ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September 17, 1987

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF    

)

PCB 87—93

NO SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL

DAMAGE FOR THE JOLIET

GENERATING STATION

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Durnelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon a June 19, 1987,

Petition for Thermal Determination under 35 Ill. Adm. Code

302.211(f) filed by the Commonwealth Edison Company (Corn Ed).

Corn Ed requests the Board to determine (1) that the submission of

the Section 302.211(f) petition for the Joliet Station is not

required, or in the alternative (2) that the discharges from the

Joliet Station have not caused, and cannot be reasonably expected

to cause, significant ecological damage to the Five Mile Stretch

within the meaning of Section 302.211(f) of the Board’s Water

Pollution Regulations.

Corn Ed owns and operates the Joliet Station, a steam—

electric generating facility capable of producing 1,414 net

megawatts of electricity. The station is located in Will County,

approximately one mile southwest of the City of Joliet, Illinois,

adjacent to the Des Plaines Rivers The station utilizes Des

Plaines River water for once—through condensor cooling. That

station has two thermal discharges to the Des Plaines River; one

from Unit 6 on the east bank of the river and the other from

Units 7 and 8 on the west bank. The points of discharge are

approximately 7.3 miles upstream of the 1—55 Bridge.

Corn Ed believes that it is not required to make a thermal

demonstration under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302~2l1(f). Corn Ed argues

that because the Joliet Station discharges into the Des Plaines

River at a point where secondary contact standards govern, the

thermal demonstration required by Section 302~211(f) for

discharges into general use waters is not required.

The Board is not persuaded. Section 302~2ll(f) applies to

waters of the state for which there is no specific designation~.

Although the Joliet Station discharges into water designated

secondary contact, the general use water downstream (the “5—Mile

Stretch”) is also affected.

The Board notes that this is not the first time Corn Ed has

taken the position that it need not make a demonstratiori~ In

its May 25, 1978, Order granting variance, the Board stated:

8 1—283

Edison’s contention that a hearing conducted

pursuant to Rule 203(i)(5) of Chapter 3 is not

appropriate in this case is misplaced. Even

though the Joliet Station discharges into

waters which are covered by Rule 205, the im-

pact 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 pro-

gram to the Board at a hearing 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

expected to cause significant eco-

logical damage to the Des Plaines

River, the Board would not require

Edison to construct cooling facil-

ities... But if the Board is con-

vinced that Edison has caused or is

reasonably expected to cause signi-

ficant ecological damage in the

future, then the Board is required

by Section 203(i)(5) to order Edison

to carry out appropriate measures to

correct ecological damage. (10 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. (Commonwealth Edison Co. v.

Environmental Protection agency, PCB 78—79,

Board Opinion and Order, May 25, 1978, p~

3).

!‘he Board still is not persuaded to deviate from its prior

position.

The Board also notes that Corn Ed has been granted thre~

variances since 1978 from the requirement that it perfoçm a

thermal demonstration. (PCB 78—79, May 25, 1978; PCB 81—24, June

10, 1981; and PCB 84—33, December 20, 1984). The stated purpose

for requesting the variance was to allow the demonstration to be

81—284

—3—

made after the water quality of the river improved to the extent

that temperature was a limiting factor~ In filing the Petition

for Demonstration, Corn Ed would appear to be taking the position

that temperature is now a limiting factor such that a

determination can now be made. This view is further supported by

the fact that Corn Ed had filed a Petition for variance but

subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, which the Board granted

in PCB 87—40. Apparently, Corn Ed believes that the variance is

no longer necessary.

Without determining that the water quality has sufficiently

improved, the Board believes that Corn Ed is required to make a

demonstration that its discharges have not caused and cannot be

reasonably expected to cause significant ecological damage to the

receiving waters (i.e. the 5—Mile Stretch).

The Board therefore accepts the petition and directs the

Clerk’s office to set it for hearing. At hearing, the

participants are expected to address whether temperature is a

limiting factor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereb certify that 

t~e

above Order was adopted on

the

_____________

day of 

1987 by a vote

of

1Y1

Dorothy M. ,~unn, Clerk

8 1—285