ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

5,

1989

VILLAGE OF WINNETKA,

)

Petitioner,

)

 PCB 88-164

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

HARVEY

M.

 SHELDON AND SHELL J. BLEIWEISS OF McDERMOTT,

 WILL,

 & EMERY APPEARED

DN BEHALF

 OF PETITIONER THE VILLAGE OF W~NNETKA.

WILLIAM

0.

 INGERSOLL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT THE

 ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION OF THE BOARD (by J. Theodore Meyer):

On December

 15, 1988,

the

 Board granted

 the Village of Winnetka

(Winnetka)

a

 variance from 35

 Ill. Adm. Code 212.201

 until

 September 30,

1991.

 The variance, which

 is subject

 to conditions, will

 allow Winnetka time

to design, install, and test control equipment sufficient

 to comply with

Section 212.201.

 This Opinion

 supports

 the December

15,

 1988 grant of the

variance.

Background

Winnetka owns

 and operates an electric generating plant

 on Tower Road at

Lake Michigan.

 The plant consists primarily of five boilers and two diesel

engines.

 Boiler

~4

burns natural

 gas, boilers ~5, 6 and

 7 burn only coal, and

boiler

 #8 can burn natural gas,

 coal, or a combination of the two fuels.

The

two diesel

 engines and boilers ~4 and 8 are presently permitted to operate.

Only boiler ~8 is equipped with particulate controls.

 One comon

 stack serves

all equipment.

 The coal burning operation ~f boiler ~3 is

 the subject

of

Winnetka’s variance request.

In

 1986 the Board promulgated Section

 212.201, from which Winnetka now

seeks

 a variance.

 That section establishes

 a particulate emission limit of

0.1 pounds

 of particulate matter per million British thermal

 units

 (ibs/MBtu)

(0.15 KgI~—hr)for coal-fired boilers

 in the Chicago area,

 In the same

rulemaking (R82—1), the Board

 provided a temporary site-specific limit

 of 0.25

lbs/MBtu

 for the Winnetka plant.

 The site-specific limit,

 found

at

 35 Ill.

Mm. 212.209, was effective

 until

 January

1,

 1989,

 or until

 the Board took

final

 action

in

a

 site—specific rulemaking.

 Winnetka

 then petitioned for

a

permanent 0.25 lbs/MBt~limit.

 The Board denied that petition on August

1988.

 Proposed Amendment to

35

 Ill. Adm. Coae 212.209, Village

 of Winnetka

~5—45

—2-

Generating Station, R86-41, August

4,

 1988.

 On November

3,

 1988,

 the Board

denied Winnetka*s motion for reconsideration.

 Thus, Section

 212.201

 is now

applicable to the Winnetka plant.

Relief Requested and Compliance Plan

Winnetka does not presently have sufficient control

 equipment on

its

boilers

 to comply with the 0.1 lbs/MBtu

 limit while burning coal.

 Thus,

Winnetka

 seeks this variance

 to allow some operation on coal

 while the

necessary control equipment is being designed, installed,

 and tested.

The

variance request, which was apparently discussed

 and agreed upon with the

Illinois Environmental

 Protection Agency

 (Agency) prior

 to the

 filing

 of the

petition,

 is designed to minimize the amount

 of coal

 used by Winnetka during

the period

 of the variance.

 Only boiler ~8 is covered by the requested

variance, although Winnetka apparently plans

to

 install

 control equipment

on

boilers

#7

and 8.

 (Boiler

#7

 is not presently permitted

and

 thus cannot

be

operated.)

 The variance would mandate Winnetka~suse of reasonably available

gas or electricity from other sources, including:

 (1) WinnetKa~sown

production using

gas

 or diesel

 oil;

(2)

 electricity purchases from other

utilities; and

(3)

 use of natural

 gas.

 Wirrnetka would

 be allowed

 to ourn

COCi

to produce electricity only when

it

is

 unable

 to purchase electricity from

another source

 for less than 31 mils per kilowatt hour (miis/KWH),

 or purchase

natural

gas

price

such

that

the

cost

production

1C55

than

mils/KWH.

 (31 mils/KWH

is

3.1

cents

per

kilowatt

hour:

1000

mils=

S1.OO.)

The only exception to this restriction

is

 that

 coal could

be

 burned

in

small

quantities

as

 necessary to

maintain

the

protective

ash

 the boiler grate.

(See R.

 33—34.)

 Unless

 unusually severe weather conditions or other events

occur which might

 affect the normal

 availability of

 gas and electricity,

Winnetka expects not to have to rely on coal more than

 60 days

 per year.

 This

compares

 to Winnetka’s past operations, where coal

was

 used about 300 days per

year.

(R.

 32.)

 Finally,

 the requested variance would

 require Winnetka

to

maintain its existing controls

 (a multiple cyclone)

 in good working order and

perform stack tests

 to show that

it

 is ~ieeting

 the interim particulate limit

of 0.25 lbs/MBtu.

During the course

 of the requested variance, Winnetka will

 proceed with

the design, permitting,

 and construction

 of control equipment which will

achieve compliance with the 0.1 lbs/MBtu particulate limit.

 Time within the

variance period

is

to

be

 used for study of control

 options, seiect~onof

an

architect—engineering firm

 for design

 of t~iechosen

 control

 equipment,

application

for

a

 construction

 permit, bidding

 and selection of ~uppiiersand

contractors, installation of equipment,

 testing of the equipment,

and

application for an operating permit.

(R.

 25—31.)

 Winnetka’s construction

permit application

is

to

 be submitted to

 the Agency by November

i,

 1989.

Construction must begin by February

1,

 1990, and be completed by ~June

1,

1991.

 The variance would

 expire on September

30,

 1991.

Winnetka has

not

yet

specifically

identified

what

control

equipment

will

 install, although

 it has preliminarily decided

 to install

 a ~*baghouse~

fabric filter.

 (Petition at

6;

R.

 27.)

 In connection with

 its site—specific

rulemaking

 petition (R86—41), Winnetka submitted

 a report by HDR Techserv,

Inc. which presented costs of five control equipment options.

 (R85—41,

Ex.

p5—46

-3-

15, Appendix

F.)

 That report was

 not submitted

 as an

exhibit

this

proceeding,

 although the transcripts of the two hearings

 in that rulemaking

were admitted

 as Exhibits

 1 and

2

 in support of this variance request.

 Those

transcripts contain some discussion of the options identified by

 HDR.

Additionally,

 the Board will take official notice of the analysis of

 control

alternatives

 in its

 August

4,

 1988 Opinion and Order

in

 R86—41,

 at pages

5-

7.

 At hearing on the rulemaking petition, Winnetka stated

 that adding fabric

filter control equipment to boilers

 #7 and 8 would cost between $2.7 million

and $4.4 million, with annual

 operating costs between $26,000 and

 $32,000.

(Ex.

2,

p.

 106.)

In its recommendation, the Agency states

 that the length

 of the

compliance

schedule

requested

Winnetka

reasonable

 these

circumstances.

 The Agency notes that Winnetka

 is undertaking

 a major

engineering and construction project which w~licost several million

dollars.

 The Agency further maintains that

 a baghouse fabric

 filter system,

which Winnetka has preliminarily chosen, should easily achieve compliance with

the 0.1 lb/MBtu limit.

Environmental

 Impact

Winnetka contends that there would

 be no adverse envIronnental

 impact

if

its variance requested

 is granted.

 It states that the dispersion modeling

and

nuisance dust studies introduced

 in the rulemaking proceeding show that

operation of the plant’s boilers

 on coal

 at 0.25 lbs/MBtu does

 not endanger

the National

 Ambient Air Quality Standard

 (NAAQS) for particulates or PM—1O

(particulate matter under

 10 microns

in

 size).

 (Those studies were introduced

as

 Exs 3A,

38,

 3C, and

4

 in this proceeding.)

 Winnetka maintains that

readings

the

Agency’s

total

suspended

 particulates

 (TSP) monitor

 at Crow

Island School

 about

 2 kilometers

 southwest of the generating plant, show the

cleanest

air

 in the state.

 Finally, Winnetka notes

 that the model ing studies

analyzed the effect

of

all

 four of Winnetka’s boilers operating

simultaneously.

Because

 the requested variance would allow only boiler

#8

to

use coal

 Winnetka contends that the variance would

 result

 in an actual

reduction

particulate

emissions.

The Agency agrees that the modeling study shows no violation of the NAAQS

for particulates

 or PM—10.

 The Agency also concurs with Winnetka’s statement

that

 the conditions of the variance will

 result

ii

a

 significant reduction

in

emissions.

 The Board

is

 persuaded that the NMQS for Darticulates

 or PM-b

are not likely to be exceeded.

Rardsh

I p

Winnetka

 states that

 the Board~sdenial

of

 its site—specific rulemaking

petition (R36—41), without allowing time for compliance, makes

 iuiiiediate

compliance with the 0.1 lbs/MBtu standard impossible.

 The requested variance

would

 allow time for necessary design and installation of control equipment

sufficient

 to meet that standard.

 Wiinetka asserts that denial

of

the

variance would force

 it to close the electric plant.

 Winnetka contends that

given the plant’s insignificant environmental

 impact, denial

of

 a transition

period

 in which

 to add control equipment would

 result

in

 an arbitrary and

95—47

-4-

unreasonable

hardship

Winnetka

and

its

citizens.

The

Agency

agrees

that

denial

the

variance

would

create

hardship

Winnetka.

Consistency

with

Federal

Law

Both

Winrietka

and

the

Agency

maintain

that

the

Board

may

grant

the

requested

variance

consistent

with

the

Clean

Air

Act.

The

Agency

notes

that

November

1988,

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agency

(USEPA)

proposed

approve

Sections

212.201

and

 212.209

 as revisions to the Illinois

State

 Implementation Plan (SIP).

 53 Fed. Reg. 44494 (1988).

In

 the proposed

approval,

 USEPA finds the Winnetka provision

 in Section 212.209 approvable

because Winnetka

is

in

 a TSP attainment area

 and the 0.25 lbs/MBtu

 limit

 would

not relax any current limits.

 Because the variance conditions would

 reduce

the

 use of coal

 at the plant,

 thus reducing particulates emissions, the Agency

feels that the variance

 should

be

 approvable by USEPA.

Concl usions

The Board

 finds that Winnetka has presented adequate proof that

 it would

incur

 an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if

 it were required to irnediately

comply with the 0.1 lbs/MBtu limit.

 This finding,

 in combination with the

presence

of

 a comitment

 to comply and the minimal

 environmental

 impact

expected during the variance, persuade the

 Board that the requested relief

should

be

 granted.

 Thus,

the

 Board will grant Winnetka

 a var1ance

 from 35

Ill. Mm. Code 212.201 until

 September

30,

 1991,

 subject

 to conditions.

Finally,

 the Board wishes

 to note that this case

is

 an example of the

 speed

with which Board

 proceedings can be resolved, where the parties show a

comitment to

 proceeding

 as quickly

 as possible.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law.

I,

 Dorothy

M.

 Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

 Board, hereby

cert

 y that the above Opinion was adopted

on

the

-‘

day

of

 ~~.4A._7

 1989,

by

 a vote of

orothy

M•

 Gun~-, Clerk

Illinois Poii~onControl

 Board

95—48