ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 28, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION   

1,

)

Complainant,

)

V.

)

PCB 72—204

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY,     

)

Respondent.

Thomas A. Cengel, Assistant Attorney General, for the

Environmental Protection Agency;

Mr. Robert Broderick for Union Electric Company.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Parker):

This Complaint was filed on May 12, 1972, and charges the

Respondent, Union Electric Company, with causing or allowing

the “discharge or emission of dense smoke in violation of Rule

3-3.122 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of

Air Pollution, continued effective pursuant to Section 49 Cc)

of the Environmental Protection Act”. The violations allegedly

occurred at Respondent’s Cahokia Plant in Sauget, Illinois, on

January 22 and 26, 1971, and November 1, 1971.

Respondent’s Cahokia Plant is an electric power generating

facility with a capacity of approximately 325 megawatts CR. 59).

It has 8 coal fired boilers and 14 oil fired boilers, the coal

fired boilers accounting for a maximuir. of 141 megawatts of the

facility’s capacity, and the oil fired boilers accounting for

the remainder CR. 59). The facility has six stacks, numbered

one through six, which extend approximately 329 feet from ground

level CR. 57-58). The number 2 stack, which is oil fired, is

the stack involved in the alleged violations of January 22 and

26, 1971 CR. 19;. The number 6 stack, which 19 coal fired, is

the stack involved in the November 1, 1971 allegation.

On the morning of January 22, 1971, thn kqrw.r.y Snspectzr

wont to the facility and ;aonitored the number 2 

~t~Oit

for

approximately 3D xninutes~ from 9~O3a.n. to 9:3a 

(R. 39).

lIe was stationnc3 approximately 1/3 ril.a to th;~so:~tht~a~tof t~ie

fn1~il1ty

(R. 19).

ile stated he obaerved a

n~’~

tr~s-:ion t’~

approximately 

density, 

whict: translates to a reading c~ 

3-1/2

~‘nthe Ringelrnann chart 

La). He took those rca~ingsevery

t; seconds for a cntinuc: ..s p.~riod cl 3(’ mjry.ttes

“.

Me:

~a:~

not sure it’nk~ tad used ~

F.xncdE’~•anr Char:: rzt t;:-z i~:t~

C::.

‘.

On the morning of January 26, 1971, the same inspector

observed that the number 2 stack from a spot approximately 1

mile east of the facility (R. 22) had an emission with a

Ringelmann reading in excess of 2 (R. 24) from 8:21 a.m. to

8:31 a.m. (R. 23), except for approximately one minute when the

reading was discontinued because the plume from another stack

was interfering with the plume from the number 2 stack (R. 24).

Again, the witness did not remember if he used his Ringelmann

chart (R. 40)

On the afternoon of November 1, 1971, the witness returned

to the facility with another Agency inspector. They observed

the number 6 stack for approximately 10 minutes (R. 28) with

the witness taking the Ringelmann reading as his companion held

the Ringelmann chart (R. 41) 

The witness stated that he obtained

a reading of 3 on the Ringelrnann chart, CR. 

29),

In defense, the Respondent’s witnesses testified that

Respondent has a television installation for monitoring the

stacks at its facility (R. 59 et seq.). The installation was

established in May of 1970, and was in operation on all three

dates alleged in the Complaint (R. 60, 71) 

The camera is

mounted on a pole approximately 300 feet from the main building

and about 12 feet off the ground, and is tilted upward looking

toward the plant (R. 60) 

The signal is carried by a coaxial

cable to five television monitoring sets which can be observed by

the company personnel who are firing the boilers (R. 60) 

The

installation has a tape recording device which provides a record

of the television picture (R. 63) 

The company rotates four reels

of tape, each reel being used for approximately one week (R. 63),

giving the company a record of its stacks dating back three weeks

(R. 63)

The company received a letter dated February 5, 1971 from the

Agency notifying it that there were possible Ringelmann viola-

tions (H, 62; Agency Exhibit 8) 

After finding out from the

Agency the exact times for which violations might have occurred,

the Company viewed its tapes (R. 64), and decided that in its

judgment there was no violation of the regulations (H. 

65)

However, the plant superintendent who viewed the tapes had no

training in Ringelmann chart reading (H. 74) 

After this review

of the tapes, the company reused them, thereby erasing whatever

documentary proof it had regarding the condition of the stacks.

The vice-president in charge of operations for the Respondent

replied by letter dated February 22, 1971 (Agency Exhibit 7) to

the Agency’s letter of February 5, 1971. This reply neither

admitted nor denied the validity of the Agency allegation,

although it did acknowledge “heavy stack emissions.” Fifteen

months later, the Complaint was filed.

—2—

6

—

302

The company ‘received word” on December 20, 1971 that a

possible violation occurred on November 1, 1971 (R. 71) 

But by that time the television monitoring tapes had already

been reused (R. 71). The company makes much of photographs

taken by the Agency (Respondent Exhibits A and B) on November

1, 1971, which photographs do not show a violation. The

Agency witness conceded that the smoke was “quite light” at

the time of the photographs CR. 34). The photographs, however,

were taken at 1:45 p.m. (R. 34), which is approximately fifteen

minutes after the violation allegedly occurred. Thus the

photographs came too late to rebut the evidence of a violation.

We find Respondent’s defenses unconvincing. Although the

Respondent did review the tapes of the January, 1971 allegations,

it chose not to preserve them. In any event, Respondent’s

judgment as to what the tapes showed was not based on any formal

training in a smoke reading school,whereas the Agency witness

based his judgment on extensive experience and training in the

the reading and evaluation of smoke (R. 12, 13, 52) 

We

therefore find that a violation of Rule 3-3.122 occurred on

January 22, 1971 and January 26, 1971.

The Company’s defense to the November 1, 1971 allegation

is even weaker. All the company relied on are two photographs

which show the plant sometime after the alleged violation had

taken place. We accordingly find that a violation of Rule

3-3.122 also occurred on November 1, 1971.

Having found violations as alleged, we turn now to the

problem of remedy and penalty. The problem of remedy is easily

solved in this case: we will order the Respondent to cease and

desist from further violations of Rule 3-3.122, The problem of

penalty is somewhat more complex. For reasons described belotq,

do not believe a large money penalty is justified by the facts of

this case. We note that the January, 1971 violations dealing with

stack number 2 occurred nearly two years ago; that the Complaint

was filed on May 12, 1971, nearly a year and a half later; that

the hearing was held on October 13, 1972; and that no other

problems from stack number 2 apparently occurred during the long

period of time the Agency had this facility under surveillance.

We therefore conclude from this record that the violations of

January 22 and 26, 1971 were temporary and minor and that what-

ever caused them has been corrected. The November 1, 1971

violation was similarly temporary, having occurred for approximately

10 minutes, and its cause has apparently also been corrected.

We are therefore imposing a small money penalty of $100 for each

violation, for a total money penalty of $300.00.

303

acasa ac~I 

dcsiss fro~ ~av ~ur:har

2:I~h- 

:‘cs an~ 1c iI::l’ss Gc~ara—

~-r:~c:a:~r--ci1ric~~rc’~-

a::iaSss’sriS

•~

•-r

-, •~:

r:.L a:~

:.~

Ir~

•: .-~

ch-~ck 

aas~-~

- - —~..

:-..

S~r::aS

~scac•r.

.aac~

..s.~ 

~acrc5:

- •-~.

Ii:

~

lct~c-n

Co

stro

icr: a~a ~~rbcr ~~a3 -sJcpt~s

-‘

-.~-

~•~——      

-—-———~-.

c~:act cab

-

304