ILLINC
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 10,
1977
THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA,
a
Municipal Corporation,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 77—249
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Young):
The Village of Winnetka :~11eda Petition on September
21,
1977,
for a variance from Rule
~03(g) (1) of the Air Pollution
Regulations
(Chapter
2)
to
allow
the operation of certain
coal—fired boilers (identifiJ
es
5,
6,
and
7)
in the generation
of electricity at a utility elant owned and operated by the
Village in Winnetka,
Illinois, under
three emergency conditions
set forth
in Paragraph
5 of the Petition.
On October 4,
1977,
Respondent Illinoie Environmental
Protection Agency filed
a Motion to Dismiss,
stating that
the emergency conditions set forth in Paragraph
5 of the Peti-
tion are no more than remote contingencies,
together with the
recital of several other perceived deficiencies
in the Petition.
No response
to the Motion
to Dismiss was
filed by the Petitioner.
Paragraph 22 of the Petition reads
as follows:
“On September
1,
1977,
the
Board issued
its
Opinion
and. Order
in
the case of
WIPEv.
Village of
Winnctka,
PCB
No.
75—363.
The
Board took note of the Petitioner’s interpreta-
tion of the Board’s earlier dismissal in case
No.
75-107,
of a variance petition
to utilize
the same subject boilers
in an emergency.
The
Board stated in its Opinion in case No.
75-363
that
‘Respondent might be well advised to file
an updated p tition for variance if similar
future use or the unit is contemplated.’
Peti-
tioner hereby files its updated Petition,
in
the belief that the occurrence of instances
of need for emergency use of the type contem-
plated have been demonstrated, and that its
Petition is not
‘speculative’
,
as earlier
found by the Board.”
28
~—
195
—2—
In the case of WIPE
v. Village of Winnetka,
PCB 75-363,
referred to
in Paragraph
22 above,
the following appears at
page
5:
“In March,
1975,
Respondent filed a Petition
(PCB 75-107)
seeking in part an extension of
a prior variance to allow the use of Boiler
No.
7 under conditions similar to those which
were testified to
as the conditions of use in
the instant case.
(See condition
(a) (3) of
the Order in PCB 74-180,
13 PCB 587,
589.)
On January 22,
1976,
the Board denied and
dismissed PCB 75-107 on the ground t±atthe
Board does not grant speculative emergency
variances
(19 PCB 713,
714).
Mr. Wilbur
F.
Legg,
an attorney and one of the Trustees of
the Village of Winnetka and Chairman of the
Village Council’s Public Utilities Committee,
testified that he interpreted the Board’s
opinion to mean that Respondent could operate
the boiler under emergency circumstances without
a permit
(R. p72).
As
recognized by counsel
for Respondent
in
his
closing remarks
CR. p100),
Respondent might be well advised to file an
updated Petition for Variance if similar future
use of the unit
is contemplated.”
Condition
(a) (3)
of the Order in PCB 74-180 reads
as follows:
“a)
The Village shall be allowed to burn coal as
a
fuel during the following situations:
3.
When gas,
as a fuel,
is not available, and it
is necessary to bank boilers and/or to heat
the generating plant.
Coal usage, under these
circumstances, must not exceed 3
of rated
fuel imput.”
It
is nowhere alleged
in the instant Petition for Variance
that the Petitioner
intends future operation of Boiler No.
7
under conditions similar
to those testified to in PCB 75-363
and in condition
(a) (3)
of the Order in PCB 74-180.
To the
contrary, Paragraph
20 of the Petition reads,
in part,
as
follows:
“....
Petition~rhas purchased and installed
infra-red heating units
to permit the heating
of the plant, without need to bank the subject
boilers,
as had been the case prior to the
Spring of 1977.”
28
196
It is painfully obvious that the Petitioner may have
read much more into that portion of the opinion
in PCB 75—363
quoted above than that intended by the Board,
for the Petition
submitted, although more coi~prehensive, is
a request to operate
Boilers
5,
6, and
7 under speculative emergency situations as
in PCB
75-107 rather than
a variance petition to allow operation
of Boiler
7 in a banked conditic
without
a permit to provide
heat for the plant under circumstances similar to those which
had been testified to
in PCB 75-J63.
The Board will not grant speculative emergency variances
(Galesburg State Research Hospital
v.
EPA, PCB 75-198,
18 PCB
268; City of Carlyle
v. EPA,
PCB 75-165,
17 PCB 53, PCB 75—253,
18 PCB 153;
City
of Highland
v.
EPA,
PCB 75-50,
19 PCB
470;
Village of Winnetka v.
EPA,
PCB 75—107,
19 PCB 713;
City of
Breese
v.
EPA, PCB 77—200,
___
PCB
_____,
September
15, 1977).
Based upon the foregoing,
the Motion to Dismiss will be
granted.
On October 12,
1977,
an unincorporated association comprised
of citizens and residents of
the Village of Winnetka styled as
Winnetkans
Interested in Protecting the Environment
(WIPE)
filed
an objection and petition to intervene pursuant
to Rules
404 and
310(a) of the Board’s Procedural Rules.
In view of the action
taken on the Motion to Dismiss, the issues raised by the objection
and petition to intervene are moot.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss filed October 4,
1977,
is
granted;
the Petition for Variance shall be dismissed.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the
/c’
day of
_____________,
1977 by a vote
of
~
(~4i~c~’4~
~L
Christan L.
Moffe
,
Lerk
Illinois Pollution
ntrol Board
28
—
197