ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1990
tOMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
)
ZION POWER STATION,
)
Petitioner,
)
V.
)
PCB 90—223
)
(Provisional Variance)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
At its last meeting, the Board issued its customary short
order granting Commonwealth Edison the provisional variance as
recommended by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency). The Board customarily does not describe the facts in
these cases, as the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act)
requires the Board to grant any provisional variance lawfully
recommended by the Agency as necessary to prevent “arbitrary or
unreasonable hardship”.
However, some public confusion has arisen as to the nature
and environmental effects of the Board’s action. The Board
accordingly is taking the unusual step of issuing this clarifying
Opinion.
What is a provisional variance?
The Environmental Protection Act now provides for two types
of variances “regular” variances and provisional variances
(Sections 35—38), although it originally provided only for the
“regular” variance. Regular variances can last up to 5 years.
Provisional variances can last no longer than 45 days, renewable
for a total of only 90 days in any calendar year. The purpose of
variances is to allow a source to lawfully operate during a
period in which it is, for example, upgrading equipment to meet
pollution control standards. The “price” to the source of
receiving a variance is commitment to conditions of operation to
minimize pollution during that period.
The Board has up to 120 days to process and to decide
requests for “regular variances”. The “regular” variance,
procedures require the publication of newspaper notice that a
variance request has been filed, and the holding of a public
117—159
—2—
hearing if a timely request for a hearing is made.
The provisional variance procedure was created by the
legislature in 1980 to solve a problem that was created by the
very procedures designed to maximize public input into the
variance process. Simply, on some occasions sources are faced
with temporary and unexpected situations which would be long over
before the “regular” variance procedures could be completed.
Under these circumstances, a source could not receive Board
review and approval of measures it might wish to take to minimize
pollution, and by the same token the state could not require that
specific steps be taken during the period of non—compliance.
So provisional variances were created to bypass the more
complicated variance procedures for use in short term and
emergency situations. The provisional variance request is made
to the Agency, and not the Board. The Agency investigates the
situation, determines whether an “arbitrary or unreasonable
hardship” exists, and decides what conditions are needed to
minimize environmental damage. The Agency has 30 day to process
the request. If it decides that a provisional variance should be
granted, the Agency, and not the Board, in a formal finding
states that grant of variance is warranted. The Agency then
sends the Recommendation to the Board, which has 2 days to act
upon the Agency recommendation.
The Board reads the provisional variance portions of the
statute as limiting its review to legal questions as the
shortness of the two day review period indicates legislative
intent that the Board defer to the Agency’s technical expertise
in these limited timeframe areas.
The facts of this case
In summary, the purpose of Commonwealth Edison’s provisional
variance request was to allow time to do needed maintenance work
on its waste water treatment plant (WWTP) Outfall 001(a) at its
nuclear fueled steam electric generating facility located on Lake
Michigan at Zion, Illinois. The variance allows Commonwealth
Edison to remove this Outfall for a maximum of 45 days from
service and to reroute the water normally treated there to
Outfall 001(e) (Unit 1 oil/water separator). A direct comparison
of “before and after” the grant of variance discharge limits is
not at present physically possible; direct comparison of numbers
produces an “apples and oranges” result.
The discharge from Outfall 001(a) is normally permitted to
allow a monthly average discharge, measured at the “end of the
pipe” of 15.0 mg/l of oil and grease and 15.0 mg/l of total
suspended solids. Due to the configuration of existing
equipment, the oil and grease TSS concentrations of existing
equipment, the rerouted wastewater cannot be measured at the “end
117—160
—3—
of the pipe” where it leaves the oil/water separator. Instead,
under the variance, it is being measured at a fire sump prior to
entry into the oil/water separator. At this point, prior to
entry into the separator which is expected to remove
approximately 80 of oil present in wastewaters (Agency Rec.
Par.6), the maximum allowable monthly average concentrations of
oil and grease and TSS under the variance are 75 mg/l.
In summary, if the oil/water separation works as intended,
the actual discharge to the Lake will not exceed 15 mg/i during
the pendancy of the variance. As mentioned earlier, the current
permit allows a discharge of 15 mg/l.
The variance Order provides that Commonwealth Edison is
required to maintain use of the oil water separator, and to:
perform all work as to return its Outfall
001(a) to service as soon as possible to
minimize the period of time that the facility
is out of service and operate its plant during
the term of this provisional variance in a
manner that assures the best effluent
practicable; (Board Order of November 29,
1990, Conditions 3,4).
As part of the “best effluent practicable” condition
The tCommonwealth Edison Zion station is
committed to taking the following actions to
reduce the generation of wastewaters and
minimize any environmental impact while
repairs to the WWTF are performed:
1. The station has minimized demineralizer
regenerative wastewaters because its permanent
dernineralizers are not being used.
The
station is making demineralized water with a
mobile package system which has its resin beds
regenerated off site. However, these mobile
demineralizer require occasional flushing.
2. Instructions will be given to all station
personnel to reduce wastewaters resulting from
station activities.
3. Temporary oil collection devices, i.e.,
oil booms, will be used throughout the station
to contain oil from getting into the
wastewaters.
117—161
—4—
4.
The wastewaters will be temporarily
routed to the Unit 1 oil/water separator for
treatment prior to discharge. (October 3,
1990, Commonwealth Edison letter, p. 3).
This variance was granted by the Board based on statements
made by the Agency, after its analysis of information supplied by
Commonwealth Edison and after its two inspection of the
Commonwealth Edison facility, that:
1)
Outfall 001(a) of the wastewater
treatment plant was “in critical need of some
maintenance repair work” (Agency Rec, Par. 3);
2) “the Agency agrees that the environmental
impact on Lake Michigan should be minimal”,
based on its agreement with Commonwealth
Edison’s statement that it expects the
environmental impact to Lake Michigan to be
negligible due to the relatively small
wastewater discharges involved, and because
Unit 1 oil/water separator will provide
treatment for oil” (October 3, 1990, letter,
p. 2); and
3) “the Agency believes that the petitioner
has chosen the best alternative for correcting
the problem and preventing catastrophic tank
failure” (Agency Rec. Par. 8).
J.D. Dumelle dissented.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif~ythat the above Supplemental Opinion was
adopted on the ~O~day
of
~
1990, by a vote
of
~—/
Dorothy M. 4~inn, Clerk
Illinois Pd~lutionControl Board
117—162