IlLINOIS

POLLUTION CON~)LBOARD

April

4,

1975

IlLINOIS

POWER

caViPANY,

Petitioner

v.

)

P05

75—110

ENVIROWMENTAL

P~1I’ECTIONAGER~Y

Pespondent

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Zeitlin)

Petitioner

Illinois

Power

Caipany

filed

this

variance

request

for

its

Wood River

Station

Unit

5,

on

Mrch

7,

1975

The petition

seeks

a

variance

fran

Rule

204

of

the

Board

s Air

Pollution

Regulation,

regarding

sulphur

dioxide

Petitioner

states

that

it

~s

currently

involved

in

federal

violation

proceedings

regardirg

Unit

5,

brought

by

the

United

States

Environmental

Protection

Agenqu

(USEPA)

under

the

Clean Air

Act,

Petitioner

states

that

those

proceedings

are

concerned

with

Rule

204 (c)

(I)

(A)

of

this

Board

s

Air

Pollution

Reoulations.

As

a rasult

of

negotiations

held

in

conjunction

with

those

proceedings,

pobitioner

states

that

it

now intends

to

bring

Unit

S

into

coapliance

with

Rule

204

through

the

use

of

low

sulphur

coal

obtained.

fran

th..e

Western

states,

Those

negotiations

are

still

continuing.

The

Petition

in

this

ratter

does

not,

however,

contain

irore

than

that

staple

statement

regardirg

the

proposed

use

of

western

low-sulphur

coal

as

a carpliance

plan,

Petitioner

feels

that

it

meuld

serve

no

purpose

to

capply

with

Board

Procedural

Rule

401 (a)

(viii),

which

requires

a

detailed

description

of

a

program to

achieve

carpliance,

for

several

reasons,

It

is

claimed

that:

1,

There

is

a rossibility

of

differing

and/or

conflicting

caipliance

plans

arising

out

of

proceedings

before

this

Board

and

the

USEPA.

2,

This

Board has

currently

pending

before

it

proposed

changes

to

Rule

204CR

74-2).

Arrong

other

things,

R

74-2

proposes

a

change

in

cciipliance

dates

for

Rule

204.

3,

The

Illinois

Appellate

Court,

in

Cauronwealth

Edison

~

______

Ill.

APP,

3rd

(First

District,

1974,

No.

~87),

recently

held

Rule

204(c)

(1)

(A)

invalid,

16—329

---

—2—

Corporation in mid-October,

1974.

Amoco selected Vilter as

supplier of the equipment on the basis of earliest delivery.

In September 1974 Vilter informed Amoco that

the unit

could

not be delivered until mid-January 1975 because

of

production

slippage.

Amoco personnel evaluated the effect of

this three

month delay in mid-November and concluded that the project

could still be completed on time.

On November 27,

1974

Vilter informed Amoco

that the re-

frigeration unit could not be delivered earlier than March 24,

1975.

Amoco authorized overtime charges

in an effort to expedite

delivery but was informed by Vilter that their production

facilities were already on an overtime work schedule.

Petitioner estimates that the project can be operational

nine weeks after shipment.

Based on unreliable past estimates

of delivery, Amoco states that it can not accept the March 24,

1975 delivery date with any confidence.

Therefore,

an additional

three weeks

is requested in addition to the nine weeks to allow

for further shipment delays.

The Agency states that delay in delivery of the refrigeration

unit was beyond the control of Petitioner.

The Agency recommends

granting this variance subject to certain conditions.

No ob-

jection to the grant of this variance has been received by the

Agency.

The record shows that Petitioner has made every good faith

effort possible to expedite delivery of the refrigeration unit.

Delay in completing its compliance plan is obviously beyond the

control of Petitioner and this variance will be granted.

ORDER

It

is

the

Order

of the

Pollution

Control

Board

that

Amoco

Chemicals Corporation

be

granted variance from Rule

204(f) of

the Air Pollution Control Regulations for its Wood River multi-

additive manufacturing facility until June 30, 1975 or such

earlier date as the hydrogen sulfide scrubbing unit is installed

and operational.

This variance is subject to the following conditions~

1.

Petitioner shall apply for all required construction

and operating permits from the Agency.

2.

Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports to

the Environmental Protection Agency.

reports shall detail progress towards completion of

Pet±tioner~scompliance plan.

16 —130

---

—3—

3.

Upon delivery of the refrigeration unit

Petitioner shall advise the Agency of said

delivery date and the expected date of com-

pletion of the hydrogen sulfide scrubber project.

4.

Petitioner shall keep in effect the $50,000

to guarantee installation of required air pollution

control equipment.

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

Board, hereby certify the a ove Opinion and Order was adopted

this

~

day of

________,

1975 by

a vote of

‘I