ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

9

1977

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 77-13

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Young):

This matter

 is before the Board on the petition filed on

January 12,

 1977,

 by the Commonwealth Edison Company seeking

variance from Rule 408 of Chapter

3:

 Water

Pollution

Regulations.

The variances are sought for thirteen different power generating,

facilities

 located throughout

the

 State because various process

and non—process wastewater discharged at each of the stations

exceeds both the total suspended and total dissolved solids

limits of Rule

 408.

 Additionally, some wastewaters do not meet

certain other limitations of Rule 408.

 Petitioner also requested

post-construction relief from the total dissolved solids limita-

tions of Rule

 408.

 (Rec.

 to Var., March

 31, 1977.)

 Objections

to the grant of this variance were filed by the Environmental

Protection Agency and by Carolyn and Gary Carlson,

 residents

of

Dixon.

The matter was set for hearing and hearings were held in

the following cities:

 Lockport,

 Waukegan,

 Springfield, Dixon,

and Chicago

 (three).

 Hearings scheduled for Morris,

 Morrison,

and Pekin were canceled due

 to lack of public interest.

 Neither

Gary nor Carolyn Carlson appeared or testified at the hearing held

in Dixon.

 Only

 two interested citizens testified at the hearings:

one,

Warren

Wa

ider

 Di xori

testif

~e(1

qeneral

support

 Peti-

tioner

(P.

 419);

the

other,

Clark

Rose

ci

 LiGranqe,

 raised some

questions regarding the application of Rule

 401.

 At the close of

the hearings,

 the Agency effectively withdrew its objection by

recommending grant of the requested variance during the period of

construction subject to the imposition of certain specified interim

discharge limitations.

 (A. Rec., April

22,

 1977;

F.

 Rec.,, April

25, 1977;

 Supp.

 to Rec., May

 9, 1977.)

 Inasmuch as the Agency’s

recommended interim

limitations

correspond,

with

some

exceptions,

Petitioner’s

present

 performance capabilities, and since Peti-

 tioner states these interim limitations can be met

 (Brief

 6), the

Board views

 this Detition as uncontested.

25

—

703

—2—

Petitioner has embarked on a program, estimated to cost

$188,500,000.00

(R.

 89),

 to bring the discharges

 from its

generating

 facilities

 into compliance with our regulations.

The various plans call for the collection and retention, clari-

fication and treatment,

 recycle or discharge of Petitioner’s

wastewaters.

 Petitioner believes that this treatment program

will enable its facilities, with the addition of some equipment,

to comply with the July

1,

 1983, Federal requirement regarding

the employment of best available technology economically achievable

(R.

 94).

After fully evaluating the evidence submitted in this pro-

ceeding, the Agency’s

 favorable recommendation is based on the

following factors:

(~)

 The proposed construction program will

achieve compliance;

(b)

 The periods

 of time recuested by Peti-

tioner are reasonable in light of the

complexity of the programs;

(c)

 The adverse impact of Petitioner’s

various discharges on the quality of the

receiving water

 is minimal

 to non—existent;

and

(d)

 It is

 impossible for Petitioner to presently

comply with the applicable standards.

(A.

Rec.

 5, April

22,

 1977.)

Insofar as Petitioner’s request for post—construction relief

from the dissolved solids limitation of Rule

 408,

 the Agency submits

that such relief is unnecessary.

 In applying the criteria contained

in Rule 401,

 the Agency concluded that Petitioner will be providing

the best degree of treatment consistent with technological feasi-

bility, economic reasonableness and sound engineering judgment and

that it

 is appropriate

 to determine Petitioner’s compliance with

the dissolved solids effluent standard after such process wastewaters

are combined with Petitioner’s

 thermal discharges

 (condenser cooling

water)

 or other high volume waste flows.

(A.

 Rec.

4.)

 The Agency

states

that

 if this combination of discharges

 is allowed that Peti-

tioner will be in compliance with the dissolved solids limitations,

thus rendering this variance request unnecessary.

In view of the foregoing,

 the Board

 is disposed

 to grant Peti-

tioner relief subject to the interim limitations requested by the

Agency.

 (Supp.

 to Rec., May

9,

 1977; Corrections, May 20,

 1977.)

In regards

 to Petitioner’s request for post—construction

 relief

from the dissolved solids

 limitation,

 the Board

 finds that such

relief is necessary and this relief will also be granted.

—

704

—3—

This Opinion constitutes

 the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

1.

 Petitioner, Commonwealth Edison,

 is granted relief

from the total dissolved solids limitation of Rule 408(b)

until June

30,

 1981,

 for the discharges from Zion,

 Quad Cities,

Dresden, Crawford, Fisk,

 Joliet, Waukegan,

 Will County, Powerton,

Kincaid,

 Ridgeland and Collins Stations.

2.

 Petitioner, Commonwealth Edison Company,

 is granted

variance for the periods

 of construction from the provisions of

Rule 408 of Chapter

3:

 Water Pollution Regulations,

 as requested

and as are needed subject to the following conditions:

(a)

 Petitioner’s facilities and the corres-

ponding variance expiration date are as

follows:

Fisk

July

1978

Crawford

 August

 1, 1978

Quad Cities

 October

1,

1978

Waukegan,

 Powerton,

7ion

 November

 1, 1978

Dresden

 February

1,

1979

Will County

 March

 1, 1979

Ridgeland, Kincaid,

Joliet

 April

1,

1979

Collins

 October

1,

1979

Dixon

 November

 1, 1979

(b)

 Petitioner shall comply with the interim dis-

charge limitations

 as contained in the Agency’s

Supplement to Recommendation and which are

incorporated herein by reference.

(c)

 Within

 35 days of the date of

 this Order,

Petitioner

shall

submit

the

Manaqer,

Variance

Section,

I)ivision

WaLer

Pollution

Control,

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois,

 62706,

executed

Certification

of Acceptance and agreement to be bound to

all terms and conditions of the variance.

The form of said certification shall be as

follows:

—

705

—4—

CERTIFICATION

I,

 (We),

_________________

 having read

the Order of the Pollution Control Board in

PCB 77-13,

 understand and accept said Order,

realizing that such acceptance renders all

terms and conditions thereto binding and

enforceable.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED

Mr. Dumelle dissented

SIGNED

TITLE

DATE

I, Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk

 of the Illinois Pollution Con-

trol Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

g~

day of

 1977 by a vote of

____

Illinois

 ~ntrol Board

—

706