ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 22,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

v.

)

PCB 75—418

CITY OF BREESE,

Respondent.

MR. BARRY FORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, appeared for the

Complainant;

MR. BERNARD

G. HEILIGENSTEIN, appeared for the Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

On

October

28,

1975 the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency~ filed a Complaint against the City of Breese

(City),

located

in Clinton County,

Illinois.

The subject of the Complaint

is coal-fired Boiler No.

2 at the City’s power plant.

The

Complaint alleges three violations:

1.

Violation of the particulate standards of Rule 2—2.53

of the old Air Regulations and Section 9(a)

of the

Act from July 1,

1970 to May

30,

1975;

2.

Violation of the particulate standards of Rule

203(g)

(1) (B)

of the Board’s Air Polltuion Control Regulations

and Section 9(a)

of the Act from May 31,

1975 to

October 28,

1975;

and

3.

Violation of the permit requirement of Rule 103(b) (2)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations and Section

9(a)

and(b)

of the Act from April

1, 1973

to October 28,

1975.

A hearing was held on December 15,

1975 in the City Hall of

Breese.

Mr. Martin Johnson, the City’s Superintendent of Utilities

verified the figures on page

2 of the Comp.

Ex.

4~7 (R.

11) which

23—

115

---

—2—

is

a copy of the Board Order

in PCB 73-209

(April

10,

1975).

This case was a variance request concerning Boilers No.

1 and

2.

The variance for Boiler No.

2 was denied.

It

is

admitted that

Boiler No.

2 has no particulate controls

CR.

14).

Therefore,

given the admission of the accuracy of the calculations of

particulate emissions at page

2 of Camp.

Ex.

#7, there can be

no doubt that to the extent of the Boiler’s operations,

it did exceed

the standards of both the old Rule 2—2.53 and Rule 203(g) (1) (B), and

Section 9(a)

of the Act.

However,

the Supreme Court, in Commonwealth

Edison Company v. Pollution Control Board,

62 Ill

2d 494,

343 N.E.

2d 459

(1976)

remanded to the Board Rule 203(g) (1)

of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations.

It would therefore be inappropriate

for the Board to find a violation of that Rule in this case.

It is also established that no operating permit had

been obtained for Boiler

#2.

As the Board Order PCB 73-209 states,

the City did apply for operating permits but the application was

denied because of the calculated particulate violations.

There

is no doubt that the City did operate in violation of Rule

103(b)

(2)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations and Sections

9(a)

and

(b)

of the Act.

As for the violation of the particulate standard from July

1,

1970 through May

30,

1975 the chief factor of mitigation is the

apparent good faith effort which the City made to retire its

coal—fired boilers.

The major problem

was

solved by the electrical

interconnection with Illinois Power Company operative on March

28,

1976

(R.

62). The City has previously attempted to purchase a

diesel engine to replace the coal—fired boilers but the bond

issue failed

(R.

58).

Coupled with the high cost of an

electrostatic precipitator and problems with fuel allocations

which made conversion uncertain,

consideration of the 33(c)

factors show strong mitigation.

A municipal power plant carries

a high social and economic value where alternative sources of

electricity are simply not available.

Also important is the fact

that the operation of this boiler apparently did not cause any

citizen complaint

(R.

61).

Given

these facts the Board finds

that a penalty would not aid in the enforcement of the Act in

this particular case.

For the same reasons the Board finds

no penalty advisable

for the City’s failure to obtain an operating permit.

It is

noted that the City did apply

for a permit on January

23,

1973,

which is prior to the period of the violation found.

It would be

unnecessary in this case to penalize the City for failing to

conform to a standard which has already been found above

to have

represented an unreasonable hardship.

23—116

---

—3—

The City of Breese has shown good faith.

The City’s inability

to raise the funds necessary to allow the retiring of Boiler

#2

is understandable in view of the financial difficulties encountered

by most small municipalities.

The establishing of an interconnection

was also carried out in good faith.

The City has now committed

to converting Boiler #2 to oil

(R.

57).

Respondent’s Exhibit No.

1

is an estimated completion schedule for that project.

Installation

is estimated to be completed on December 20,

1976, at which time

the City should be in compliance with the Board’s Regulations.

The

Board will require the City to submit to the Agency, within 60 days,

a proposal for Boiler #2 so that a variance or a permit may be

obtained.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

ORDER

1.

Respondent City of Breese

is hereby found

to have violated

Rule 2—2.53

of the old Air Rules, Rule 103(b) (2)

of the

Air Pollution Control Regulations, and Section 9(a)

and

(b)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

2.

That portion of the Complaint alleging violation of

Rule 203(g) (1) (B)

of the Air Pollution Control Regulations

is hereby dismissed.

3.

If Respondent City of Breese operates Boiler

#2

prior to its conversion to oil the City of Breese

shall promptly submit a report to the Agency detailing

the extent of the emergency and the resulting operations.

4.

Respondent City of Breese shall, within 60 days of the

date of this Order, submit to the Agency a proposal

regarding the conversion of Boiler

#2 from coal

to oil

fuel so that a permit or a variance may be obtained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Boar~~

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

_______day of July,

1976 by a vote of

~-O

Christan L. Moffett,

Illinois Pollution Co

1 Board

23

—

117