ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

December 20,

1984

COMMONWEALTH

EDISON COMPANY,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

PCB 84~33

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

)~

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(By J. Thedore Meyer):

This matter comes

before the Board on a Petition for

Vari-

ance filed by Commonwealth

Edison Company (Commonwealth)

on

March

21,

1984,

which was amended

on April 27

pursuant to a Board

Order of April

5,

1984 requesting additional information.

Within

twenty~onedays of

notice a. the Petition being published, written

objections were

received by’ the Board: from three citizens.

Pursuant to Section

3

of the Environmentai Protection Act

(Act),

hearing was authorized

on May 29, 1984.

The Il1ino~s

Environ-

mental Protection

Agency’s

(A~gency):Recommendation was filed on

June

3, 1984~ Petitioner twice

waived the ninety day decision

period; decision on this

matter is now due on or before December

26,

1984~.

Hearing was held

on

November 14,

1984, where

only

one

member of the public in addition

to

the

parties in this

matter,

was ~re~ent~

Petitioner

is seeking

variance from ~ectians 302.211(e)

and

3O2~2ii(f)of the Board’s water

pollution regulations

ontained

in

35 IlL Adm~

Code:

Subtitle c.

Section 302.211(e) sets out

the maximum allowable

water temperatures for representative

locations on the receiving

river,

These general use temperature

standards are appliable

to the lower portion of the Des Plaines

River, commonly known as the

Five Mile Stretch,

Petitioner’s

Joliet Generating Station

(Joliet Station)

is located seven

miles

upstream and has two

discharges into the river~ Prior to codif

i—

cation

these

thermal

standards. were

found

in

Rule 203(i)(4)

and

were known as the ~‘other

waterw standards..

Although the standards

were adopted in 1973,

they did not take effect until

1978.

When

adopting the limits,

the Board believed that the water quality

would be sufficiently

improved, ~o that temperatures would be a

relevant and limiting

factor.

Petitioner acknowledges

that there has been some improvement

in water quality in the Five

Mile Stretch.

Commonwealth’s own

monitoring studies

show improvement in water quality.

Specific-

ally, there has been a

62-01

---

—2—

t:icns

over

the last three

years, and that the diversity and

abundance of fish in this

stretch

have

increased

(Appendix

3)~

petit:ioner also

acknowledges

that the general use thermal

standard

was

exceeded in

1983,

although there were no exceedances

in

1982

(hppendix

2, R~l6)~

In

order to comply, Commonwealth

would have to either

derate

the

unit.s

at

the

Joliet

Station

or

install

a

closed

cycle

coolinp

system

utilizing cooling towers,

spray

canals

or

cooling

ponds0

The

latter

two cooling systems are not available due to space

~mitations.

Natural

or

mechanical

draft

cooling

towers

pose

economica1,~technical,

a~dpossible

environmental

problems.

In

1975,,

tower

installation~was

estimated

at

$21,750,000.

The

resulting

increased

auxiliary

power

and

decreased

efficiency

would reduce the

generating

capability by

2.5

to

3

percent.

Environmentally, the

towers

would reduce the downstream flow

to

the

Des Plaines River,

which

could cause increased concentration

of chemical

contaminants~

Furthermore,

a 1980 study indicated

that

the

operation of the

towers may also cause fogging along

U,S~,

Route

6,

Interstate

~oute 80 and in the Village of Rockdale0

Ftnalv,

derating could result

in a loss in generation of 153,000

megawatt hours per

year,

with direct economic costs of $1.5

r~i:Liion per

year~

peticioner

also

seeks

variance from Section 302.211(f),

Thich requires

a

showing

that

a

plant’s

discharge

has

not

caused

act

cannot

reasonably

be

expected to cause significant ecological

bacac

to

the

environments

Petitioner argues that that

showing

has

bccu’made

in

each of two

prior

variance

proceedings.

In

the

aIi:ernati’ce

to a finding that

Section 302.211(f)

has been satis—

11Th

Petitioner requests the variance so that it may be allowed

~

~

that

showing

formally

and

in

compliance

with

the

Board’s

p~:c~aaaj

rules after

the

water

quality

of

the

river

is

improved

to aTh

ratent

that

temperature

is

a

limiting

factor.

F1~1ly,

Petitioner

believes

that

the

information

gathered

s:Lcce

1972

on

temperature,

physical

and

biological

character-

istics

on

the Five Mile

Stretch

and

used

to

develop

its

studies,

demonstrates

that

the

temperature

of

its

discharges

is

not

a

limitin

factor upon

the

aquatic ecology of the lower Des Plaines

River0

This

belief

will

either be verified or modified during

the

re~isions

of

the

water

quality standards for the Stream

Segment

which

includes

the

Five Mile Stretch.

With its Recommenda~

tion,

the

Agency does not

disagree with any of the facts or

allegations contained

in

the Petition.

The Agency recommends

that based on this, variance should be granted for three years.

The

citizen participant at hearing likewise does not object to

variance being granted

(R0

55).

T’~qice

befo~atommonwealth

has

sought

and

received

similar

variances0

The tirst

was

granted

by

the

Board

on

May

25,

1978

until

April

2,

1981

(30

PCB

315);

the

second

on

June

10,

1981

until

July

1,

1984

(42

PCB

55).

The

facts

and

circumstances

have

62-02

---

—3-.

changed little.

Although

the

water

quality

has improved,

it

has

not yet changed to the extent that the Petitioner’s thermal

discharges are a limiting factor.

The Board finds that it would

be arbitrary and unreasonable at this time to require Commonwealth

to comply with the thermal limitations contained in Section

302.211(e)

given the high cost of compliance in relation to the

expected environmental benefit.

Likewise,

it would be unreasonable

for Commonwealth to engage in a thermal demonstration pursuant to

Section 302.211(f)

at this time.

As stated in the Board’s last

order granting variance to Commonwealth,

“.,.the results would

not be completely reliable since the major pollution problems in

the lower Des Plaines River are

other than

thermal ones.”

(42

PCB 55, at 57).

Variance from Sections 302.211(e)

and

(f)

is

hereby granted for the Joliet Station for three years.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It

is the order of the Pollution Control Board that Common-

wealth Edison be granted variance from July

1,

1984 until July 1,

1987 for its Joliet Generating Station from the requirements of

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 302.211(e) and 302.211(f) subject to the follow-

ing conditions:

1.

Commonwealth Edison Company shall submit annual thermal

monitoring reports to the Illinois Environmental Protec-

tion Agency.

2.

Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,

Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Con-

trol Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois

62706,

a Certificate of Acceptance and agreement to be

be bound to all terms and conditions of this variance.

This forty-five day period shall be held in abeyance

for any period during which this matter is appealed.

The form of the certificate shall be as follows:

CERTIFICATE

I,

(We),

,

having

read

the

Order

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

in

PCB

84—33

dated

______________________,

understand

and

accept

the

said

Order,

realizing

that

such

acceptance

renders

all

terms

and

conditions

thereto

binding

and

enforceable.

82-03

---

—4—

Petitioner

By:

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

IT IS SO ORDERED,

I, Dorothy

M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

hereby

certify that

the

above Opnion and Order was adopted

on

the

_________________day

of ________________________,

1984 by

a vote of

~

..../..,.~.

Dorothy

M.

unn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

62-04