ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 31, 1973

COMMONWEALTH EDISON

COMPANY

)

(Dresden Unit #3)

)

#72—350

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

A. DANIEL FELDMAN AND MARX H. VIRSHBO OF ISHAM,

LINCOLN &

BEALE,

APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

NICHOLAS G. DOZORYST II,

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,

APPEARED

ON BEHALF

OF RESPONDENT

OPINION OF THE BOARD (BY SAMUEL T. LAWTON, JR.):

This opinion is in support of our Order of March 29, 1973,

extending the variance heretofore granted petitioner with respect

to Sections 201 and 203(i) of the Water Pollution Regulations in

the operation of its Dresden Nuclear Power Station. The order

extends the variance to November 23, 1973.

On November 23, 1971, we entered an Opinion and Order which,

among other things, provided as follows:

“2. Edison is hereby granted a variance from the 5°

F. limitation of SWB-8 during the winter months under the

following conditions:

(a) The variance shall end on November 23, 1972; and

(b) If Edison seeks to extend the variance beyond

that date to September of 1973 when it is con-

templated that the cooling lake will be operated

closed cycle, Edison shall file a petition for

variance with the Board not later than ninety

(90) days prior to November 23, 1972.”

The provisions of SWB-8 with respect to temperature limits

outside of the mixing zone, have been superceded by Sections 201

and 203(i) of the Water Pollution Regulations.

On August 23, 1972, a petition was filed asking extension of

the variance to November 23, 1973. On September 28, 1972, the Agency

filed its recommendation, in which it recommended extension of the

8—129

---

variance as requested, subject to the condition that petitioner

submit progress reports to the Agency every two months~

On October 10,

1972,

we entered an Order extending

the variance

to January 22, 1973 and specified therein, certain matters which

we wanted to have developed in the hearing record as follows:

the extent of the need for Dresden power in view

of

the recent

Quad—Cities plant startup; the degree of improved

water quality

in

this reach of the Illinois River as a result

of improved

treatment

upstream by both the GAP Corporation and the Metropolitan Sanitary

District

of

Greater Chicago;

and the degree to

which the river

diffuser acts as a barrier

to the

passage of

fish.

An amended petition was filed on

December 8,

1972 setting forth,

in substance, as follows:

That the variance originally granted

was in contemplation of Edison constructing a maximum recycle,

liquid

radioactive waste treatment facility,

which would allow closed cycle

operation of the Dresden cooling lake and spray canal system; that

the present petition was filed pursuant to the terms of the original

order and that petitioner incorporates in its present petition all

matters previously included in the record with respect to the nature

of its business, the estimate of

contaminants discharged; the equipment

involved and the time schedule to achieve compliance.

The petition

goes on to state that a more complex waste treatment facility is

to

be installed than originally contemplated which will not

be completed

until February 1, 1974,

The basic premise of petitioner~s

variance request is that the

continuing capacity of the Dresden station will be needed until

completion of the treatment facility in order to enable Edison

to

complete required maintenance on other generator units in its system

in order that system capacity will

continue to

meet customer demand.

Petitioner alleges that

the

continued open cycle operation of the

Dresden station discharge from November 23, 1972 until

completion

of the treatment facility will not adversely affect present water

quality of the Illinois River and that the harm which would result

from Edison~s inability to continue to perform needed maintenance

on other generating units in its system, would far outweigh any

potential injury to the Illinois River.

The amended

petition seeks a

variance of the relevant sections

until April 1,

1974. Hearing was held

on

the petition~ While peti-

tioner has not

installed its diffuser and accordingly does not indicate

how such diffuser would act as a barrier

to the

passage of fish, we

feel that in all other respects, Edison has substantiated the basis

on which a variance should be extended and has likewise responded to

the questions previously posed to

it in our earlier Order. However,

in order to enable the Board to make an

additional examination before

the expiration of the current calendar year, we do not extend

the

variance for the time sought by the amended petition,

but only to

—2—

8

—

---

November 23, 1973

as sought

in the original petition.

Any

addi-

tional extension may be sought by resort

to the procedures hereto-

fore employed.

The record supports the allegations that the closed cycle

cooling lake and related facilities

are in the process of implemen-

tation and achievement of the February 1, 1974 date for completion

appears likely.

New standards of the

AEC

require the modification

of plans with respect to the close cycle cooling lake in order to

comply with these standards.

Upgrading of the treatment system

to

meet radioactive levels of effluent necessitates this modifica-

tion.

Dr. ~illiain W. Sayre (R.22

) stated that during the 13 month

period between

October, 1971 through October, 1972, calculated

ambient temperatures exceeding the 5°F. departure from the standard

“probably” occurred only on 6 days and “possibly” occurred on 61

days.

Taking all 6 probable excess days together, the amount by

which temperatures at the edge of a mixing zone exceed~ithe permitted

maximum of 5°F. over ambient ranged from 0.2°F. to 2.6°F. As to

the 61 days

in the possible excess category, the amount by which the

temperature at the edge of the mixing zone exceeded the permitted

maximum, would,

on the same basis, be no more than 1.7°F.

Dr. Byron G. Johnson testified (R.l05) on behalf of petitioner

to the effect that the thermal input, even including the excess above

noted, would not have an adverse effect on the fish population in

the vicinity of the Dresden station.

Lastly, the testimony of Richard N. Maatz (R.18O) supports

petitioner’s contention that operation of the Dresden station up

to its full capacity is necessary to meet the projected summer 1973

peak load. Petitioner’s estimated peak load for summer, 1973 is 12,810

mw which is a 6.8 increase over the peak load for summer, 1972. The

planned total capacity for summer, 1973 is 14,796 mw, which includes

Dresden’s station of 1,800 mw. This leaves a plant reserve of 1,986

mw or 15.6, but also assumes the availability of Zion Unit #1

capacity in the amount of 935 mw, which is not presently available

in that quantity. Furthermore, outages and other limitations in use

could reduce actual reserve for summer, 1973, to as little as 613 mw

or 4.9, which would be inadequate to protect against the sudden loss

of a major unit.

In addition, as brought out by witness Robert J. Engle (R. l~1)

monthly limitations and forced outages require the availability of

the Dresden station in order to perform maintenance on other generating

units during non-peak periods until completion of the closed cycle

cooling lake.

—3—

6—131

---

We feel that the factors justifying the original grant

of variance continue to the present date. The burdefl on the

public

in being denied the availability of the Dresden

units

during both peak and non-peak periods is far greater than any

damage to the environment that might result from the temperature

excursions contemplated by the continuing operation of the

facility until completion of the closed cycle cooling lake.

Mr.

Dumelle dissents.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify

that the above Opinion was adopted on the

3/’~

day of May, 1973,

byavoteof

,~

to

______.

—4—

8

—