ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April 4, 1975

ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB 75-109

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

)

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin)

Illinois Power Company filed this Petition for Variance

for its Baldwin Electric Power Generating Station on March 7, 1975.

Illinois Power seeks a variance from Rule 204(e) of the Board’s Air

Pollution Regulations, regarding sulphur dioxide. In its Petition

Illinois Power notes that the Board now has before it regulatory proceedings

regarding proposed changes to Rule 204. Petitioner proposes to submit

the appropriate compliance plan, and to bring Baldwin Station into

compliance with such plan, after the Board has determined what changes,

if any, are to be made as regards to Rule 204.

Petitioner states that it would be “unwise and unwarranted’ to

commit itself to any compliance program pending Board determination of

the

proposed changes to Rule 204. Petitioner further states that for

the Board to require “firm commitments to achieve compliance” at this

time would constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship. This

rationale is unacceptable. The fact that changes have been proposed for

Rule 204, and that ~‘egulatoryproceedings to consider such proposals have

been ordered, are not sufficient to excuse compliance with the Board’s

Procedural requirements for variance petitions. Were the case otherwise,

all regulatory proceedings would in effect constitute variances from

the Board’s procedural and substantive regulations concerning plans for

compliance. Insofaras the Board, under authority granted by the Environmental

Protection Act, has provided liberal rules to allow consideration of

regulatory changes, to allow Petitioner such interim relief would place

the Board in an untenable postition for this and all similar proceedings.

It should be noted that Petitioner does state that it feels that an

intermittent control system would constitute a reasonable permanent

means of SO2 control for the Baldwin Station. But Petitioner does not

propose to formulate a specific plan utilizing such a control system

16—327

---

—2—

until after the conclusion of hearings on the proposed revision to Rule

204(e).

The Petition does touch briefly on several alternative methods by

which Petitioner might achieve compliance. Each of these methods however,

is similarly dismissed by Petitioner as impractical or overly expensive.

The dismissed alternatives included the limitation of station output,

the use of low—sulphur western coal, the installation of sulphur removal

equipment on one unit at the station, and the use of oil.

While it is true that this Board has in the past accepted variance

petitions, and in fact granted variances, where an immediate compliance

plan was not shown, the facts here do not allow a similar conclusion.

In cases where such variances were granted the Board has required a

showing that a workable technology is not available, as opposed to the

conclusory rejection of abatement methods other than SCS seen here.

Further, the Board in such cases has required that petitioner develop a

viable abatement technology, as part of a continuing program of research

and development to achieve compliance. Such a program, to be carried on

within Petitioner’s financial means, is the only alternative to a firm

compliance date. See, Union Oil Co. v. EPA, PCB 72-447, 10 PCB 217,

223; Mt. Carmel Public Utilities v. EPA, PCB 71—15, 1 PCB 463, 469

(1971).

Here, the Board is presented with a “wait and see” attitude. The

Board is asked to grant a variance from its SO2 limitations, as they

would affect Petitioner’s Baldwin Station, for an indefinite period of

time, pending the outcome of proposed regulatory changes. The Board is

given no firm ground here on which it might base a variance. Further,

Petitioner does not even present sufficient data to warrant a hearing.

The petition in this matter is inadequate in that it does not

contain a detailed description of a program to be undertaken to achieve

compliance, or even to work toward a future method of compliance, as is

required under Board Procedural Rules 4Ol(a)(vi)-401(a)(ix). For this

reason, the Board will require Petitioner to return with a showing of

further information relating to its attempts to achieve compliance-other

than awaiting a change in the definition of compliance.

Petitioner will be required to supply the additional information

required by Procedural Rule 401(a)(vi)—401(a)(ix) within 45 days of this

Order. The 90 day period under Procedural Rule 408 shall commence upon

the filing of such additional information. Failure to file such additional

information will render the petition herein liable to dismissal for

inadequacy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

hereby •certify that the above Order was adopted on the 4*’\ day of

________________________ 1975 by a vote of

~,

to ~

(~. ~

.

tF~ristanL. Moffett, ~tlerk

-

Illinois Pollution Control Board