ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 18,
1975
CITY OF HIGHLAND,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 75—50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelie):
On February 3, 1975 the City of Highland, Illinois
(City)
came before the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board) with a
petition for variance from Section 9(a) of the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act
(Act), Rules
102,
103(b) (2),
104,
3—3.112,
203(g) (1) (B)
,
203(i) (4), 204(c) (1) (A) and 204(h) (2) of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations
(Air Rules), and from Board Order
PCB
71-284
as applied to the City’s coal-fired boilers
2,
3, and
4 at the Highland Municipal Electric Power Plant
(Plant).
A
hearing was held on April
30, 1975.
The City requests a variance to allow it to operate the
coal-fired boilers until the interconnection to the Illinois Power
Company is completed.
Thereafter, it seeks a variance to operate
the boilers in case of an emergency.
The interconnection, according to the City’s brief,
page 7,
was scheduled to begin operation on July 1,
1975.
However, at
the hearing, it was stated that the interconnection would be
operational by January 1,
1976
(Tr.4).
That date is approaching
quickly, yet the City has not informed the Board of the progress
of that construction project in
the past 7—1/2 months.
The first order to retire the City’s coal-fired boilers was
issued under an Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program.
The
deadline was July 1,
1971.
Subsequent Board Orders were issued
with the same goal.
PCB 71-284 granted variance until January
1,
1972.
This Order also was not complied with.
On July 25,
1974
the Board denied a similar variance petition because it lacked
a compliance program
(PCB 73-288).
The City has had almost five
years to bring forth a good faith effort to cease its violations
of the Air Rules.
It has failed to do so.
19
-
470
—2—
The Board will not grant a variance where the Petitioner
fails to undertake a program which would result in compliance
with the regulations.
In this case, no compliance program is
proposed to control emissions from the coal—fired boilers.
Petitioner requests variances to operate the boilers until the
interconnection ~iscompleted.
Considering the City’s history
of a lack of good faith, and absence of a compliance program,
the Board must deny that portion of Petitioner’s variance request.
The Board must also reject the City’s request for a variance
to operate
itth
boilers on an emergency or stand-by basis after
completion of the interconnection.
This is because of the above
mentioned lack of compliance program and lack of good faith,
plus
the Board’s policy not to issue speculative variances
(City of Carlyle v.EPA, PCB 75—165
(May 15, 1975);
PCB 75-253,
(July 17,
1975)).
On page
9 of its Petition, the City states,
“No matter how the Plant utilizes the interconnection agreement,
it is flexible enough to allow the Plant to operate without depending
on the boilers to produce electricity”.
In that case, the Board
finds no reason for the City to need a variance.
The Board reaches
these conclusions without finding it necessary to discuss the issues
raised in the Train case
(Train v. NRDC,
NO.
73—1742,
7 E.R.C.
1735,
(April 16,
1975)).
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of
law.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Board that the petition of the City
of Highland, Illinois,
be and
is hereby dismissed.
I, Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, here~certify the above Opinion and Order werç adopted
on the ________day of December,1975 by a vote of
~.-Q
Illinois Pollution
1 Board
19
-
471