ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 22,

1981

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

v.

)

 PCB 80—134

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, an Illinois

)

Corporation

 (LaSalle County Station),

Respondent.

JOHN

VAN

VRANKEN,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

APPEARED

BEHALF

COMPLAINANT.

ROBERT

WHEELER,

ISHAM,

LINCOLN

 & BEALE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

I.

 Goodman):

On July 21,

 1980,

 the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

 (Agency) filed a Complaint before the Board alleging that

Commonwealth Edison Company

 (Edison) had violated its NPDES

permit at Edison’s LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station located

southwest of Seneca,

 Illinois.

 Citizens For a Better Environment

(CEE) was granted status as an Intervenor

 in the proceeding by

Order of the Board on October

2,

 1980.

 CBE, however, has not

participated in this proceeding

 in any way.

 The Agency filed an

Amended Corv~plaint, which, pursuant to agreement of the parties,

Edison responded to by filing an Affidavit.

 The Board has

received no public comment in this matter.

In its brief, Edison reasserts the objection made at hearing

~o the filing of an Amended Complaint by the Agency concerning

continuing alleged violations during pertdency of this matter.

Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the Hearing

Officer exercised great care in assuring Edison of its rights

with regard to the Amended Complaint.

 In fact,

 the record shows

that Edison agreed with the Agency to the procedures used with

regard to the Amended Complaint in the face of the Hearing

Officer’s suggestion that an additional hearing be scheduled

to cure Edison’s alleged surprise at the filing of the Amended

Complaint.

 The Board finds no prejudice to either party due to

the procedure worked out by the parties and hereby overrules

Edison’s objection.

The LaSalle County Station is a nuclear generating facility

designed to consist of two 1078 mw units.

 Start—up of the two

units is expected sometime after

 1981, and at no time during

43—53 1

2

the period covered by the Complaint was the LaSalle Station

operational. The Station was issued a NPDES permit providing for

low—volume waste discharge,

 sanitary treatment plant discharge,

and construction runoff discharge into the LaSalle cooling pond

and discharge from the cooling pond into the Illinois River.

The Agency alleges that Edison violated permit limitations

 on discharges from the sanitary waste treatment plant, low volume

waste,

 and construction runoff starting September,

 1978 extending

through August,

 1980.

 In support of the alleged violations, the

Agency put into evidence Edison’s discharge monitoring reports

and correspondence fror~Edison to the Agency during that period.

The Agency presented

 rio witnesses or other evidence at the

hearing.

 Edison presented one witness and five exhibits which

purport to explain why the discharge monitoring reports indicate

excursions over the permit limitations for certain constituents

which the Agency alleges are violations of Sections

 l2(~a,) and

12(f) of the Environmental Protection Act in addition to being

violations of the NPDES permit pursuant to Rule 901 of the

Board’s Rules and Regulations, Chapter

 3: Water Pollution.

The real issue in this case revolves around the interpre-

tation of the permit requirements.

 The Agency points to the

plain wording of the permit which says there are limitations on

the individual discharges to the cooling pond in addition to the

limitations on the discharge of the pond itself to the Illinois

River.

 Edison,

 on the other hand, argues that since the cooling

pond was not being used as such during the period of the alleged

violations, the portions of the permit controlling discharges

into the pond and contained within the pond were not active, and

that they were not therefore obligated to notice any instances of

 non-compliance.

From a

 legal standpoint,

 it appears to the Board that

the

permit and its conditions are clearly stated and susceptible to

very little interpretation.

 The fact that it is a permit which

was supposedly issued after consultation between the Agency and

Edison buttresses this conclusion.

 Page

 3 of the permit clearly

states that “during the period beginning on the effective date of

this permit and lasting until the expiration date the permittee

is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s)

001(b) sanitary treatment plant waste.”

 “Such discharges shall

limited

and

monitored

the

permittee

specified

below:”.

The other discharges to the cooling pond have similar conditions

in the permit.

 The time for Edison to have resolved problems with

interpretation now before the Board was during permit negotiations

and through the appeal route subsequent to the issuance of the

permit.

 That time has now passed.

 From a practical standpoint,

it is important that Edison’s discharge

 to the cooling pond be

under

control

early

possible

 so that subsequent blowdown

of the cooling pond to the Illinois River does not pose a sudden

and unexpected environmental problem.

 The subject permit

 conditions are specific and reasonable. The Board therefore holds

43—532

3

that Commonwealth Edison was responsible for reporting violations

of the permit conditions with respect to discharges into the

cooling pond beginning on the effective date of the permit.

The Agency’s case herein consists entirely of the monitoring

reports and communications between Edison and the Agency during

the period covered by the Complaint.

 Edison presented testimony

and exhibits that purport to show that it faithfully followed the

NPDES permit conditions as Edison had interpreted them.

 Edison

filed non—compliance reports for discharges into the cooling pond

during those times when the cooling pond itself was discharging

to the river,

 i.e., during blowdown operations.

 It did not,

however,

 file non—compliance reports during those periods when

the discharges to the cooling pond were contained within the

cooling pond itself,

 in accordance with its interpretation that

the NPDES permit conditions applied only during periods of

discharge from the cooling pond into the river.

Although the Board has found against Edison’s interpretation

of the NPDES permit,

 Edison’s evidence does have weight with

respect to mitigation of the violations filed.

 The Board notes,

in passing, that the evidence presented indicates violations of

the

permit

conditions

with

respect

discharge

001(a),

the

cooling pond discharge to the Illinois River, during blowdown

operations, but since there are no allegations of these violations

in the Complaint,

 the Board will not address them.

 Since this

matter appears to be a matter of legal misinterpretation of the

permit conditions, which the Board has

now

 settled,

 and since

there appears to be little or no harm to the environment due to

the violations found, the Board will not assess a penalty

 in this

case.

This Opinion constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

1.

 Commonwealth Edison Company

 is found in violation of

Sections 12(a)

 and 12(f)

 of the Illinois Environmental Protection

Act and Rule 901 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules

and Regulations, Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution,

 at its LaSalle

County Station located in LaSalle County Illinois.

2.

 Commonwealth Edison Company shall

 cease and desist from

further such violations of the Act and the Board’s regulations.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

I,

 Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board,

hereby

ce$tify

that

 t e above Opinion and Order

was adopte~on the

 day of

_________________,

 1981 by a

vote of

 ...S-~

Q~stanL.Mft1Clerr

Illinois Pollution Control Board

43—533