ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 17,
1974
COMMONWEALTH
EDISON COMPANY
PETITIONER
v.
)
PCB 73—359
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
RESPONDENT
)
MARK
H.
VIRSHBO,
ATTORNEY,
in
behalf
of
COMMONWEALTH
EDISON
DOUGLAS
MORING,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
in
behalf
of
the
ENVIRON-
NENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Marder)
This action involves a request for a variance extension filed
August 22,
1973.
Relief is sought from Rules 201 and 203
(1)
of Chap-
ter
3, Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois, until August 15,
1974.
By
August 15, 1974, Petitioner alleges it will have a maximum recycle,
liquid radioactive waste treatment facility operating.
It
is also
alleged that the
origin~i1ly
planned
diffuser
pipe
will
not
be
required.
Shoreline alterations and discharge modifications
are alleged to allow
compliance with the applicable rules.
Commonwealth Edison owns
and operates, in Grundy County, Illinois,
a three-unit nuclear powered generating station.
Unit One was made
operable in 1960 and has
a capacity of 200
niw.
Units
Two
and Three
came on stream in 1970 and 1971 with rated capacity of
809 mw each.
Petitioner’s need for variance centers around thermal pollution re-
sulting from the discharge of cooling water into the Illinois River.
Presently cooling water
for Unit
#1
is 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 are pres-
ently discharging to an open—cycle cooling lake of 1300 acres.
Overflow
from this
lake
is discharged to the Illinois River.
A
brief
chronology
of
events
is
in
order
so
as
to
bring
the
variance
extension
request
up
to
date.
Dresden
#1
has
always
operated
on
once
through
cooling
and
is
not
the
subject
of
variance.
Dresden
Units
#2
and
#3
are
the
facilities
in
question.
The
following
is
a
sunimary
of
events.
1.
On
March
3,
1971,
the
Board
in
PCB
70-21
issued
a
permit
to
Commonwealth
Edison
to
operate
Unit
#3.
In
granting
said
permit
a
num-
ber
of
conditions
were
imposed,
e.g.,
10
—
659
—2—
“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 following 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’s order 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 re-
cycle
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
aboveraentioned
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
50
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 also protect 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
Illarch 29,
1973, variance
was granted from 201 and 203
(1)
until
November
23,
1973.
4.
On August 22,
1973,
PCB 73—359
(the instant case)
was filed ask-
ing for extension to November 23, 1974,
or such shorter time needed to
complete the aforementioned compliance
plan.
On November 13,
1973,
Petitioner filed for and was granted an interim variance until Jan-
uary 22,
1973.
This chronology brings up to date the events since the startup
of
*
SWB—8 was superseded in part by Rules 201 and 203
(i)
of Chapter
3
on
March
7,
1972,
(PCB
R71—14),
10
660
—3—
Dresden #3.
The instant case raises two new points
in
addition to the
ones raised previously.
In addition to deciding the variance case on
its merits, the Board is requested to rule on an interpretation of
Rule 201 and the acceptability of not using a diffuser pipe
as required
previously.
These issues will be discussed separately.
Interpretation of Rule 201:
Rule 201 deals with mixing zones and states in part:
“Moreover, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter,
no single mixing zone shall exceed the area of a circle
with a radius of 600 feet.”
There are a number of ways in which this sentence can be interpreted,
and the interpretation chosen will have a great impact on controls re-
quired.
A)
The Agency contends
(Pg.
5 Agency recommendation)
that the 600
feet refers to a linear measure in any direction from the point of dis-
charge.
If the point of discharge is the shore line,
this would restrict
a mixing zone to about one-hai~ the area of a circle with
a radius of
600
feet.
B)
The mixing zone may be considered to be not only the area of a
circle 600 feet in radius but also the shape of
a circle.
This would
put
a
double
constraint
on
mixing
zones.
C)
The mixing zone may be considered to be restricted by area and
not shape.
This would state that the 26 acres of area could take any
shape at all, e.g.,
cigar shape.
This issue first came up in the original request for a permit for
Dresden #3
(PCB 70-21)
March
3,
1971.
In this opinion the fact that
a
600 foot mixing zone was applicable was established.
The Opinion went
on to state that,
“In so interpreting SWB—8 to include within it
a mixing
zone of 600 feet, we,
as
a Board, are not expressing
favor in such a concept.”
The Board upheld the principle in concept, but did not approve or
disapprove at that time.
Nor did the Board at that time establish how
the 600 feet
is to be measured.
During its deliberation in R-70-2 Thermal Standards, Lake Michigan,
the Board expanded on the above reasoning.
The mixing zone for Lake
Michigan was interpreted to be 1000 feet with a maximum temperature
differential of 3°F.
at the boundary.
In going from 600 feet to 1000
feet at
50
F.
and
30
F. no significant change was made.
The major de-
cision was that concept of area was brought in.
On pages 24 and 25 of
R-70-2 the word “area” is brought into play.
10—661
—4—
During adoption of Rule 201 in Board proceedings R-7l—l4, the prob-
lem of maintaining a circular area was explored.
In the Board’s opin-
ion dated March
7,
1972, it was stated:
“In response to other testimony received today’s regula-
tion alters the 600 foot linear zone... .here preserved
as
a maximum... .to
a zone no larger than the area of a
circle
with
600-foot radius, by analogy to the Lake
Michigan
Standard
(#R70-2,
June
9,
1971),
recognizing
that
in
flowing
streams
the
shape
of
a
plume
is
likely
to be long and thin in
a downstream direction.”
This quote would seem to answer the relevant question.
In this
action the Board will reaffirm the opinion of R70-2 defining mixing
zones
as
a dually flexible condition comprising both area and shape
(Case
C
above).
Petitioner alleges that the above rationale is the one it followed
in all previous proceedings.
Dr. Sayre testified
(R,
29)
that all of
the work he has ever done in designing discharge structures to conform
with Illinois temperature standards has been done on the shape/area
basis.
He further testified that a proposed standard
(R-73-l) which
would limit mixing zones to no more than 25 percent of the cross-sect-
ional area of the river and no more than 25 percent of the total flow
was considered.
The Board feels that Petitioner has done well to con-
sider the eventuality of adoption of R-73-l and should pursue this
course of action.
Use of Diffuser Pipe:
Petitioner contends that the previously proposed diffuser pipe will
not be required to meet Rule 201 and 203
Ci)
and would rather modify
the shoreline and install a slot at the end of its discharge canal.
The Board has no interest in dictating technology, but rather in assur-
ing that adequate technology
is employed to abate pollution.
The only
question facing the Board is whether the proposed system would comply
with Rule 201 and 203
(i).
Dr. W. Sayre testified
(R. 14-40)
as to the results of physical mod-
eling.
His conclusion was that a slot-jet discharqe structure can be
built at Dresden which will meet the regulations almost as effectively
as a diffuser pipe system.
The difference between a diffuser pipe’s
and a slot jet’s ability to meet the standards would be less than one
percent.
There were two models constructed, the first being
a simula-
tion of 60
river width, the second being the entire river width with
distorted horizontal and vertical dimensions,
LIodel #1 study is
corn—
pleted and Model
#2 studies are underway~
Pliase one study has led to
the tentative design criteria for the slot jet.
Many alternate jet de-
signs were offered and if Phase two studies show modifications are in
order, the planned-on design can be changed~
Tentative design calls
.for use of con.figuraticn
#4,
Run 23.
Data
on these two runs were submitted in Pete Ex~ 3 and 8~ Data on these
—5—
runs
is
as
follows:
Flow
Dresden
#1
426
c.f.s.
Flow Dresden 2
&
3
111 c.f.s.
Flow River
7400 c.f.s.
Delta T 1
(Temp.
Dresden
1)
19°F.
Delta
2,
3
(Temp. Dresden
28°F.
2,
3)
Area required for
50
F.
10 acres
The average minimum
7 day low flow
(10 years)
for the Illinois Riv-
er is 2,680
cfs.
Also if this were coupled with
a temperature of 85°
F.
(summer) or
550
F.
(winter) the worst possible case would exist.
These conditions would in effect lower the allowable Delta T at the
edge of the mixing zone to less than
50
F.
By use of both physical
and mathematical models,
Dr. Sayre claims that with a designed dele-
tion ratio of 0.15 the 5°F.maximum should be met except at the low-
est river flow and highest ambient river temperatures.
The probabil-
ity of this occurring is very low.
The data generated by Dr. Sayre has convinced the Board that
equal
protection would be afforded by using
a slot-jet as would be by use
o:E
a diffuser.
It is also interesting to note that the use of
a slot-jet
in combination
with the abovernentioned mixing zone should dihiinish
the problems of
a passage zone for fisu.
The question of environmental
impact will be discussed later.
In determining whether to grant the requested variance extension
the Board will consider the facts presented in the instant
case.
The
pertinent questions are as
follows:
A)
What are the reasons for delay in compliance?
B)
What is the environmental impact of
a grant?
C)
Is there an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship involved?
Delay in Compliance:
Mr. Galle testified for Petitioner
as to the reasons for delay in
the proposed radioactive wastewater treatment plant.
The complete oper-
ation is scheduled to be finished on August 15, 1974
(R.
42)
.
The main
reason for delay was given
as rework time for major components.
Pet-
itioner alleges that several pieces of equipment did not meet the re-
quired quality levels.
The following are the various problems encoun-
tered:
1.
Unexpected piling required on building foundation.
2
Metallurgical lamination flaws in sheet steel.
3.
Contamination of stainless steel in concentrators.
Work on this unit is alleged to be
24 hours
a day to meet the August
15
date.
Petitioner
alleges
that
piping
is
underway
and
will
require
seven
10
—
~63
—6—
and one-half months to complete,
as will electrical work
(R.
49).
Although this process is now one full year behind the original sched—
ule,
the
end
seems
to
be
in
sight.
While
some
of
the
delay
may
have
been self—imposed,
on
the
whole
it
seemed unavoidable.
The evidence is
sufficient
to warrant a grant in this respect.
Environmental
Impact
of
Dresden:
Dr. Johnson of BIO-TEST Labs,
Inc., testified
(R. 52—74)
as
to the
environmental
impact
of
the
thermal
plume
on
the
Illinois
River.
A
number of exhibits were entered, among
which
was
Pet.
Exh.
26
which
is
a
large
study
of
the
three
river
network
up
until
December
1972.
Dr.
Johnson
broke
his
testimony
into four parts as follows:
(R.
54)
(A)
General Condition of the River:
The
character
of
the
rivers
in
the
vicinity
of Dresden has remained
essentially
unchanged.
(R.
55)
(B)
Effect
of
Dresden
on
Rivers:
Data from
1969
to
December
1972 including chemical andThacteriological
data
show
no
detectable
ecological
damage
to
the
river.
(R.
55)
(C)
Status
of
Monitoring
Programs:
Dr.
Johnson
described
the
types
of
tests
conducted
and
the
phases
of
the
testing.
He
outlined
that
further
testing
is
planned.
The
moni-
toring program was set up to, among other things, ascertain the changes
in the quality of the river in the vicinity of Dresden.
(R.
61)
(D)
Results of the Monitoring Program:
Many
trends
were
uncovered
in
the
five—year
study.
Various
exhibits
were
entered,
giving
five—year
records.
The
Dresden
plant
does
not
con-
tribute to
“water
quality”
parameters
to
any
great
extent.
Data
shows
that
the
difference
across
Dresden
is
minimal
(Pet.
Ex.
28).
Phyto-
plankton studies show
a similarity across the Dresden plant, which
var-
ies from season to season; no noticeable effect was picked up.
The same
can be said for zoo plankton
(R.
68).
Benthos
(bottom plants and ani-
mals)
were also explored.
The benthic community in the area was found
to be of
a highly restrictive type.
Although there seems to be
an in-
crease in this community immediately downstream of the
plant,
the corn—
munity is constant both upstream and well downstream
(see Exhibits 27
and 32)
.
The conclusion
reached
regarding
benthos
is that
there
was
no
deleterious effect on the community due to Dresden.
Pet. Exhibits 27,
33,
34,
35, and 36 outline results gathered from fish studies.
Again
no adverse effect on fish life was noted.
The following table from Ex-
hibit
36 is typical of results garnered.
10—664
—7—
No.
of Species/No, of Fish
Sampling Period
at each Location
D-2
D-5
D-7
Spring 71
9/95
2/57
7/247
Summer
71
12/144
1/1
13/56
Fall
71
6/24
2/3
4/144
Spring 72
10/132
3/69
8/643
Summer
72
13/62
7/11
13/83
Fall
72
4/15
4/45
12/107
Spring 73
6/29
6/10
14/111
Summer
73
9/34
5/56
5/87
In
the
above
table,
D—2
is a location at the intake to Dresden’s
cooling system,
D-5 is a location between
the
intake
and
outflow,
and
D-7 is a location just downstream of the outflow.
It must be remembered that location D-2
is the Kankakee River and
locations
D—5
and
D-7
are
after
the
confluence
of
the
Kankakee
and
the
Des Plaines.
From
all
the
above
the Board finds the weight of evidence is that no
significant environmental harm has occurred due to Dresden Units
2
&
3.
It
is
also important to note that the proposed slot-jet discharge
should yield even better mixing in the near future.
Hardship and Need for Plant:
The entire hardship case centered around the testimony of Mr.
R.
Beckwith and Mr.
R. Engle
(of Commonwealth Edison)
.
Both witnesses
testified as
to the hardship on the community rather than hardship on
Edison itself.
Mr. Beckwith
(R.
75-80) testified that the 1800 mw Dresden capacity
is needed to provide power to meet Edison’s peak load during the summer
of
‘74.
It
is also needed during non-peak loads
to allow maintenance
on
other
equipment.
Peak
load
at
Edison
is
projected
at
14,170
mw.
Edison’s rated capacity of all units is 17,176 mw.
,
including
both
Zion
units at 935 mw each.
Counting purchases of electricity and deducting
limitations Petitioner alleges it will have a net reserve of 1,184 mw.
This figure does not take into account the possibility of Zion not being
on stream or of reductions
at Powerton, Waukegan,
or Sabrooke.
Mr. Engle testified
(R.
81-88)
as
to the need for reserve capacity
to allow maintenance.
The above 1,184 mw is after allowances
for usual
maintenance but before considerations of forced outages and forecasting
errOrs. Mr. Engle testified that generators are planned for inspection
10
—
665
—8—
every five years with a six- to eight—week down time.
Much other main-
tenance
is
done during this down time
(ESP,
etc.).
Mr. Engle testified
that during the period of September 1972 to January 1973 Edison exper-
ienced an average monthly loss of 15
of its generating capacity.
It
is clear that Dresden will be required to maintain
steady state oper-
ation across the entire system.
From the above the Board finds that
a significant hardship would
be on the customers of Petitioner if Dresden was not allowed to operate.
One further point requires discussion.
The Agency in its recommen-
dation asks that Petitioner conduct its temperature monitoring in a
certain way.
In light of the Board’s decision in this opinion regard-
ing mixing zones, the Agency’s request
is not completely applicable.
Petitioner will be required to continue its temperature monitoring, how-
ever,
no specific methodology will be ordered.
The Order will require
the Agency and Petitioner to work out a reasonable method in light of
the decision on mixing zones.
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:
1. Petitioner be granted a variance from Rule 201 and 203
(i)
of Chapter
3 until August 15, 1974.
The reason for said variance is to allow Pet-
itioner to install and make operable its maximum recycle system for rad-
ioactive wastes, and conform with the required mixing zone.
2.
Petitioner shall by August 15, 1974, have operable a cooling water
discharge
system
which
will
meet
the
mixing
zone
criteria
as
outlined
in this Opinion.
3.
Petitioner shall continue to conduct its sampling and temperature
monitoring in a way to be mutually agreed upon by the Petitioner and
the Agency.
This method shall take into account this Board’s inter-
pretation of a mixing zone.
4.
Petitioner shall report monthly to the Agency as to its progress
in regards to Orders
1,
2, and 3 above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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
/7
~‘
day of
~
,
1974, by a vote of
~
10 —666