ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July
    8,
    1976
    UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY,
    )
    (VENICE
    POWER
    PLANT),
    )
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB
    76—89
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    On April
    1,
    1976,
    Petitioner Union Electric Company
    (Union)
    filed a Petition for Variance before the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    from the five—year delay provided in Rule 203(i) (5)
    of
    the Water Regulations
    (Chapter 3).
    On
    May
    6,
    1976, the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    filed its Recommendation.
    No
    hearing was held in this matter.
    Union Electric Company is
    a public utility engaged in the
    production of electricity for sale.
    The Petition for Variance
    in
    the
    present case involves Union’s Venice Power Plant in
    Venice,
    Illinois which
    is used to generate electricity primarily during
    periods of peak demand.
    The Venice Power Plant consists of six
    steam-electric generating units, totalling 506 megawatts capacity.
    These units were placed on line between 1942 and 1950.
    The plant’s
    once—through cooling system discharges condenser cooling water
    (heated effluent)
    to the Mississippi River.
    Rule 203(i) (5)
    provides,
    in pertinent part:
    The owner or operator of
    a source of
    certain
    thermal
    discharges
    shall demonstrate in
    a hearing before this Board
    not less than
    5 years nor more than
    6 years after the effec-
    tive date of these regulations.
    .
    .
    that discharges from that
    source have not caused and cannot reasonably be expected to
    cause significant ecological damage to the receiving waters.
    (emphasis added)
    23—41
    —2—
    Because Rule 203(1) (5)
    was
    adopted on March
    7,
    1972,
    the required
    hearing
    is precluded until 1977.
    Union, however,
    requests a hear-
    ing for its Venice Power Plant prior to 1977.
    In order to comply with its NPDES Permit No.
    IL000175, Union
    Electric must satisfy the United States Environmental Protection
    Agency that it has complied with Rule 203(i)(5).
    Union Electric,
    therefore, commissioned Equitable Environmental Health,
    Inc.
    (formerly Environmental Analysts,
    Inc.)
    to conduct an intensive, de-
    tailed investigation and analysis to determine the nature and extent
    of the thermal discharge plume and to assess the ecological effects
    of thermal discharges from the Venice Plant.
    The study has been
    completed, and final reports have been submitted to the Agency.
    Union Electric believes the final reports will demonstrate to the
    Board that thermal discharges from the Venice Power Plant have not
    caused and cannot reasonably be expected to cause significant eco-
    logical damage to the Mississipi River’s biota.
    Petitioner alleges that it will suffer an arbitrary and un-
    reasonable hardship if it cannot make its 203(i) (5) demonstration
    until 1977 because
    1)
    major expert witnesses familiar with the
    thermal effects study may not be available to testify before the
    Board in 1977;
    2)
    the cost of instituting future additional studies
    or of retaining different experts to familiarize themselves with
    the completed study would be an unjustified and unreasonable expense;
    and
    3)
    deferral of the Rule
    203(i) (5) hearing would needlessly post-
    pone Union Electric’s satisfaction of its NPDES Permit requirements.
    Petitioner further alleges that granting the requested variance
    would impose no injury on the public.
    The Agency recommends granting of the variance.
    Union Electric
    has operated its Venice Power Plant for twenty-five years,
    and the
    Agency believes that this period has provided Petitioner with ade-
    quate operating data to make the necessary 203(i) (5)
    demonstration.
    Furthermore, the Agency believes that no environmental harm will
    result if Union Electric is allowed to make its Rule 203(i) (5)
    demonstration as soon as possible.
    The Board agrees with the Agency’s conclusions and finds that
    denial of the variance in the present case would result in an
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship to Union Electric.
    Union
    Electric is,
    therefore, granted variance from the five-year delay
    prior to hearing required by Rule 203(i) (5).
    23
    —
    42
    —3—
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Union
    Electric Company be granted variance from the 5—year delay prior
    to the hearing required by Rule 203(i) (5)
    of Chapter
    3.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    here
    certify the a ov
    Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    day of
    ,
    1976 by a vote
    Q~L.M~ett,
    ‘2~4~
    Illinois Pollution Cont
    Board
    23 —43

    Back to top