ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 25, 1978

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 78-79

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(By Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner

(Edison) has requested a variance from the

Board’s thermal water quality standards

for

the lower

Des Plaines River

(the Five Mile Stretch).

The Agency

has recommended that Edison’s request be denied because

this

is not the proper proceeding to adjudicate

this matter.

No hearing was held.

The cooling water discharges from Edison’s steam—electric

generating facility outside Joliet

(Joliet Station)

have

been the subject of prior Board proceedings.

Rule 203(i) (4)

of Chapter

3: Water Pollution of the Board’s Rules and

Regulations was amended on June

28, 1973 to provide a

specific thermal standard for the Five—Mile Stretch.

The

amendments were adopted pursuant to a request by Edison.

They were based on the conclusion that

since

temperature

was not the limiting factor in the Five-Mile Stretch and

extensive improvement in water quality was expected by

mid-1977,

a temporary thermal standard would be adopted.

Based

on

the

data

available

in

1973,

the Board

concluded

that

by July,

1978 temperature would be the limiting factor

and that the general use “Other Waters” standard should

take effect at that time.

Edison’s concern in 1973 and

in this proceeding centers on the fact that the cooling

water discharges from its Joliet station have continued

to cause violations of the “Other Waters” temperature standard

in the Five Mile—Stretch.

The Joliet Station has thermal discharge points which

are located approximately seven miles upstream from the

beginning of the Five Mile Stretch.

Although these discharges

conform with the less stringent secondary contact standards

at the point of discharge,

they do not cool enough to

30

315

---

—2—

meet the “Other Waters” standard at the point those standards

take effect on July 1,

1978.

In Appendix

2 attached to its

Petition, Edison concludes that the “Other Waters” tempera-

ture standard would have been violated at the beginning of the

Five Mile Stretch on 2.6 percent of the days from 1973—

1977 and that the three degree excursion limit would have

been violated twice during March, 1977 and once during August,

1973.

Additionally, Edison points out that the more important

indicators of water pollution

(ammonia, dissolved oxygen,

130D and COD)

have not improved since 1973 as expected.

Edison’s conclusion is that since water quality has not

improved,

its thermal discharge

is not the limiting factor

it was expected to be.

Edison contends that the only technically feasible

ways to control its thermal discharge in a way that would

result in compliance with the “Other Waters”

standard would

be by the installation of natural or mechanical draft

towers or by derating the Joliet Station.

Draft Towers are

discounted because of their cost

(at least $21,750,000

in

1975 dollars), their effect on generating capability

(a

reduction of 2.5 to

3 percent), occasional local fogging,

and

a reduction in stream flow in the Des Plaines River.

Derating is discouraged because it would have to occur during

the summer months when maximum power is needed and would

result in additional generation costs of $3.6-7.6 million

per year depending on where the lost electricity would be

recovered.

Rather than incorporate either of these compliance

methods, Edison feels that a general revision of the water

quality standards for the Five Mile Stretch constitutes

a

more appropriate forum for this problem.

In the meantime,

Edison needs a variance so that its existing discharge can

remain lawful after July 1,

1978.

In its Recommendation the Agency does not challenge any

of Edison’s conclusions concernlnq the existinq water quality

of

the

Des Plaines River or Edison’s temperature daLa.

The Agency’s opposition is based on its feeling that

a

variance proceeding is simply not the proper forum for Edison

to obtain relief.

The Agency quotes from the Board’s Opinion which supported

the adoption of Rule 203(i) (4).

That Opinion states at

10 PCB 77 that the proper method for evaluation of the effect

of Edison’s thermal discharge should be by a hearing conducted

pursuant to Rule 203(i) (5)

and held between March,

1977 and

March,

1978.

The Agency contends that a 203(i) (5)

hearing

would have resulted in findings by the Board that either

corrective action was necessary,

in which case

a variance may

30— 316

---

may have been warranted,

or a regulatory amendment would have

been

in order.

No such hearing was requested by the Petitioner.

The Agency feels that a variance from present standards

would provide Edison with an unjustified “shield from

enforcement” which could place other dischargers

in jeopardy.

Additionally,

the

Agency rebuts Edison’s conclusion that

forthcoming

regulatory

proceedings could provide relief with

the statement that the Agency is not aware of any pending

proceeding concerning this discharge.

Edison’s contention that a henning conducted pursuant

to Rule

203(i) (5)

of Chapter

3 is not appropriate

in this

case is misplaced.

Even though the Joliet

tation discharges

into

waters

which

are covered by Rule 205,

She impact of

this

discharge

on

Rule 203 waters

is obvious.

The Board noted

this

impact

when

it stated:

Edison is required by Sec.

203(i) (5)

to conduct

a program

to monitor the effects

of their discharges

of heated water from the Joliet Plant and present

the results of that program to the Board at a hear-

ing to be held between March,

1977 and March,

1978,

If,

at that time, the Board is convinced that Edison’s

discharge has not caused,

or

is not reasonably ex-

pected to cause significant ecological damage to

the

Des

Plaines River,

the Board would not require

Edison to construct cooling facilities.

Edison

could then either ask the Board to amend its regu—

lation

to

extend

to the termination date to reflect

water quality as would then be present in the “Five—

Mile Stretch,” or seek a variance from the standard.

But if the Board is convinced that Ediec

has caused

or

is reasonably expected to cause siqc~icant ecolo-

gical damage in the future,

then the ~nd

is required

by Section 203(i) (5)

to order Edison to carry out

appropriate measures to correct ecological

damage.

Edison,

because it had relied upon existing Board

regulations,

would have the variance procedure avail-

able

to seek time to correct the problem.

(11 PCB

77,

78.)

The fact that Edison’s discharge points are located in

Rule 205 waters was known when the Board made the above

quoted statement.

There

is nothing in the record of this

case which would persuade the Board to deviate from its

prior position.

The Agency’s contention that a variance

in this case

would

provide

Edison with a “shield from enforcement”

is

well stated.

This

is precisely the purpose behind the

inclusion

of

Section

35 in the Act,

If this

“shield”

30

—

317

---

4-.

causes

undue

hardsnip

cr

~r

n~r5

that

problem

can

be

a1yidh~

A

regulatory

procec.c.

‘.‘

dischargers

into

the

Les

P

o..

-:

most appropriate way to

-e.~3

e

will make that decision &tcr

pursuant to Part VI of tis B

Edison

has

shown ta0~

.

t

hardship if it was forc:d

.

£

significant conszrcctaoL

in Edison’s delivery syatst w

hardship

becomes

unreasorab.,.e

the

marginal

improvement

-

.

-3.

result

from

compliance.

Five

years

ago (Jun

.

...

-

water quality

woald

ce

v4.’t.,.y

Sn3

Stretch.

The

Metropolitan

39

.~

Chicago

was

to

bring

into

beis.g

the

Tunnel

and

Reservoir

Syst

a

more

time

is

needed

for

titese

In

order

to

enable

tZ,

is

‘tr

for

a

203(i)

(5)

hearing

a~~’r

section,

Edison

stall

be

grot:

1981, to

submit

a

petitta.

s~i~:

I

of

Part

VI

of

the

Proceirr

-

Xi

This

Opinion

contt.

~

and

conclusions

of

la~

i

cL,~.:

re

-

I

It

is

the

Order

~r

-

—

Edison

be

grants!

a

•~

requirement

in

Rule

203

-

a

demonstration

of

she

en

discharge

from

the

J~.4..t

-

-.

from

the “Other Watets”

i’’

Chapter 3 subject

to ‘te

lot,.

~acharger,

-~-~‘

‘il.

scceeding.

-

thermal.

bethe

is.c Board

conducted

‘

95.

•

-

is.ant

.,ther Waters”

•

rnbodied in the

.~

location

triad.

The

..

A

against

-

-

would

nccted that

c Itre Mile

-

1

Greater

sn

and

complete

I ccn

done

and

npseted.

a request

by

that

‘t

~l April 2,

t

its

requirements

-

that

tram the

tandates

e

thermal

,198l

‘

~)(4)of

a

1

fact

•1

-S

---

—5~-

1.

During

the term

of this variance

Edison

shall

comply with

the thermal

standards

contained

in Rule

203(i)

(4)

pertaining

to the Five Mile

Stretch.

2.

Within 45 days of the

date of this Order,

Edison

shall

execute

and

forward

to the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,

Illinois

62706, a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement to be

bound

to all terms and conditions of this variance,

The

45-day period shall be held in abeyance during any period

this matter

is being appealed.

The

form of the Certification

shall

be as follows:

cERTIFICATION

I (We),

____________

_________________

having

read

and

fully understanding

Ehe Order

of the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

in PCB

78-79,

hereby accept

that Order

and

agree

to be bound

by all of

its terms and conditions.

Signed________

________________

Title

____________________________

Date__________

_____________________

I, Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, h~r~bycertify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted

e~~y

of

_______,

1978 by a

fy~

~

Christan L. Moffe

,

lerk

Illinois Pollution

trol Board

30

—