ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    August 1, 1974
    )
    )
    COWIONWEALTH
    EDISON
    COMPANY
    )
    )
    )
    V.
    PCB 74-11
    )
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    )
    DISSENTING OPINION (by Mr. Dumelle):
    My reason for dissenting in this case is that
    I believe that
    Commonwealth Edison Company has not carried its burden of evalua-
    ting environmentdl hazards caused by its operation of the Waukegan
    Power Plant.
    The precedessor variance, PCB 73-40, was granted on. October 4,
    1973 to run until April 4~1974.
    On April 14, 1974 the Board
    granted an interim, variance until May 29, 1974 in this proceeding.
    On May 29, 1974 a second interim variance was granted until
    August 4,
    1974.
    The majority decision of this day
    extends the
    variance for a third time until October 4, 1974.
    The order in PCB 73-40 clearly requires that Edison establish
    a 9-station network of particulate and SO2 monitoring stations
    (Par.
    3).
    In particular the order states “Daily data is to be
    furnished to the Agency”.
    The November 294 1973 supplemental
    order retained the requirement for daily data to be furnished
    to the Agency.
    The supplemental order goes on to state
    Once the network of monitoring stations has been
    placed in service, the limitation on the operation
    of the Waukegan station herein specified shall be
    suspended to allow the accumulation of relevant
    data to enable the Board to better evaluate
    the ictual effects of Waukegan Station emissions
    on ambient air quality.
    The intent of these orders ‘is quite clear especially when read
    with my October 4, 1973 opinion in PCB 73-40 and PCB 72-491.
    Severe health hazards were found to exist by the Board because
    of both SO
    and particulate projected levels.
    The intent was
    to gather &aily data on ‘both SO, and particulate and evaluate
    the health hazard by actual ‘meflurement.
    13—ni
    Edison has not furnished a scrap of data on particulate
    measurements even though its network has been operative since
    April 17,
    1974.
    The Edison petition,
    filed two months later,
    on
    July 22,
    1974, provides ambient SO2 data
    (Ex, D) but states
    “Particulate and meteorological data is not yet available”.
    Beyond this nothing else appears
    in the record,
    High~volume
    air samplers, evidently used in this network, operate for 24~hours
    with a pre~-weighedfilter,
    After operating,
    they are turned off
    and the filter removed,
    All that remains
    is to stabilize the
    filter to
    a uniform humidity and then re~weigh, Thus there
    seems to be no reason why particulate data from April
    17
    to July 17, inclusive, could not have 6een provided.
    Ninety
    days of data from nine stations would be far better than no
    data from any station,
    The Illinois Environmentai Protection Agency did not go
    on record in the instant interim variance extension,
    It has
    the initial burden of ensuring adherence
    to Board orders but
    made no comment on the failure of Edison to comply.
    The majority order
    (pp. 5~6)expresses “grave doubts”
    about granting this interim variance,
    I would have rejected
    the Waukegan interim variance and granted the portion dealing
    with the Sabrooke plant,
    Board orders are written to be obeyed,
    And where public health
    is the reason for
    the order,
    compliance
    ought to be insisted upon.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was
    submitted on the ~day
    of
    1974,
    Illinois Pollution
    13=242

    Back to top