ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    january
    22,
    1976
    VILLAGE OF
    WINNETKA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—107
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    (by Mr. Dumelle):
    On March
    4,
    1975 the Village of Winnetka, Illinois
    (Winnetka)
    filed before the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    a
    petition for
    a variance from the particulate emissions standards
    of the Illinois Air Pollution Control Regulations
    (Air Rules)
    for coal—fired boilers
    4,
    5,
    6,
    7, and
    8 located at Winnetka’s
    Tower Road electric generating plant
    (Plant).
    On April
    6,
    1975,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed
    its Recommendation to deny the petition.
    On June 25,
    1975,
    Winnetka filed an amended petition for variance seeking variance
    from Air Rules 203 (g),
    103 (b)
    and 104 with respect to boilers
    4,
    5,
    6, and
    7 only.
    Winnetka states that boiler
    8 is
    in
    compliance with the Air Rules.
    A timely objection to Winrietka’s
    petition was filed by Respondent Agency.
    A group known as
    Wirinetkans Interested in Protecting Our Environment
    (WIPE)
    was granted leave to intervene
    in the case.
    A hearing was
    held on June 30,
    1975.
    On July 17,
    1975 Winnetka waived its
    right to a decision within 90 days.
    Winnetka seeks two separate variances,
    “.
    .
    .an extension
    of the existing variance until the interconnection is completed
    and thereafter
    in more limited circumstances
    of emergency...”
    (R.
    17).
    The Board will first address the variance requested
    until such time as the interconnection with Commonwealth Edison
    Company
    (Edison)
    is
    in operation.
    PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF INTERCONNECTION
    The more recent of two previous variances granted
    (PCB 74-180)
    expired on May
    20,
    1975, which was the expected completion date
    19
    —
    713
    —2—
    for the interconnection.
    At the hearing, Mr.
    Zimmerman,
    Superintendent of Winnetka’s Water and Electric Department,
    testified that completion was delayed due
    to two specific
    equipment manufacturing problems
    (R.
    71-72).
    There is
    every indication that these delays were completely beyond
    Winnetka’s control.
    Mr. Zimmerman also testified that the
    project should be completed “no later than the end of
    August”
    (R.
    72).
    However, Petitioner has failed to show that
    it needs such a variance.
    In this case no hardship would
    fall upon Winnetka by
    a Board denial of the Amended Petition
    for Variance.
    Winnetka’s prior variance
    (PCB 74-180)
    expired
    on May
    20,
    1975.
    On Page
    6 of its Amended Petition, Winnetka
    states that,
    “After May
    20, 1975,
    it has been the policy of
    Petitioner to refrain from use of Boilers
    5,
    6, or
    7,
    and
    from burning coal in No.
    4,
    except in certain emergency
    conditions”.
    The occurrence of “emergencies” is, indeed,
    speculative.
    The Board will not grant speculative emergency
    variances
    Galesburg State Research Hospital v.
    EPA,
    PCB 75—198
    (July
    31,
    1975); City of Carlyle v.
    EPA, PCB 75—165,
    PCB 75—252
    (July
    17, 1975); City of Highland v.
    EPA,
    PCB 75—50
    (December 18,
    1975).
    Subsequent to Completion of Interconnection
    Assuming completion of the interconnection cable
    Winnetka expects to rely upon purchased power for its base load.
    If economically available,
    natural gas would be burned
    in boiler
    8 and/or
    4 for intermediate and peak load purposes.
    If gas
    is not available,
    coal would be burned in boiler
    8,
    but only
    for peak load purposes
    (Amended Petition p.
    3).
    With its
    electrical needs thus provided for, Winnetka seeks variance
    to operate its coal-fired boilers
    4,
    5,
    6, and
    7
    in case of
    an
    emergency.
    In paragraph 10 of its amended petition, Winnetka states,
    “It is Petitioner’s belief that the likelihood of either of
    the above emergencies arising is very small,
    these
    are the
    only “emergencies” which Winnetka seeks variance for
    and
    is
    not quantifiable.
    Such emergencies are expected to be of
    very short duration, of no more than about four hours, except,
    perhaps in the case of act of God...”
    If such variance were granted, Winnetka would keep the
    boilers in a maintained but cold condition
    (R.
    101).
    However,
    the start—up time for such
    a boiler could very well exceed six
    hours
    (R. 99),
    in which case a four hour emergency could
    not be averted by use of these boilers.
    Thus,
    the effectiveness
    19
    —
    714
    —3—
    of the boilers
    in an emergency situation is just as speculative
    as the potential for emergency situations to arise.
    The existence of future “emergencies”
    is,
    indeed, speculative.
    The Board has firmly stated that it will not grant speculative
    variances
    (See cases cited above).
    The Board therefore denies Petitioner’s request for a variance
    to operate boilers
    4,
    5,
    6,
    and
    7 under speculative emergency
    situations.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions
    of law.
    ORDER
    The Village of Winnetka’s Amended Petition for Variance
    is hereby denied and dismissed.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contrr’4
    Boar,~10 hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the
    ______day of January,
    1976 by a vote of __________________________
    Illinois Pollution
    trol Board
    19
    —
    715

    Back to top