ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

July 25, 1974

COMMONWEALTH

EDISON

COMPANY

)

PETITIONER

PCB 74—182

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

MR. IkRRK

VIRSHBO,

ATTORNEY, of ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE in

behalf of

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

MR. JAMES S~ SCHLIFKE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, in behalf of the

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr~ Marder)

This action involves a request

for

variance filed

May 17, l974~

Relief

is

sought

from Rules 201 and 203 (i) of Chapter

3,

Water Poll-

ution Regulations of Illinois, until October 15, 1974, as they per-

tain

to

Edison~s discharges

from

the

Dresden Generating Plant., Pet-

itioner alleges that due to delays in construction and

delivery

of

essential materials the con~liance plan detailed in PCB 73—359 will

be

delayed two months.

Commonwealth Edison owns

and

operates,

in

Grundy County,

Illinois

a three-unit

nuclear powered generating station~ Unit One was made

cperabie

in

1960 arid has a capacity of 200 mw~ Units Two and Three

earns

on stream

in

1970 and 1971 with rated capacity of 809 mw each~

Pet:Ltioner~s

need

for variance centers around thermal pollution re~

suiting

from the discharge of

cooling

water into the Illinois River

Presently cooling water

for

Unit

*li

s pulled frOm the Kankakee River

and after once through

cooling of the

reactor

core

is

discharged to

the Illinois

River~

Cooling

water

for

the #2 and

#3

reactors

:Ls

pres-

ently

discharging to

an

open-cycle cooling lake

of 1300 acres.. Over-

flow

from this lake is discharged to the :llinois

River.

Petitioner has incorporated the record in PCB 73-359, and uses the

record generated

therein

as a basis for fu1fi~m~~He~ictates of

the

BOarCPS

Procedural Rule

401, The

Agency filed its recommendation

on June 24,

1974,

recommending a grant of variance

subject to certain

conditions

This action is

in

actuality a continuance of variances

granted in

the

following cases~ PCB 70—21, PCB 72—350,

and

PCB

73—359.

A brief description of the events 1eadT~q~

he in order and is as

follows

---

—2—

1. On March

3, 1971, the

Board

in PCB 70-21 issued a permit to

Commonwealth Edison to operate Unit 4~3.. In granting said permit a

number of conditions were imposed, e..g.:

“3 (b) The permittee shall within thirty days after

the issuance of this permit submit to the Board a

written program with a time schedule for controlling

the liquid radioactive discharges up to the amounts

set forth

in paragraph 3 (A) of this permit from

Dresden Unit III

without the use

of dilution water..”

“5 (b) Permittee in the operation of Dresden Unit 3

shall comply with the thermal discharge requirements

of SWB_8* as interpreted in the opinion of the Board..

In order to assume such compliance, Permittee shall

submit the followiiig information to the Board within

thirty (30) days from this date..”

2.. On April 13, 1971, Petitioner filed the abovementioned reports,

and also a request for time (PCB 70-21) to allow completion of their

proposed plans.. In the Board~sorder of NOvember 23, 1971, it was

noted that Petitioner had put into operation a cooling lake for Unit

#2 and

#3..

It had also installed 98 spray modules in the canals.. The

Board ordered Petitioner

to

begin installation of a “Maximum recycle

system~ for radioactive wastes to be completed by September 1, 1973..

The radioactive liquid waste limit of 80,000 microcurries per second

would then apply to the blowdown from this cooling lake..

The Board further granted a variance from SWB-8 until November 23,

1973.. The abovementioned lake and spray modules were found not to

comply with SWB-8 and thus the need for this variance.. A compliance

plan called for the installation of a diffuser pipe to meet the re-

quired 5°F.. maximum temperature rise..

3.. On August 23, 1972, Commonwealth Edison filed a petition for

variance extension (PCB 72-350).. By an interim Board order of October

10, 1972, a sixty-day extension was granted

in

order

to

gain time to

conduct public hearings and ~alsoprotect Petitioner from prosecution

during the interim period (Nov.. 23, 1972-Jan.. 22, 1973).. PCB 72-350

went to hearings to determine the facts.. Petitioner claimed that the

original wastewater system scheduled for completion by September 1,

1973, could not be completed before February 1, 1974.. The diffuser

pipe was not installed and no data on the barrier effect of such a

pipe on fish was elicited.. By Board order of March 29, 1973, variance

was granted from 201 and 203 (i) until November 23, 1973..

4.. On August 22, 1973, PCB 73—359 was filed, asking for extension

to November 23, 1974, or such shorter time as needed to complete the

aforementioned compliance plan.. On November 13, 1973, Petitioner filed

for and was granted an interim variance until January 22, 1974.. On Jan-

uary 17, 1974, the Board extended variance until

August 15, 1974.. In

PCB 73-359 the Board also

ruled

that a slQt jet discharge pipe may be

used to conform with the Board~sinterpretation of mixing zones as they

*SWB8 was superseded in part by Rules 201 and

203 (1) of Chapter 3

on March 7, 1972 (PCB R7l—14)..

13

—

220

---

—3—

apply to Edison~s discharge, and that monthly reports would be required..

5.. On May 17, 1974, PCB 74-182 (the instant case) was filed, seek-

ing an additional 60-day extension of variance..

This chronology brings up to date the events since the startup of

Dresden #3.

Petitioner alleges that a short delay in completion of their maximum

recycle system for liquid radioactive wastes was anticipated in the

testimony elicited during PCB 73-359.. The following excerpt is used to

substantiate this fact..

“It

must be understood that the same high standards of qual-

ity assurance must still be met for the remaining period of

manufacture, and no one can guarantee that there won~t

be

some additional delay..” (Tr.. 73-359, Pg.. 48)

Edison

now

contends that due to quality assurance requirements rela-

ting to the

‘two

concentrators (the principal component of the

maximum

recycle system), delivery has been delayed as

much as

five

months..

Petitioner alleges that the maximum recycle system should be opera-

ting with one concentrator by August 15, 1974.. This will allow closed

loop operation of the Dresden plant.. The second concentrator is ex-

pected on site during August 1974.. Although the facility can operate

with one concentrator, the backup capacity of the second concentrator

will

not be

available

until

October 1974, Edison proposes to operate

closedloop unless the first concentrator fails. Thus in reality this

variance request is for permission to operate under malfunction condi-

tions.. It is therefore impossible to judge whether such operation will

consist of 60 days or no days. In deciding this case the Board will

work on the premise of the worst possible case

—

or 60-day open loop

operation.

In assessing the merits of Petitioner~scase the Board relies heav-

ily on documentation elicited during PCB 73-359.. The reader is directed

to our Opinion in this matter dated January 17, 1974, for a detailed de-

scription

of

hardship and environmental impact..

The subject of environmental impact was covered in detail in 73—359,

The Board finds no reason to alter its conclusion:

“From all the above the Board finds the weight of the

evidence is that no significant environmental harm has

occurred due to Dresden~sUnits 2

and

3. It is also

important to note that the proposed slot jet discharge

should yield even better mixing in the near future..”

(Opinion 73-359 Pg.

7)

The addition of a 60-day variance should, in the Board~sopinion,

not alter the validity of the above statement.

13

—

221

---

—4—

The subject of hardship must, of course, be updated to reflect the

latest facts.. Edison rests its

hardship case on the need by Edison

and the public for the output of the Dresden plant. Petitioner alleges

that the highest anticipated peak load demand during the summer of 1974

will be 14,050 mw. Petitioner further alleges that after deductions

for peaking loads, firm purchases, diversity interchanges, derating

due to low sulphur coal, and maintenance, the aggregate system capacity

of 16,755 mw will

be

reduced to 14,933 mw. Therefore Petitioner con-

cludes that the 1800 ins generation capacity will be required to main-

tain a safety margin in the system to protect against any forced outages..

Petitioner then details its loading requirements and expected outages

during the months of September and October, reaching similar conclusions

that the Dresden capacity is needed to secure an adequate safety margin..

The Board has difficulty in agreeing with Edison~srationale in sub-

tracting peaking capacity from its total system capacity.. It would

seem that peaking capacity is just that

—

a reserve generation load to

meet short-term excessive demands.. The rationale of exempting firm

purchases from the total available capacity also escapes this B6~P~.. If

such purchases are firm, they should be available..

Notwithstanding the above seeming inconsistencies, the Board sees

little vaLue in denying this variance. It is for a short time duration,

and as me:itioned above should have little impact on the environment,

The Board will thus grant the variance request..

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Commonwealth

Edison Company is granted variance from Rules 201 and 203 (i) of Chap-

ter 3 as they apply to the discharge from the Dresden plant until Oct-

ober 15, 1974, subject to the following conditions:

I. Petitioner shall continue to file monthly operating

reports as described in Order #4 of PCB 73-359..

2.. Petitioner shall by August 15, 1974, have operable

a cooling water discharge system which will meet the

mixing zone criteria as outlined in PCB 73-359..

3. This variance shall apply only in the event that the

system in condition 2 becomes inoperable.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on

the 25th day

of July, l974,~ by a vote of 5 to 0,

13 —

222