based upon both calculated emissions and the lowest Highlandtest level:
BOILER CALCULATED LOWEST TEST
#2 86.2 No test
#3 91 25

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 25,

1974

)

CITY OF HIGHLAND

)

v.

)

 PCB 73-288

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

MR. JOHN

GEISMANN,

 CITY ATTORNEY, appeared on behalf of the

City of Highland

MR. DELBERT HASCHEMEYER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared

on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency

OPINION

AND

 ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Dumelle):

The City of Highland (Highland)

 filed a Variance Petition

seeking relief from Rules 203(g) (1) (B) and 204(c)(l)(A)

 of Chapter

2

of the Pollution Control Board’s

 Rules

 and Regulations

 (Air Regulations)

on June 22,

 1973.

 On July 19,

 1973 the Board declared Highland~s

Variance Petition to be insufficient

 to meet procedural require-

ments.

 On August 10, 1973 Highland filed an Amended Variance

Petition seeking the same relief.

 The Agency filed

 a Recommenda-

tion to deny the Variance Petition on October

24,

 1973,

The

Agency correctly alleged that Rules

 203 and 204 do not become

effective until May,

 1975, therefore,

 Petitioner must he seeking

 relief from Rule

 103(b)

 and RulelO4

of

 the Air Regulations and

Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of

Air Pollution

 (Air Rules).

 Three days of hearing were held on

October 26, 29,

aid

 November

19,

 1973.

 A waiver

of

 the statutory

90-day decision period was filed

on

 January

31,

 1974.

On

February 19,

 1974, Highland filed an Amended Variance Petition

seeking relief from Rules

 103(b) (2)

 and 104

 of the Air Regulations,

Rule 3-3.112 of the Air Rules, and Section 9(a)

 of the Act,

 High-

land’s attorney of record orally waived the 90-day decision period

until July 11, 1974.

 Pursuant to Procedural Rule

 408., Highland~s

filing of an Amended Variance Petition also waived the 90-day

decision period until July 11, 1974 by starting the running of

the time period again.

—

167

~i

g la ~ oo”~aes

a

cur

 ipai

 ‘1’

T~e

 at’

~ ~l

r

al l~

~ iti

i

h~en

c

‘.15SI)

~ont ci

S

~r

g~s

CB

I

 8~ ~

0

t~s~ ~hrar

as

~ e roes ~

er

~1ghI ir

 pp~ed ~o

 ar O~e

~

3er

ii

 o~~anuary

I

 t9~3

kpriJ.

I

 ~07~

 ~e Ag~rsv~eiie~ ao Open

 ~ng ~‘errt fo~

e

~ne~’boil

 is bees ise b ghlanci foiled

 offer

 a compl~ane e~an

a pro ec~

 ~neletions ~‘ed~l

 ~hich ~ou~

sho

 ca~lr

L

~

 app icabie Ides

 ~rk ~u~ators

lgr

~d

 s power gerera iig statr~rrs

 the o~ s urce ot

owen

ci

~i

.g

 the ~tv

 of 1-Eghlard

The

 sumi en

peak demands for

O~

O9~3,and 1974 are estrirated

t

 be i~,J00, 1

000

 and 16,500 kw

nespec~ive~ R.

52

 and page

 o or ~meided ar~anceP

 tition

Because Highland

 s rrt ~nterccnneced ~ith am’ other no~ersystem

it

 is ~her fore nec~s~ary

to

 ~tilizc

 the coal fired system to

suppremert

 tne die~ellueL and gas-fin

 6 tunbi~ege erator~~hici

can oil

 p~ovidelI,9c0

ki

 page

of

 ~ger~’Reccmmenda~io4),

Hig~laal,together with ele~nother

 llrno~smunicipaliIi~s

are preseotly seeking an interconnecticr

 ~ith IllInois Power

Company and other rembers

of

 the illinois-Missouri Power oooL

This reque~t ‘as filed in December of

 1069 before

 ~he Federal

Power Comjiission

 F’ighlaii alleges that ~.ore’uare compliance

ith

the

 in Reguiatrors

ou

6

 cc avbi~ray and un eas~naole ~ca se

occe the irterconnectr~nagneenent

 is erteed into, Highland wiil

oe in compliance by J975 (Page

 Amended ~ar~ancePettlon

b

using the three coal-frreci boilers for standby purposes

 a u~ng

other fue~sto meet emissicos requiraments

 (Page

 2, Amended

Variance Petition)

 If Higiland

is not granted an Interconnection

order by the Federal Power Commission, Highland proposes to file

a Compliance Schedule showing compliance with applicable Board

Rules and Regulations.

The Board has decided to deny Highland’s Variance request

for the following reasons,

 The City of Highland has violated

the previous Board Order to replace its coal-fired generating

units with gas

and

 diesel

units

by January

1972

 (Order of the

Board,

PCB

 71-284,

 3-250).

 The record

 is clear that the City

 o~ce gelerating

C

‘~

c

~y

—

LS

 ~ot~i gene”~rig ~a a-

 t’

of

s

43

kw

-~c 6

 urb~r

 -enena o~

o

de

~‘

 ‘0 k~,

 h cc

alec

ii

n

Ire

ub

±

 ~mende1 Va

in

o~ide1

00

v

I

e

e

c

al

b

 i e~

ye

iect

~

 ~or Boa

6

6

as

an

s

 in Con ama

t

e uc~

 0~. g

ac

 ~LRF

p

 ‘e

y

 ~e ki

 “olluta

a’

 ~e1ui~‘ci ~e

 ~a’m’n

 tie ~cal fired b

a

e

‘5

n~t

o

1

1

1

1

u

s cart

to

 arianc’

i’

n

 e Piiitaoi

‘

 3 art g

 n~e H~giIard r

an

or ~rI

 i’

I

~Y2

n

‘i

ten

c

cc

a e

~

 tiree

 cal-a rd

~iie

o

Ci

~

 Irgr tana

D~’erDca

0,

1

1

)

 ‘ne coard finds

an

ra

ly

u~tca ned

u

 or dough

a

 aniar

e

fr

a

OCB

71

‘

4

13

188

a

s

c

it

 ia4g

I

 ise ~

~

 ~-~a

 ‘ci a~

R

ayt’

~

e

r

“5

‘~

‘~a

gn

 ~c’as

C

4arn.

UcY~i’

4

 ilntt,i

i

 ‘~age

‘5o

~‘

I

ghl

ia

Id

e

r

 tntta..

e

°°

~al

 Lirt

ers o~

t

 °ab

sa

e

:~

4

 C SC

ef

to

Hi

±.

um

a

 n’

 c’r

,i0

o

be

i.e

0 en~ai ~cr

5

 s’

tLai

 an’i

 ~ ‘ng

the

I ti

 lining

 ‘cc

oqc

g

 c~ coke

un~

ard

ie

rf

e~ her

 ‘linoa

 ~er Conpan

u~

a

r,3

 ~-~e’gy

aV~

Highla c

ibi~

H

 ag’

,nl

e

co

 ~e ~tht

is

a

 ‘cc

the

tm~unt

-f

nes

“ed

Hag5laad

oeak

ilghlad

Vxhibit

i0e

lng’ilard

~oc

that

duni”g

the

 a ‘r~~

 r.’

 wages

 ~rd 3°ot~moerthey be allow°d

to use

 tie roaj~jlnodunits

as

 base

 tnits

tb

 me nl and gas

 peak unats cecause of

4~

 ‘tart-up tame

 equired of a ooai’far~d

boiler

 as compared to

 t,.e short start-up tame of the engine

(

 26, 2~

 I~interconnection was

 ac omplished nrtr Illinoas

P wer,

 5,000 kw would

 be available during summer

 e peak periods

R

 248),

 ,h’s

 1-27

 11,500

 ka would have

t

be

 s ppiied by

 e City of Highland

 ar,d th

 s ~oald

 e suopsaed

 v o~enatangthe

.aesel-gas fired urn ~ (R

252

 Ihe amount of pcwen available

from illinoi’

 Powen

i’

 0ontrolled by the denaro

 -n lica

 as Power

mpany’s

 syster

 Il-is

 .esi .d

 os incneasang an

ono

a

 educ

s

tie ex0e~s apac

1

o

 00’ kw

 Illano

 s Pen’

 ,m~d ave

0o

‘xpand the oaoaca~y

.t

bi~

 w’ar,snis”io,

 .4-e

R

2

1

e

 Fe thw’

g

t

e

 ,re en

‘

 e ems,,

 ~rac~er

~

fo

~a

I

te

 rhncc boa ers

won

 ‘nber

0

calculated

264

lb/hr

:94.4

SO~al1rn~d after

SG/Th

lb/hr

11°

ia/hr

162,0

lb/hr

Paftlculate

calculated

test

14,05

sb/hr

31,4

lb/hr

Pgrticulate

allowed

(lb

 lb/hr

~6.5

li/hr

17,82

Particulate

allowed

(lb

BTU)

lb/*I~wPii

,282

lb/IN

BT’J

.s333

lb/lBs

PT’S

e

cnn

&

a

‘

 ‘5

_l:

4’

a°r.

tic

C

‘ice

Oi

C

k~

a’

ir

 Am”’

—

‘

a

 rrh0ar0

~‘

 ‘g

n r

 idea 4o,

the

Lr~o~

,o

a

s

n

 ti~°F

 a ci’

±

an

‘a4

I

re

n-n

a

~

r

n

‘

 no”

s

•

‘

~,.

a

ccci

a

e en,

 ‘a

‘ad

•-‘e

 4’

a

‘a

 “ci

g

a,

.cnn

on

 cia”

 ‘Yet

513

-a

‘

a,-

1’

“lie

p

“a Ii

n

the

able

I

13

—

i89

-4-

The-stack tests conducted for Highland

by Peabody Coal

Company

 is not accepted by the Agency

 as being fully representa-

tive of emissions from the

power plant

(R,

 236).

 Accepting

for the moment these results,

Boiler #3 is

shown to be in viola-

tion of Rule 3-3.112.

 The tests were not conducted

at rated

capacity, but were conducted at some point between average firing

rate and the maximum firing rate.

 The Agency calculates

Highland’s

particulate emission rates for each of the boilers to be

 2.33 lbs.

per million BTU,

 This would be some four-times the allowable

particulate limited of 0.55 lbs. per million BTUs~. The test results

from Peabody Coal Company show that at the operating levels

 tested,

that Boiler

#4 clearly exceeds the 0.55 lbs. per million

BTU

 limit.

They did not test Boiler

#2.

 The test results

 for Boiler #3 in-

dicate compliance.

 The same test results indicate non-compliance

with the May 30,

1975 allowable particulate emission rates.

Mr. Lee

S.

 Busch, an Agency employee, presented the following per-

centage of the necessary reduction in particulate emission aevels

based upon both calculated emissions

 and the lowest Highland

test level:

BOILER

 CALCULATED

 LOWEST TEST

#2

 86.2

 No test

#3

91

25

#4

 93.1

74

Thus using either the Agency’s calculated emission levels or

the lowest emission rate tested, Highland must still reduce its

particulate emission levels

 to comply with Board regulations

(R,

 238, 239

and

 240).

Highland’s boilers exhaust through relatively low stacks,

Boiler

 #2 has

 a 170-foot stack,

 Boiler

 #3 has 110-foot stack,

and

Boiler

 #4 has

 a 70-foot stack

 (Agency Exhibit 10).

 Citizens

concern for the particulate emissions is evidenced by Agency

Exhibit

7

which

 is a petition signed by

 10 persons objecting to

the “excessive exhaust emissions”.

 This petition was sent to

Dr. John Roberts

 at the Agency.

 The photographs submitted into

evidence by the Agency point out

 the results of Highland’s

 particulate emissions in excess of standards.

 They show

discoloration of homes

 and sidewalks

 (Agency Exhibits

1,

2,

3,

4,

 and 5).

Mr.

Taylor testified as

 to the actual physical

conditions

 indicated

by

 the five photographs which were taken

in his presence

(R,

 98 and 100),

 Mr. Taylor resides in the

immediate vicinity portrayed in the photographs previously

referred to

 as Agency Exhibit

 1 through

S

 (R. 98),

13— 170

—5-

Mr. E. Taylor

 testified

 that he had observed the

emissions coming from Highland’s power plant on numerous

occasions

(R.

 96).

He

 testified that when the wind blows from

the power plant toward his property, that

he

 had to cover his

face,

 cover any wash on the washline, that the emissions would

come into his house through open windows and cover the inside

of the house, and even with the windows closed that

 the emissions

would enter

 t:he house

(R.

 97).

Mr.

 Taylor identified the

emissions, which caused the discolorations indicated by Agency

 Exhibits

I

 through

5,

as

 fly-ash

(R.

 101).

 Agency Exhibit

6

is

 a sample of the fly-ash removed by Mr. Taylor from

 a three

foot section of his guttering which had accumulated over

 a two

month period

(R.

 101, 102,

 and 121).

 Mr. Taylor

 testified

as

to

the difficulty in breathing caused by

 a sulfur-like

 odor which

appears when, the wind blows

 the emissions toward his home

(R.

 104).

Mr. Taylor testified that, although he had painted

his

borne

three

or

 four years

 ago,

 was necessary to repaint once

 a month cer-

tain

portions

which

become

discolored

(R.

116)

Mrs.

Voss

testified

that

the

emissions

from

Highland’s

coal

units

have

stained

 her car

 and that this required repairing

(R.

192),

 She further testified that her laundry was stained

the

emission

when

she

hung

 it out to

dry

(R,

193).

Mrs.

Voss

also stated that black smoke from Highland’s power plant had on

occasion fillè.d her house

(R.

 194).

Another citizen witness, Mr. Walter Kirsten, who lives

approximately 400 feet from Highland’s Power Plant, testified about

coal-smoke entering the windows

 of his home and fly-ash settling

on his porch floor

(R.

 200),

 He further testified that the fly-ash

settled on his car and required two washings

 to remove

 it and

caused small pitting of his automobile paint surface

(R,

 200),

The

 citizen testimony presented at the hearing,

the

Agency calculated emission rates .and the Peabody Coal testing

clearly indicate that the City of Highland

is

 causing the parti-

culate emission problem

 which unreasonably interferes with the

surrounding citizens right to enjoy their property free from

such

emissions.

Substantial

testimony

was

 presented regarding

the

technical

and

economic

feasibility

the

particulate

and

SO2

emissions

standards

which

become

effective

May

30,

1975.

The

technical

and

economic

feasibility

the

Air

Pollution

Regulation was fully considered prior

 to adoption by the Board.

The Board,

 in part,

 denies Petitioner’s request because Petitioner

has

 failed to present the Board with a control program

other than delay.

13—

171

-6-

The

Board

has

decided

deny

Petitioner’s

Variance

request

because-

of

the

demonstrated

interference

with

the

surrounding

citizens,

Highland’s

failure

comply

with

the

Board

Order, Highland’s failure to carry out its ACERP program

modified,,

and Highland’s

 failure to comply with the Interim Board Order of

March

 14, 1974,

 The Interim Order required the City of Highland

to furnish the Board, within 30 days, information concerning the

current

 status

 of negotiations between Highland and Illinois Power

regarding interconnection,

 the litigation before the Federal

Power Commission seeking an order compelling Illinois Power

to

interconnect and the situation regarding fuel oil and natural

gas deliveries

 and supplies

to

the City of Highland.

This Opinion constitutes

 the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions

of

 law.

OIWBR

T:~c.e~ I

i1:ino•ic; Pci

cit i c~ri Contn’ci

:~. Boan’d

he:reby

den! e

the

t~~

o~t

‘aidrianic

l~

out:

 :~i’e

1act

1CC

I

•

 ~hnistanL. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

 hereby certify the

 above Opinion and Qrder~were adopted on the

~L~’~day

July,

1974

vote

—

172