ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
15,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
~70—9
v.
)
#71—373
CITY
OF
SPRINGFIELD
THOMAS
J.
IMNEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ON BEHALF
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
ChARLES
A
BANE
and
ROBERT
H.
WHEELER
OF
ISHAM,
LINCOLN
&
BEALE,
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(BY
SAMUEL
T.
LAWTON,
JR.):
Comolaint
was
filed
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
egainst
the
City
of
Soringfield
and
its
departhient,
the
Springfield
Light
and
Power
Company,
on
September
16,
1970,
alleging
violation
of
the Environmental Protection Act
in
respect
to
air
and
water
pollution and certain
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution,
all
with
regard
to
the
Lakeside
and
Daliman
olants.
Our
order
of
May
12,
1971,
issued
after
hearing
on
the
com-
plaint,
contained
inter
alia
the following provision:
~‘3.
By
December
1,
1971,
the
City,
working
in
conjunc-
tion
with the Agency,
shall submit to the Agency and
the
Board
a program
to reduce
the emissions of sulfur dioxide
from
the
Lakeside
and Daliman plants so as not
to cause
a
violation
of
Section
9(a)
of
the Act as described
in
the
opinion of
this
Board.
That program shall include
a de-
t~i1cd
explanation of
the plans for,
timetables for
completion of and costs of specific devices which will
be used
to solve
the problem and shall be implemented and
said devices shall be in operation by June
1,
1974.”
On November 30,
1971,
the City filed a Petition for Reconsider-
ation and Amendment of the May 12,
1971 Order with specific reference
to
the
foregoing provisions contained in paragraph
3 thereof.
The
substance of the City’s Petition for Reconsideration
is
that while
the City has not specifically complied with the precise terms of
the order,
it has made improvements
in both plants,
including
retirement of certain boilers, conversion of coal
to oil and in-
stalliation of electrostatic precipitators so that any SO2 nuisance
which may have existed resulting in the imposition of
the foregoing
7
—
255
order,
has been
abated
so
that
at
the
present
time,
no
SO2
nuisance
exists and
the
need
for
compliance
with
paragraph
3
of
the
order
~~asaccordingly terminated.
The City asks that paragraoh
3 of
the
May
12,
1971 order be stricken.
The
Clerk
of
the
Board docketed the petition for reconsideration
as
a
variance
and
erocedures
characteristic
of
a
variance
aeplication
ensued.
On
February
4,
1972,
an
aoplication
for
corrective
order
was
filed
which,
in substance, requested
that the earlier
r)etition
not
be
construed
as
a
variance
petition
inasmuch
as
the
validity
of
the
order had not been acquiesced
in
by
the City
and
an aeneal
to the Appellate Court, Fourth District was pending.
On February 22,
1972, •we entered
a preliminary order orentinu
the application for corrective order to the extent of
stati~nq that
the
eetition
for
reconsideration
and
amendment
was
not
a
netition
for
variance.
At
the
same
time,
we
urged
that
the
Agency
make
its
views
known
so
that
the
matter
could
be
resolved
exoeditiously.
On
February
25,
1972,
a
recommendation
was
filed
by
the Agency
recommending
that
the
petition
for
reconsideration
he
denied.
A
resconse
to
the
Agency’s
recommendation
was
filed.
The
matter
was
finally
heard
in
Springfield
on
November
14,
15
and
16,
1972.
Brief
was
filed
by
the
City
of
Springfield
and
none
by
the
Agency.
rphe
narrow
issue
presented
by
the
state
of
the
record
is
whether
the
oresent
circumstances
are
such
that
compliance
with
naragraph
3
in
its
Precise
terms,
continues
necessary
or
whether
the
objective
that
naragraph
3
was
designed
to
achieve
have
been
fulfilled
so
that
comoliance
with
its
crecise
terms
no
longer
would
be
warranted.
We
do
not,
by
this
proceeding,
intend
to
reopen
the
oriqin~i
crocoeding.
Paragraeh
3
of
the
order
was
based
upon
a
finding
that
the
sulohur
dioxide
emissions
from
the
two
olants
were
of
a
maqnitude
so
as
to
constitute
air
nollution,
as
defined
in
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act.
En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency
Exhibit
No.
5
indicated
that,
based
upon
performance
of
various
boilers,
a
concentration
of
.5
corn
was
found
at
and
near
the
plants.
There
was,
in addition,
cons~cieraoletesti-
mony
as
to
sulphur
odors
in
the
area.
The
opinion
continues
(Page
3)
“The
effects
of
this
kind
of
high
concentration
of
SO7
are
well demonstrated
in
the
“Air Quality
Criteria
for
Sulfur
Oxides”
(EPA
Exhibit
68):
‘In
addition
to
health considerations,
the
economic and
aesthe
tic
benefits
to
be
obtained
from
low
ambient
concentrations of
sulfur
oxides
as
related
to
visibility,
soiling,
corrosion,
and
other
effect.s
should
be
considered
be
orqanizations
responsible
for
nromulgating
ambient
air
quality
standards.
Under
the
conditions
erevaiiinq
in
areas
where
the
studies
were
conducted,
adverse
health
effects
wore
noted
when
24—hour
average
levels
of
sulfur
dioxide
exceeded
300
uq/m3
—2—
7
—
256
(3.1
Ppm)
for
3
to
4
days.
Adverse
health
effects
were
also
noted
when
Lhe
annual
mean
level
of
sulfur
dioxide
exceeded
115
ug/n3
(1i.~4
ycrn)
.
Visibility
reduction
to
about
5
miles
was
observed
at
285
uq/rn3
(0~l0
rpm);
adverse
effects
on
materials
were
observed
at
an
annual
mean
of
345
ug/3
(0.12
morn);
and
adverse
effects
on
vege-
Lotion
were
observed
at an annual mean of
85
ug/m3
(0.03
porn)
.
It
i
reasonable
and
prudent
to
conclude
that,
when
promulgating
am-
nic’nt
air
quality
standards,
consideration
should
be
given
to
re-
puircrnents
for
margins
of
safety
which
take
into
account
long—term
effects
on
health,
vegetation,
and
materials
occurring
below
the
anove
levels.
“The level
of
air
quality
attributable
to
the
City’s plant,
if
iL
persists
for
even
a
short
time,
is
well
beyond
the
level
at
which
hcaJth
effects,
damage
to
property
and
effects
on
vegetation
have
been
seen.
The
sulfur
concentrations
then
are
not
only
injurious
to
plant
and
animal
life,
hut
unreasonably
interfere
with the life
of
the
neighbors
of
the
plant.
The
neighbors
can
smell
it,
they
can
taste
it.
Even
though
a
standard
for
sulfur
dioxide
does
not
presently
exist,
there
is
no
question
in
the
mind
of
this
Board
that
sulfur
dioxide
emissions
from
the
Lakeside
and
Dailman
plant.s
are
significant
enough
to
be
deemed
air
pollution
within
the
meaning
of
the Environmental Protection Act.”
We noted
that while specific regulations limiting the emissions
of sulohur dioxide
had
not been promulgated this,
in no way, fore-
c1o~ed
a finding
that
emissions could cause air pollution as defined
in
the Act.
The
provision
of
the
order presently
in
issue was
designed
to
compel
the
City
to
take
affirmative
steps
to
abate
the
nO2
nuisance.
The
substance of
the City’s position is that while
it has not
submitted
a program for SO7 removal consistent with
the
orovisions
of
the
order,
principally
because
of
what
it
alleges
to
be
an
absence
of
time
and
an
absence
of
technology,
together
with
uncertainty
as
to
availability
of
low
sulphur
fuel,
it
has,
in
fact,
taken affirmative steps
in
the modification of
its equipment and
oceration
so
as
to
substantially
abate
the
SO2
nuisance.
Paragraph
4 of the original petition for reconsideration provides
as
follows:
“4.
As
a result of improvements completed since the initial
Environmental Protection Agency complaint in this case,
the
City has upgraded 23.6
of its total nameplate generating
capacity to compliance with proposed federal standards for
SO2 emissions.
The units which have been
so upgraded are
peak
loading units,
and,
of all the City’s equipment,
had
been in the most need of upgrading.
‘Boiler number
1 of Lakeside Plant One has been retired
wholly eliminating a significant annual amount of 502 emis-
sions.
Boilers
2,
3 and
4
of Lakeside Plant One have been
converted to low-sulfur
fuel oil.
The resultant decrease
in SO2 emission rates has been from 7.4 lbs/MMB,
to
.78 lbs/MM?
and an
82
reduction in SO2 ground level concentration.
—3—
7
—
257
‘Tile
four
ho i.this of
Lakes
(JO
Plant
Two
were
connec
through
a
common
breech
rig,
to
a
97
St
r
f
ICIo1U
ci
~ro
static
precit
itator
which
discharges
in~n
~
nyw
30ñ
tho~
stack
with
a
conseouent
91
redact
inn
in
Sfl~ areunt
v’~i
concentrations.
‘The
City
is
about
to
connect
a:i
cicctr’~,ta
~
1-
tator
on
Dallrnan
Unit
31
to
aid
the
exis
~2ut
0
O~O~J
precipitator
and
crovido
97.5
e~fec~ive
rocev~
I
a~
culate
emissions.
V.
Y.
Daliman Unit
32,
:;ch~’hii..I
f~
operation
in
1972,
will
be
o~i1r~oeu welL
con
~
i.e
to
similar
to
those
of
the
Dailman
Unit
31,
eu~et
lot
97.5
electrostatic
orcci~etaror
will
ne
circle
h
God
a
mechanical
precipitator.
“Because
of
environmental
arid
economic
cor.~i Prot
‘mc.
the
City
delayed
the
commercial
opnraiion
of
hal
in~n
ho
33
from
1975
until
1976,
and
possible
until
1377
~.ic
decision
postpones
the
addition
of
another
cmi cceo
0
at
the
Daliman
location,
and
affords
the
C~t:
~
time
to
plan
a
unit
best
able
to
comply
with
srei
ni
federal
regulations.
“Collectively,
these
imorovements
hav~
had
the
i’ired
effect
of
substantially
reducing
totdi
~
e°~c
~s
rem
the
City’s
equipment
ane
lowering
ground
level
c
cmel
r~t
LeO~
of
SO2
in
areas
surrounding
the
City’s
olonts.
Tnasrnu:ii
as
the
Board’s
finding
that
the
City
was
vioiotcci
~retien
9(a) was based only ucon an aggregate
amount
~r
SC.,
b~L
emitted
by
the
City’s
entire
system
and
not
an~
ri~ ci am~
sion
from
any
one
source1
t may well
be
than
S
eec
improvements have been made,
the
City’s
SC;)
OP.
S5~o0~
O~
longer constitute air mollution
within
thcntauinq
ei
Section 9(a).
“The
record
of
the
Cite’s
improvements
c(:i1:3~,
11CC
superior,
to
most. utilities
in
the
state.
P~or~~
material
improvements
alroa~~
ach i’~veh,
tb
.
i~
i a
-
additional
measures
Lo
further
control
IL.
~ntc~
ce
ol
into
the
environment.
On
Seppember
25
197
.
low
sulfur
Illinois
coal
(1
or
iess~
wer
eh~O.
.~
f’
test
purposes
in
boilers
designed
f~)
burn
la to’.
ace
sulfur
content
central
T1liii~is
coal
w: lb
ii
~r
e.
aG.i
st
istics.
When
the
current
goal
strik
~s
ti-e
sic
~.
normal
sources
of
coal
restored1
~.his
coal
w~I
c
-~
7
for
“episode
use’,
sinco
it
is
not.
~
ii
~bI
I
quantities
for
normal
operations.
F
item
tests
~r
planned
utilizing
low
sulfur
wes’ero
~osi
7
—
258
‘The City
is committed to
an extensive monitoring
orogram,
which
to
date
has
seen
the
acquisition
of
six
sulfur dioxide and dust fall monitoring stations;it is
anticipated that addiftional monitoring equipment will
he
acr’uired.
This equipment is expected to provide
the
City
with-i
the
data
necessary
to
devise
a
more
effective
system-wide
crogram
of
emission
control.
‘Finally,
the
City
has
undertaken extensive and de—
tailed
study
of SO2 removal equipment currently available
arid
eronosed.
This
study
has
included
a
report
by
expert
engineers
Burns
&
McDonnell
which
discusses
the
alternate
NCOICS
of SOn control.
Additionally,
the
City
advertised
for bids on
a
Dallrncn
Unit
33
which
would
be
equipped
with
gas
cleaning
caoablc
of
SO2.
Only
two bids were received.
A
meeting
with
recresentatives
of
the
lowest
bidder,
the
Cite
and
the
Environmental
Pxo~:ecLion
Agency
was
held
to
discuss
the
er000sec
sos tern
in
detail.
~The
future
clans
of
the
City
with
respect
to
SO2
control
-~revide
for
continuing
surveillance
and
evaluation
of
the
devclopmcnt
of’acisstincj
prototype
systems
which
might
be
linsible
to
the
Cite’s
equIpment.
Detailed
presentations
li’
nil
vendors
of
gas
cleaning scrubber systems which
a
car
feasible
for
the
City’s
system
will
be
scheduled
osces
ecific
~
crni~sion
standards
have
been
promulgated.
knoll,
the
Cite
is
instituting
a
program
by
which
engineering
I
ursonrlct
and
the
environmental
coordinator will be able
to
n
ttend seminars and
workshops relating to
the general
~U1)
knot
of
env~ronrnental
control
activities
and
the
control
of
contaminant
emissions,
including scrubber systems.”
Presontatfor:
at the hearing by
the City in support of its
cli
~:i,n~-
was
divided
into
three general
categories: first,
testimony
ni
sLt~zens
with
resnect
to sulphur odors and nuisance observed
in
Ho
arcs
of
the
olants, secondly,
testimony of expert witnesses
who
testified
to
actual
ground level measurements of SO7 and
p
euioc~
omass
Lons
‘~renu5ud
on
various
hypothetical
considerations,
old
~as
LHc,
testirnone
cf
certain
municipal
officials
with
respect
n
poll
ticatiors
made
and
to
be
made
in
the
operation
of
the
facili—
-~
I ivolved.
The testimon’
of
citizens
was
persuasive
in
estab—
-
ii
no
Lila
t
tee
commuril
ty
imnac
t from
the
502
emissions
had
.-~uosLnntia:~ly
1:
sened
a rnce
the
rendition
of
our
original
order.
:~rIdents
called
neon
aswi
tnecses
apneared
to
reside
in
various
Jirs.lt
ens
from
t~e
Cite’s
facilities
and
none
testified
that
seinhur emissions constituted
ar
interference
with
their
daily
lions
or well—being.
(F.
375—77,
390—91,
402—03,
414—15,
423—25,
474--7(
446—37,
46-7~.
No citizen witnesses aopeared
in
opposi—
‘Ire
to
tll
oa~tLe
of
the
City.
We must conclude from this
7
—
259
aspect
of
the
record
that
the
SO2
emissions
from
the
City’s
plants
are
not
of
a
magnitude
to
constitute
interference
with
the
enjoy--
ment of life so as to constitute air pollution.
Nor does
the evi-
dence indicate that the City’s SO2 emissions have continued
to a
numerical level where its presence would constitute an interference
with health or the enjoyment of life on an objective basis.
Ground measurements made by expert witnesses employed by
the
City sustain the City’s position that the SO7 ground level concen-
trations were from one-fifth to one-eighth of those
which maintained
in 1970, which was the period in which the original violations were
asserted.
The
evidence
supported
the
City’s
contention
that
substantial
reduction in ground level concentrations of SO2 had
occured
as
a
con-
sequence of the retirement of Lakeside Boiler No.
1,
the conversion
of Lakeside boilers
##2,
3 and
4
from coal
fuel to low
sulphur
oil,
the change to a single 300 foot
stack for
emissions
from
Lakeside
boilers
##5,
6,
7 and
8 and
the
use
of
300 foot stacks
for Dallman Units
#31 and 32.
Projections were also made as
to
what level of SO2
concentrations
might
be
expected
if
the
plants
operated at projected seasonal peak loads
(R.
174-175, 188-190).
The projection indicated that if the City was operating
at
a
con-
stant peak load,
SO2 emissions would be within the 0.50
pnm
Federal
secondary hourly SO2 maximum concentration for any given hour at
least 99
of the time.
Predicted daily SO7 concentration levels
for the Federal 24—hour primary standard of
.14 pmm would never
be exceeded and the secondary 24-hour standard of
0.01
pnm
might.
he equalled once a year.
(City Exhibit
6,
pp.
29 through
37,
R.
207-208).
Peak load operation throughout the entire year would
not exceed Federal annual primary standards while the secondary
standard might be exceeded by 0.01 ppm.
(R. 212-215).
The foregoing evidential conclusions are not countered he
Agency witnesses.
We must conclude on the basis of
the
evidence
adduced at the hearing that the conditions which maintained
in 1970
resulting in our May 12, 1971 Order directing that
dens
be
taken
to abate the SO2 nuisance,
no longer exist.
The City ha~demonstrated
by the testimony of
the residents and expert witnesses
that
the
SO2 emissions no longer are of a level to constitute air pollution
as defined in the Act,
either on the basis of subjective
annoyance
or the exceeding of tolerable health and public welfare limits.
The issue
is not whether
the City of Springfield will meet
our
1975 standards or whether problems might result
in
the
ev~nt
of
episode
conditions
during
neriods
of
thermal
inversion.
Remedial
measures
are
available
should
these
requirements
not
be
satisfied
when
relevant.
The
City
has
demonstrated
that
the
9(a)
s’ilnhur
dioxide air noliution violations which resulted
in
paragraiJh
3
of
our
May
12,
1971
Order
have
ceased
to
exist.
—6—
7
—
260
The next problem is what to do about the order.
The order,
when entered, was a proper one and based on a factual record that
existed at the time of its rendition.
It is manifest that the City
has not complied with its express provisions because no plans,
timetable or statement of costs have been submitted nor have speci-
fic devices been delineated which would assure an abatement of the
nuisance.
However,
at this
point in time, we are more concerned
with the results achieved, than adherence to the precise means
in
which the results are to be achieved.
While we do not necessarily
condone the City’s failure
to comply with the provisions
of the
order, we must,
at the same time,
recognize that it has achieved
that which we sought to accomplish,
albeit
in a different form
than
contemplated.
Accordingly,
it will be our order that the conditions
with respect
to naragraph
3 of our
May
12, 1971 order have been com-
plied with and that nothing further remains to be done with respect
to
its implementation.
This,
of course,
in no way forecloses the
Aqency from taking such action as appropriate should,
in fact, an
SO2 air pollution condition recur at any time in the future.
Nor
does our order herein constitute recognition that the City does~
or will,
meet all relevant regulations with respect to SO2 emissions.
We hold
by
this
order that so far as the record in the supplemental
proceedings
is concerned,
the City has established that it has corrected
its SO2 violations
and. has satisfied the requirements of our Vay 12,
1971 order in this reseect.
This opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and conclusions of
law of
the
Board.
IT
IS
TIlE ORDER
of
the Pollution Control Board that the City
of Springfield has satisfactorily demonstrated compliance with para-
graph
3 of our May 12,
1971 order in Case #70—9.~ and no further
submissions
or
actions are necessary on its part, pursuant to the
provisions of said paragraoh
3.
I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the
-
day of March,
1973,
by
a vote of
_____
to
_______
—7—
7
—
261