ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
14,
1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTFCTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 75—382
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY,
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On October
2,
1975, the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed a complaint against Respondent Central Illinois Public Service
Company (CIPS).
The complaint alleged that CIPS violated conditions
of a construction permit issued by the Agency and §9(b)
of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
by causing or allowing construct-
ion work to be done toward erection of a coal-fired boiler whose
emissions will violate Rule 204 (a) (1)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
2)
and by choosing a design option which would not result
in “full compliance” with Chapter 2.
The complaint further alleged
that CIPS was erroneously issued a construction permit,
in violation
of Rule
10.3(a) (5) (A)
of Chapter
2.
A hearing was held on December
11,
1975,
in the Jasper County
Courthouse, Newton,
Illinois.
At the hearing a Settlement Proposal
representing the final agreement of the parties was entered into
evidence.
No additional evidence was presented, and no citizen
witnesses testified.
On June
6,
1973,
the Agency issued CIPS,
an Illinois public
utility corporation,
a construction permit for one 575 MW pulverized
coal—fired boiler to be installed at a new electric power generating
facility located near Newton, Jasper County,
Illinois
(Exhibit No.
1).
19
—
885
—2—
The installation of this new 575 MW boiler at the proposed Newton
generating facility subjects CIPS to achieving compliance with Rule
204(a) (1)
of the Air Pollution Control Regulations
(Chapter 2).
Rule
204(a) (1)
requires CIPS to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions upon start-
up of said boiler to 1.2 lbs/million BTU.
CIPS in its construction
permit application
(Exhibit
2)
for construction of said boiler stated
that there were design options available
to CIPS which would enable
CIPS to be in full compliance with Chapter
2.
Condition
8
of. the aforesaid construction permit provides,
in
pertinent part:
The equipment shall not be constructed in such
a
manner that operation or disposal of air contarni—
nants will cause a violation of the Environmental
Protection Act or of applicable regulations.
Condition
3 of said permit states:
There shall be no deviation from the approved plans
and specifications unless additional or revised plans
are submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency
and
a supplemental written permit issued.
On October 11,
1974,
CIPS applied for
a construction permit
for particulate control equipment for the Newton generating station.
Although the application indicated that emissions of sulfur dioxide
from the combustion of coal in the new boiler when operated would
exceed the 1.2 lbs/million BTU sulfur dioxide limitation contained in
Rule 204(a) (1), the application did not contain any provision for
sulfur dioxide removal equipment.
On November 19,
1974, the Agency
rejected the permit application due to the lack of
specifications
for
a sulfur dioxide removal system.
On April
9,
1975, CIPS entered into an agreement with Chemical
Air Pollution Control Company
(Chemico)
which provided that Chemico
would proceed with engineering plans for a sulfur dioxide removal
system for CIPS~ Unit No.
1 involving the use of a wet l±nescrubber.
The contract was limited to a three month period, with the cost not
to exceed $225,000.
On or about August 25,
1975,
CIPS submitted a proposal
(No. Al84)
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for demonstration of
a
double alkali flue gas desulfurization system, designed by Envirotech
Corp., on its Newton power plant,
Unit No.
1.
This proposal was
based upon the treatment of all of the flue gas from the unit
(based
19
—
686
—3—
upon the unit being rated at
575MW
)
and would allow for the design
of the system which would comply with Rule 204(a) (1)
upon start-up
of said Unit No.
1.
CIPS also submitted an alternative double alkali
sulfur dioxide removal proposal designed to treat approximately 25
of the flue gas.
In the proposal submitted to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environtech Corp.
states that the mechanical comple-
tion of the double alkali sulfur dioxide removal system is scheduled
for October
1,
1977,
and commercial,
operation of the system by
December 1,
1977.
Unit No.
1 at the Newton generating station is
scheduled to begin commercial operation on December 1,
1977.
In the Settlement Proposal, the parties agree
to the following
terms:
1.
Respondent CIPS agrees to install
a system which will
control sulfur dioxide emissions in accordance with all applicable
air pollution Regulations and the Environmental Protection Act.
It
is the present intention of CIPS
to install either
a. lime scrubbing
system or a double alkali scrubbing system.
Respondent agrees that
whatever system is selected it will have a complete SO2 removal
system installed and fully operational by the time Unit
1 at Newton
begins service.
Respondent agrees that said system will treat the
flue gas to meet the 1.2 lbs/l06 BTU sulfur dioxide standard.
2.
Complainant states that CIPS has been cooperative and has
dealt with the Agency
in good faith.
Therefore, the parties request
that no penalty be assessed
in this case.
3.
Respondent shall construct and install a SO2 removal system
designed to meet all applicable Air Pollution Control Regulations
and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act at its Newton Unit No.
1
electric generating plant according to the following schedule:
A.
Respondent shall select a vendor for
a sulfur
dioxide removal system, designed to meet the
1.2 lbs/l06 BTU sulfur dioxide limitation of
Rule 204(a)
(1) upon start-up of Newton Unit No.
1, within thirty days of a decision by the
Federal EPA on proposal No. A184 or
in no event
later than February
1,
1976.
B.
Beginning December
1,
1975 and continuing quarterly
thereafter Respondent shall submit within 20 calendar
days of the end of each period, progress reports to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Control Program Coordinator
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
62706
Said progress reports shall include but not be limited
to progress made on the installation of the flue gas
desulfurization device during the preceeding quarter
19
—
687
—4—
and an estimate of the work to be completed during the
following quarter.
Said report shall include an assess-
ment of the schedule for installation of said scrubbing
system and
a certification by Respondent that said
schedule will enable said system to be operational
by the date Newton Unit
1
is scheduled to begin
service.
Said progress reports shall include as
exhibits all schedules developed for installation
of said system.
In the event the Environmental
Protection Agency deems any report insufficient, CIPS
agrees to furnish any additional information reasonably
responsive to the intent of this paragraph.
C.
Respondent shall apply for a construction permit pursuant
to Rule 103(a)
of the Pollution Control Board’s Air
Pollution Control Regulations within thirty days from the
date of a decision by the Federal EPA on Proposal No. Al84
or in no event later than February
1,
1976.
Information in
said permit application shall include specifications for
a flue gas desulfurization system to meet the 1.2 lbs/l06
BTU sulfur dioxide standard in Rule 204(a) (1)
upon the
start-up of Newton Unit No.
1 and said system shall be
designed to treat the flue gas upon the start-up of Newton
No.
1.
The Board finds that CIPS has violated Condition
8 of the con-
struction permit and Section
9(b)
of the Act by causing or allowing
construction work to be done toward erection of
a coal-fired boiler
whose emissions will violate Rule 204(a) (1)
of Chapter
2.
CIPS has
violated Condition
3 of the permit and Section 9(b)
of the Act by
deviating from the approved plan by choosing a design option which
would not result in “full compliance” with Chapter
2.
Finally,
Respondent was erroneously
issued said construction permit in viola-
tion of Rule 103 (a) (5)
of Chapter
2 in that Respondent did not submit
adequate proof to.the Agency that the emission source or air pollution
control equipment would be constructed so as not to cause a violation
of the Act or Chapter
2 by the plant’s on line date.
However, due to
CIPS’
good faith efforts to comply and lack of any injury to the public,
the Board accepts the stipulation of no penalty.
The Board finds
the Settlement Proposal to be an adequate plan of compliance and
orders the parties to adhere to its terms.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Respondent Central Illinois Public Service Company is found
19
—
688
—5—
to have violated Section 9(b) of the Act, Rule 103(a) (5)
of Chapter
2
and Conditions
3 and
8 of the construction permit issued by the Agency
for construction of a coal-fired boiler at its Newton Power Plant.
2.
Respondent is Ordered to cease and desist from violating
S9(b)
of the Act, Rule 103(a) (5)
of Chapter
2, and Conditions
3 and
8 of said construction permit.
3.
Respondent shall comply with the terms of the Settlement
Proposal submitted by the parties on December 11,
1975 which is hereby
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
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
_______________day of
,
1976 by a vote of
d/..p
~&~tanL.
~
Illinois Pollution C
rol Board
19
—
689