ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
10,
1981
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 81—34
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I.
Goodman):
On March
2,
1981 Commonwealth Edison Company
(Edison)
filed
a petition for a variance requesting an extension1
for a period of
three years, of its existing variance from the provisions of Rules
203(i)(5) and 203(i)(4)
of Chapter
3, the Board’s Water Pollution
Rules and Regulations, applicable to its Joliet Generating Station
(Joliet Station).
That variance was granted on May
25,
1978
(PCI3
78—79).
Thermal discharge points from the Joliet Station are located
approximately seven miles upstream from a portion of the lower Des
Plaines River commonly known as the Five Mile Stretch.
Edison’s
variance, which granted relief from thermal demonstration require-
ments and thermal discharge requirements as to the river,
a water
of the State and covered by the “Other Waters” category
in Rule
203(i)(4), was, however, conditioned upon compliance with thermal
discharge standards for the Five Mile Stretch portion of the river.
This area of the river has been and continues to be heavily pol-
luted due to the influence of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.
It had been expected that the water quality in the Five Mile
Stretch would have been greatly improved by Metropolitan Sanitary
District’s installation of instream aeration devices and by its
completion of the tunnel and reservoir system.
Neither of these
programs have been completed;
the water quality in the Five Mile
Stretch continues to be suboptimal.
Edison has alleged that
because of these facts temperature is not the limiting factor
regarding the water quality of the river at this time.
Edison’s discharges are required to comply with the
“Other
Waters” thermal standards,
which in turn necessitates the install-
ation of either natural or mechanical draft cooling towers or the
derating of Joliet Station.
Edison estimates the direct economic
cost to its customers caused by derating to be approximately $3.6
42—55
—2—
million per year
(1978’ dollars), whereas the estimated cost of
cooling towers
is approximately $21.0 million
(1975 dollars).
In
addition, the cooling towers would result in the environmental
and
other problems commonly associated with such equipment.
The Agency recommends denial of the variance on substantive
and procedural
grounds.
The Agency questions both the need and
the form of relief from Rule 203(i)(4),
citing the lack of excur-
sions over the last year above the thermal limitations,
the recent
decrease in average flow from the station, and the lack of
a
compliance plan in the petition.
Edison responds that its petition
is based upon thermal conditions in the river which have existed
over a number of years and that the lack of excursions does not
necessarily indicate that similar conditions will exist in the
future.
In addition, Edison points out that the Joliet Station’s
heat rejection is controlled by operating level and not by either
the temperature or the rate of
flow of the discharge.
With regard
to the lack of
a compliance plan,
Edison responds that it is
unlikely that the water quality in the river would improve suffi-
ciently over the next three years so as to result in temperature
being the factor limiting restoration of its water quality; Edison
states that any compliance plan should await measurable improvement
in the water quality status of the river.
Edison further notes
that a review by the State of Illinois’ water quality standards
is underway pursuant to Sections 208 and 203 of the Clean Water
~ct and suggests that rulemaking proceedings pursuant to these
proceedings would be the most appropriate
forum
to address a long
term solution of the problems.
Edison will participate in any
such proceedings.
The Agency contends that there is no justification for
extension of the variance as to its requirement of performing a
thermal demonstration pursuant to Rule 203(i)(5) and notes that no
compliance plan for making such a demonstration is included in the
petition.
Edison responds that, given that the Joliet Station’s
thermal contribution is not the factor limiting restoration, no
purpose would be served by undertaking the demonstration.
In
addition, Edison claims that
it has already submitted to the Board
all of the data required for such a showing, with the exception of
plume
studies,
in the numerous past proceedings pursuant to Rule
203(i)(5) involving the Joliet Station and the Five Mile Stretch.
Although the Agency’s technical objections appear to be
reasonable at first blush,
the Board is faced with an unsual fac-
tual situation in this case.
The Board has anticipated a dramatic
improvement in the lower Des Plaines River for a long period of
time and has determined variances and other conditions based upon
that expectation.
It is clear that the expected improvements
have not occurred and that they are not likely to occur
in the
near future.
The Board finds that it would be an arbitrary and
unreasonable hard—ship on Edison to force it to improve the
thermal conditions of
a stretch of stream so polluted with other
contaminants that the results of any temperature—related controls
42—56
—3—
would not have a discernible effect on water quality.
The Board
also finds that under these conditions it is arbitrary and
unreasonable to insist that Edison engage
in a thermal demon-
stration pursuant to Rule 203(i)(5);
the results would not be
completely reliable since the major pollution problems in the
lower Des Plaines River are other than thermal ones.
Although
Edison has been in compliance recently with Rule 203(i)(4),
the
Board acknowledges the fact that, based upon the past variance
compliance history, there may be thermal excursions in the future.
For these reasons the Board will as well grant variance from Rule
203(j)(4)’s standards for Other Waters.
Variance will be for
three years and under specified conditions.
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
Commonwealth Edison Company be granted variance until July 1,
1984
for its Joliet Generating Station from the requirement in Rule 203
(i)(5) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations, which
requires a thermal demonstration of the environmental effect of
the discharge from Joliet Generating Station, and from the thermal
requirements in the “Other Waters” category in Rule 203(i)(4) of
Chapter 3:
Water Pollution Rules and Regulations, subject to the
following conditions:
1.
During the term of this variance Commonwealth
Edison Company shall comply with the thermal
standards for the “Other Waters” category in
Rule 203(i)(4) pertaining to that lower portion
of the Des Plaines River commonly known as the
“Five Mile Stretch”.
2.
Commonwealth Edison Company shall participate in,
and contribute material and relevant evidence
regarding thermal discharges of Joliet Generating
Station to such Five Mile Stretch to,
any Board
rulemaking hearing, and shall submit written
comment if no hearings are to be held therein,
during the term of this variance.
3.
Commonwealth Edison Company shall submit
annual thermal monitoring reports to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
4.
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner shall execute and forward to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Section,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706,
a Certificate of acceptance and
42—57
—4—
agreement to 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 81—34
dated
,
understand and accept the
said Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were a~optedon the
)o~ day ~
,
1981 by
a vote
Christan L. Mof~e?
,
Mlerk
Illinois Pollution
óñtrol Board
42—58