ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
26, 1975
CITY OF FAIRFIELD,
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 74—383
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,)
Respondent.
Mr.
Richard
C.
Cochran, attorney for Petitioner.
Mr.
Michael Ginsberg, attorney for Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr.
Odell)
On October
25,
1974,
the City of Fairfield filed its
Petition for Variance with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board).
On October 31,
the Board passed an Interim Order re-
questing information on the environmental impact of the particulate
emissions on the community.
Petitioner was given 45 days to submit
this information with the 90-day requirement for final Board action
under Section
38 of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
to run from the filing of the required additional information.
On
November
1,
1974,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) objected to the grant of
a variance and filed a Motion for
Hearing.
Fairfield sought
a time extension from the October 31
Interim Order date on December 12,
1974.
Th~±
~3oardgranted
a 15—
day extension on December 19.
Fairfield’s Amended Petition was
received by the Board on January
2,
1975.
The Agency filed its
Recommendation of denial on February
4,
1974,
ten days before the
hearing took place.
In City of Fairfield v.
Environmental Protection Agency
PCB
73-355;
10 PCB 53
(November
8,
1973)
the Board granted the Petitioner
a one year variance to operate its coal-fired boilers
#1,
#2, and #3
in excess of the allowable particulate emission rates under the Air
Pollution Regulations
(Chapter Two).
The Order provided that:
“1.
The subject boilers shall be operated only in
unusual, emergency situations wherein the
primary generating machines and the interconnection
tie line are incapable of pr~~cingthe power de-
manded;
“2.
Petitioner shall
file quarterly reports with the
Agency.
Said reports shall indicate all opera-
tions of boilers #1 and/or
#2 and/or #3, the date
of said operation, kilowatts generated by each
generator on each day of operation, generators
forces out of service on each day of operation of
boilers
#1 and/or
#2 and/or
#3 and the reason for
16
—201
—2—
the forced outage and the power demand to
supply customers on each day of operation of
boilers
#1 and/or #2 and/or #3.”
The rationale for not ordering compliance was that the boilers were
only operated in emergencies and that compliance would cost $300,000
to $450,000.
Fairfield presently owns and operates the Fairfield Municipal
Electric Power Plant which supplies the electrical needs of the
companies and 6,000 residents within a two—mile radius of the City.
Fairfield has four coal-fired boilers which drive four steam tur-
bines.
The City also has two diesel generators.
An interconnection
tie-line with Southern Illinois Power Cooperative
(SIPCO)
is
an
additional source of electrical power.
Petitioner sought a one-
year variance from Section
9(a)
of the Act, Rule 103(b)
of Chapter
Two which requires an operating permit, Rule 104 of Chapter Two
which requires a compliance plan,
and Rule
203 (q) (1) (B)
of Chapter
Two which limits particulate emissions to 0.20 pound per million
BTU input per hour.
Petitioner also sought a one—year variance
from Rule
2-2.53 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution.
This Rule limits emissions to
0.8 pound
of
particulates per million BTU input per hour.
The variance was re-
quested to permit the intermittent operation of
its four coal—fired
boilers during periods of emergency or when its two diesel genera-
tors and the SIPCO tie—line could not supply the needs of consumers.
The tie-line can normally provide 10,000 KW although Fairfield is
only guaranteed 6,825 KW.
The diesel generators have
a combined
electrical capacity of 4,000 KW.
The four coal—fired boilers have
a capacity of approximately 12,500
1KW.
The Petition for Variance included various tables showing
the kinds of fuels and the hours of production of the electrical
sources utilized by Fairfield over the last
five years to supply
its consumers.
The tables indicate a shift towards less use of
the coal—fired boilers.
The quantities
and percent of energy
provided by each fuel
for the past
five
(5)
years and five
(5)
months are as
follows:
Fiscal Year
Percent of Total Energy
Ending
Coal
Fuel Oil
Gas
Provided by Each Fuel
April
30th
Pounds
Gallons
MCF
Coal
Fuel Oil
Gas
1970
71,214,100
53,323
38,624.0
94.5
0.9
4.6
1971
74,118,480
118,276
59,580.0
91.4
1.9
6.7
1972
74,155,000
171,012
63,733.7
90.3
2.6
7.1
1973
53,982,600
202,038
25,964.0
95.5
0.3
4.2
1974
31,315,000
99,012
18,841.2
91.3
3.7
5.0
1st
5 Mo.
of 1975
2,316,100
1,969
500.3
97.0
1.1
1.9
16
—
202
—3—
The hours of operation for each of the boilers at the Plant over the
past five
(5) years and five
(5) months are as follows:
Fiscal Year
Ending
April
30th
Year
Ending
April
30th
Steam
Hours Operated
-
Boiler No.
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1st 5 Mo
of 1975
39,129,250
4,575,000
39,135,750
7,661,550
38,307,750
8,588,750
24,112,750
5,159,850
12,782,100
3,096,250
—
43,704,250
89.5
—
46,797,300
83.6
—
46,896,500
81.7
19,896,351 49,168,951
49.0
34,210,188
50,088,538
25.5
10. 5
16.4
18
.
3
10.5
6.2
6.8
76.4
On February
4,
1975,
the Agency recommended that the variance be
denied.
The Agency included in its Recommendation the following table
which details the calculated emissions of particulates and SO2 from
the four coal—fired boilers:
Allowable
Partic-
Boiler
ulates
No.
Rule
2—2.53
lb/lU6BTU
1
2
3
4
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Allowable
Partic-
ulates
Rule 203(g)
lb/1O6BTU
0.27
0.27
0.20
0.20
Allowable
SO2
lbs/1O6BTU
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Calculated
Partic—
ulates
lbs/1O6BTU
2.0
2.0
1.5
0.78
Calculated
SO2
lbs/1O6BTU
3.69
3.69
3.69
3.69
___________
4
Total
1970
1,700
1,777
3,424
5,340
12,241
1971
4,565
977
4,493
4,074
14,109
1972
5,730
1,644
5,976
2,604
15,954
1973
3,408
1,920
2,196
4,224
11,748
1974
3,528
5,798
0
192
9,518
1st
5 Mo.
of 1975
0
0
1,908
0
1,908
The breakdown of the electrical production comparing the steam plant,
engine plant and interconnection for the past five
(5) years and five
(5)
months
is
as
follows:
Fiscal
Source of Power
(KW-HR)
Percent of Total
Tie-
Engine
Tie-Line
Total
Steam Engine Line
3,860,450 1,572,750 17,555,726
22,988,926
16.8
40.5
68.3
16
—203
—4—
The Agency recommended that the Board deny the variance for several
reasons.
First, violations have existed
since 1970.
Second, the
Petitioner has violated the Board Order in PCB 73-355 by failing
to submit quarterly reports to the Agency.
Third, Petitioner during
the period of the variance in PCB 73—355 operated its boilers while
the diesel generators were not utilized,
in violation of condition
two of the Board Order.
Fourth,
in contrast to Fairfield’s claims
in Ex. C of its Petition for Variance,
no pollution control devices
exist on boilers
1,
2, and 3.
The cyclone on boiler
4 was estimated
by the Agency to have an efficiency of 85;
not 95
as claimed by
the City.
Fifth, the Petitioner failed to substantiate its claim
that
it would take $400,000 to $600,000
to bring the four boilers
into compliance with Rule 203 of Chapter Two.
The Agency was of the opinion that none of the four boilers
will be able to meet the May 30,
1975,
Rule 203 particulate standard.
All four boilers, assuming similiar coal analysis, will be in com-
pliance with the May 30,
1975,
SO2 standards.
Boiler No.
4, based
on calculations,
is in compliance with existing Rule 2—2.53
of the
Rules and Regulations governing the Control of Air Pollution.
The
Agency received no complaints from citizens concerning the grant of
a variance.
The hearing was held on February 14,
1975,
at the Fairfield
Council Chambers,
City Hall,
Fairfield,
Illinois.
The coal—fired
boilers have been idle since September 1974
(R.
14)
and probably
will not be needed this wincer.
A table on page
6 of the Petition
for Variance indicated the hours of operation during recent periods
for the four coal—fired boilers:
Hours of Operation
Boiler #1
Boiler
#2
Boiler
#3
Boiler #4
December,
1973
228
516
U
0
January, 1974
U
744
U
0
February,
1974
U
672
U
0
March, 1974
U
122
U
0
April,
1974
0
U
U
0
May,
1974
0
0
U
0
June,
1974
U
U
U
0
July,
1974
U
U
564
0
August,
1974
U
0
744
0
September,
1974
U
0
600
0
The Petitioner did not refute the Agency’s claim that the coal-fired
boilers were operated during periods when the diesel generators were
available.
Petitioner pointed out that
it
takes from eight hours to
three days to successfully start up the boilers and turbines
(R.26)
The steam plant was operated at base load generation levels
(thirty
to forty percent of
full rate)
to enable it to supply estimated
consumer needs
(R.44).
This problem has now been solved.
Petitioner
completed installation of a 125 HP diesel engine in October
1974 to
provide sufficient low pressure steam to maintain boiler heat
(R.23).
This engine cost $20,000 to $30,000
(R.24)
16—204
—5—
The City signed an agreement with SIPCO in June 1974
(Pet.
Ex.
2) giving the City 6,825
1KW of firm purchase power.
The agree-
ment allows Fairfield to contract with other electric supplies to
obtain additional power over its tie-line with SIPCO
(R.
19,
20).
However, the SIPCO tie—line has a carrying capacity of only 10,000
X1/~
(R.
76,
Tfl.
it is doubtful
that
this line will have additional
capacity before
1980
(R.
78).
Although the City has approximately 14,000
1KW available
without using its coal-fired boilers,
it appears unlikely that
Petitioner will be able to avoid their use for several years to come.
First, energy demands in the area are increasing;
projected estimates
for peak loads during summer 1975 are 17,000 to 18,000 KW
CR.
69).
During the summer of 1975, Petitioner estimated that it will operate
its boilers
300 hours
CR.
90,
91).
Second, under the June 1974 agree-
ment with SIPCO, the City must provide electricity to SIPCO
if any
SIPCO consumers suffer any discontinuity of electrical service
(R.~
~3, 94).
Petitioner lacks funds to bring its facilities into com-
pliance with Chapter Two.
Additional bonds to finance improvements
to the City’s facilities cannot be floated before 1976
(R.
107).
Fairfield is making every effort to get all its electrical energy
from SIPCO, not only to comply with the Act and regulations, but also
because it is cheaper to buy the power than to have its own coal—
fired boilers supply it
(R.
149).
Petitioner introduced calculations
to show the effect of its
emissions on air quality at ground levels
CR.
125,
128).
The validity
of the calculations
is doubtful because of the assumptions underlying
the calculations as brought out on cross—examination
(R.
133—189).
Petitioner stated that if a variance ‘~eregranted,
it ~i1l attempt to
satisfy all Agency conditions suggested in its February
4,
1975,
Recommendation.
The City also agreed to undertake
a study to deter-
mine the accuracy of the estimated cost figure of $400,000
to $600,000
to achieve compliance
CR.
52,
150).
We
grant the variance for one year as requested by the
Petitioner, but subject to the terms recommended by the Agency. Al-
though a specific compliance plan does not exist, recent good faith
efforts plus the complexity of the problem convince us that
a variance
is warranted.
Studies will be immediately undertaken to determine the
feasibility of compliance.
We believe
it would impose an unreason-
able hardship on the City to require it to curtail essential sei~ices
to local citizenry when the impact of the additional emissions does
not appear substantial.
While previous City administrations have
failed to live up to their responsibilities under the Act, the
interest of local citizens prompts us to give the Petitioner one
final opportunity to make good faith efforts
to control its air
pollution problem.
ORDER
Petitioner, City of Fairfield, is granted a Variance from
Section
9(a)
of the act, Rules 103, 104, and 203(g~l~~of Chapter
Two,
and Rule 2-2.53 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the
Control of Air Pollution from November
8,
1974, until November
7,
1975,
subject to the following conditions:
16— 205
—6—
(a)
Petitioner shall submit
a detailed cost analysis of a
control strategy to bring the four boilers
into compliance with
Rule 203
of Chapter Two.
The study shall include at
a minimum:
1.
Cost of controls;
2.
Cost,
availability, and feasibility of alternate
sources of power;
3.
A timetable for bringing the boilers into compliance;
4.
A retirement program for boilers 1-4,
if necessary.
This report shalibe submitted to the Agency within 120 days of the
adoption of this Order.
This report shall be mailed to:
Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Control Program Coordinator, Division of
Air Pollution Control, 2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706.
(b)
Petitioner shall operate its coal-fired boilers only
when the following conditions exist:
1.
Petitioner’s estimated peak for the day exceeds 10,825
1KW;
or
2.
Petitioner has obtained all available power from other
systems through the tie-line with Southern Illinois
Power Cooperative; or
3.
Petitioner is utilizing the tie—line at 6,825 KW and its
diesel generators at 4,000
1KW.
(c)
Beginning May 1,
1975, Petitioner shall submit monthly
reports to the Agency at the address in condition
(a) above.
The
reports
shall detail:
1.
The date of operation of each coal-fired boiler;
2.
Kilowatts generated by each boiler on each day of operation;
3.
The peak demand on each day of operation of the coal-fired
boilers;
4.
The amount of power provided by the tie-line on each day
of operation of the coal—fired boilers;
5.
The amount of power provided by the diesel units on each
day of operation of the four coal-fired boilers.
(d)
Petitioner shall submit
a report detailing the City’s
projected growth between 1976 and 1985 for electricity demand and
detailing a program to supply the electrical needs of the City dur-
ing that period.
This report shall be submitted to the Agency within
120 days of the adoption of this Order.
This report shall be mailed
to the address indicated in condition
(a)
above.
(e)
Petitioner shall carry out tests to determine the environ-
mental impact of particulates from the use of the coal—fired boilers
during the summer months of 1975.
All tests shall be completed by
September 1, 1975,
and submitted to the Agency at the address in-
dicated in condition
(a)
above by October
1,
1975.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Mr. Henss dissents.
16—206
—7—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, he~ebycertify that
he above Opinion and Order was adopted
on the~j~_~
day of
_____________,
1975,
by a vote of
.3
to
1.
~
16—207