.

On

May 1,

1972, Petitioner issued a work order to its consulting

engineer to begin the work intended to comply with Rule 408.

By July of 1972, Petitioner determined in principle to proceed

with certain changes and began preparing the necessary

mechanical design and engineering.

By May 11,

1973, Petitioner

submitted a permit application to the Agency for the Hennepin

facility.

The Agency notes that though delay in filing

a

permit application until May of 1973 appears unusually long,

Petitioner apparently believed at the time of this submittal

that timely compliance was possible.

A permit for the

Hennepin facility was issued on August

8,

1973.

The Agency believes that Petitioner reasonably anticipated

that timely compliance could be met if contracts were awarded

by September

1,

1973.

On August 14,

1973,

a piping contract

was awarded.

The Agency notes that pumps for the Hennepin

project were ordered as early

as March

19, 1973.

The

shipping date for the pumps was scheduled for October 1973.

As of the date of the Amended petition

(January 11,

1974)

the pumps had not yet been shipped.

Similar delays were

experienced in the shipment of piping.

Though substantial

portions of the piping are presently on site,

the balance of

the piping had not been delivered as of the date of the Amended

Petition.

Delays in the shipment of pumps resulted in delays

in the installation of related electrical equipment.

Petitioner

attempted to mitigate delays be refurbishing existing electrical

equipment.

We are satisfied that the facts as presented by Petitiore::

indicate that the delays encountered were substantially

beyond its control and that the Petitioner took reasonable

measures to avoid delay.

11—392

---

—3—

This

Opinion

constitutes

the

findings

of

fact

and

conclusions

of

law

of

the

Board.

ORDER

~T IS

THE

ORDER of the Pollution Control

Board that

Illinois Power Company be granted

a variance,

as

regards

its Hennecin facility,

from Rule

408

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution Renulations, until March

31,

1974.

IT

IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, certify ttht

the

above Oninion and Order

was

adopted

on

this

~

day of

~

by

a

vote

of

~