ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

10,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY,

Complainant,

PCB

73~5l6

CITY

OF

PERU,

A

Municipal Corporation,)

Respondent

Mr~Marvin N~Benn and Mr~

Marvin

I. Medintz, Attorneys of

Record for Complainant;

Mr~Charles

W, Heimig and Mr~Eugene H~Bernstein, Attorneys of

Record for Respondent~

This action involves a complaint filed by the Attorney

General on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency on

Decemb..er

7,

1973.

The City of Peru

(Peru)

is charged with

causing air pollution in violation of Section 9(a) of the

Environmental Protection Act by unreasonably interfering

with the lives and property of individuals residing near its

elect~..icalgenerating facility.

More particularly,

the

complaint alleges that emissions from the facility’s boilers

cause

e..ye discomfort and pain, increased cleaning and maintenance

cost•••~s~and the prevention

of out-door enjoyment~

The

iacuity includes three coal-f.ired boilers, numbered

3 through 5~ The boilers exhaust by~productsof combustion

through stacks of heights 139.5, 141.5 and 116 feet, respectively.

The by-products include particulates and sulfur

oxides.

Boilers

4 and 5 are the subject of presently

valid operating

permits granted by the State of Illinois.

Boiler number

3

was previously granted a

one year variance on November

8,

1973, which required that it remain on coal stand—by and

that it be run for emergency purposes only

(PCB 73—255,

10

PCB 25)

It has not been operated since

January,

1974.

Units

4 and

5

are spreader stoker boilers which burn Illinois

coal with an average sulfur content

of

2.17.

The units are

equipped with Western Precipitator

multiclone collectors

whose original

stated collection

efficiencies were

93.2

and

92.6

respectively.

Peru admits the efficiencies of these

collectors may have degraded since installation.

Generator

ratings of the turbines associated with these boilers are

4,000 kw and 7,500 kw, respectively,

The Agency admits that

16 —345

---

—2—

applicable limitations.

In addition to the coal generating

units, the facility also has a diesel engine generator and a

gas turbine generator with ratings of 6,250 kw and 11,500

kw, respectively.

The total system peak electrical demand

was 18,100 kw, established in July,

1974.

To the north of the generating station and located on a

bluff rising from the Illinois River above the lip of the

stacks is a residential area containing single family residences.

Several residents from this area testified at hearings held

in this

case on June 5 and December 16,

1974.

These residents

uniforftbl.y complained of the emissions from the facility’s

stacks.

Irritation ~f the eyes was attributed to the emissions

by several of the witnesses

(June

5

—

R.

9,

48,

57; December

16 -R.

37,

80).

A physician,

Dr. Assalley, described the

effect of sulfur dioxideon the lungs and muscosa of the

eyes,

and attributed his treatment of two area residents for

bronchitis and pharyngitis to times of increased “sulfur

dioxide and general alfelon

(sic)

and aromatic hydrocarbon”

resulting from the power plant emissions

(June

5

-

R.

56-7,

60)

The witnesses also described the deleterious effects of

the particulate matter on houses, automobiles and other

personal property

(June

5

-

R. 25,

33,

49;

December 16

-

R.

75).

Photographs admitted as exhibits reveal accumulations

of fly ash and soot on, and resultant paint damage to,

a

picnic table,

house eave, wood siding and an aluminum storm

window (December 16 —R. 75—78).

Many of the witnesses also complained that the particulates

and odor from the emissions prevented them from enjoying

their property.

One resident testified that she is forced

to keep her southern windows closed

(June

5

-

R.

29)

while

another refrained from using her backyard and screened—in

porch

(June 5

-

R.

41).

least one occasion when he could smell sulfur fumes inside

his house

(June

5

-

R.

50)

-

All of the residents indicated that the conditions

conducting of soot—blowing operations

station.

They also relate the conditions

blowing from the south.

Furthermore,

proposal for settlement submitted by the parties at the

coal-fired boilers of the generating station.

facts and evidence we feel a violation of Section 9(a)

clearly established as alleged in the complaint.

16

—~

346

---

—3—

According to the stipulation, both parties feel substantial

relief can be provided the residents by reducing the emissions

from coal—fired boilers through reduced operation of boilers

4 and

5,

by enhancing the dispersion

of the emissions,

by

limiting soot-blowing operations

to times of optimum meteoro-

logical conditions,

or by

a combination of any or all of

these strategies.

In addition, Peru has been negotiating

for an agreement for the purchase of sufficient firm electric

power from Illinois Power to permit it to place both boilers

4 and 5 on cold stand-by.

The construction and installation

of permanent interconnection facilities is estimated to cost

$990, 000.

The stipulation further states that dispersion of

emissions can be enhanced by erection of

a single tall stack

through which all the coal-fired boilers would vent, and

engineered in conformity with a dispersion analysis based

upon modeling techniques agreed to by both parties.

The

cost of such a stack is estimated at $750,000.

The purpose

would be to reduce plant emissions during the interim period

of change—over to purchased power.

Also,

installation of

a

wind speed and direction anemometer with a chart recorder

and smokedensity monitors,

at a cost of $6,500, would

permit soot-blowing operations to be conducted so as to

minimize emissions to the affected residential areas.

After considering alternatives, including backfitting

electrostatic precipitators downstream from the existing

dust collection equipment,

and after considering difficulties

in financing and increases

in electric rates, both parties

jointly concluded that the program described above represented

the optimum solution.

Accordingly,

they entered a proposed

settlement consisting of the following terms:

a)

Respondent shall immediately upon approval of this

settlement take steps to install

a stack with

a height

to be determined by dispersion modeling based upon

generally accepted modeling techniques.

Both the

dispersion modeling and the dimensions of the stack

shall be as agreed upon by representatives of the

parties to this Stipulation.

The stack, which will be

completed as soon as feasible, but not later than

October

31,

1976, will have a height of 300 feet or

greater in order to alleviate,

as nearly as may be,

problems experienced by nearby residents with respect

to the emission of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide

during periods of normal operation of the coal—fired

boilers.

16—347

---

—4—

b)

Respondent, within

3 months of the signing of this

Stipulation by the parties, shall install a wind speed

and direction anemometer

in a suitable location with a

chart recorder in the boiler control room.

Boiler

blowdown shall

then only be conducted when the wind

is

from a favorable direction unless continuous southerly

winds for an extended period reasonably require otherwise.

c)

Respondent, within three months of the signing of

the Stipulation by the parties, shall install smoke

density monitors downstream of pollution control equipment

on Boiler Nos.

4 and 5 with a chart recorder in the

boiler room.

The information thereby provided with

respect to the effect of boiler operating conditions

on

emissions and as to emission rates from the boilers

will be made available to the Agency.

d)

Respondent, within one month of the signing of

this Stipulation by the parties,

shall order an inspection

of the multiclone collectors by the manufacturer.

Respondent shall diligently act,

as mutually agreed

upon

by

the

parties

to

this

Stipulation,

to incorporate

any suggestions by

the

manufacturer

of

the

multiclone

collector

which

would

reasonably

increase

the

eif:Lciency

of the collector,

~ieasonab1yu

is

here

used

to

mean

a

significant

anticipated benefit

on

account

of

an

increase

in

efficiency

in

Light

of

the

cost

of

upgrading

and

anticipated period of benefit.

e)

Respondent shall diligently

act

to establish a

permanent

interconnection

with lll~nois Power Company

and shall diligently construct and .instail p.ermanent

interconnection facilities.

:E)

Respondent

shall

diligently

negotiate for a firm

purchase

power

agreement

on

reasonable

terms and

con-

ditions

which

provides

for

purchase by Respondent

of

suffiqient

amounts

of

power

to

permit Boiler Nos.

4 and

5

to

:be

placed

on

co:Ld

stand—by

and

to he utilized only

when

purchase

power

is

unavailable,

‘~Reasonabie~is

here

used

to

mean

in

line

with

other

similar

purchase

power

agreements.

Pursuant

to

the

above

program

Re-

spondent

shall

use

all reasonable efforts and due

diligence to place Boiler Nos.

4 and 5 on cold stand-

by,

to be used only when purchase power is unavailable.

16

-~

34~

---

—5—

g)

Respondent shall at all times act diligently to

purchase from Illinois Power Company as much power as

is required to adequately supply its customers and is

available to Respondent under Sections

1,

2, and

4 of

Article IV of Exhibit A hereto,

save for that power

which Respondent is reasonably required to generate

itself in compliance with Section

5 of Article V of

Exhibit A.

(Exhibit A constitutes

a temporary inter-

connection contract dated August 19, 1974.)

h)

In the event it shall appear reasonably certain

that Boilers

4 and 5 will be placed on cold stand-by

prior to the time work necessary to install a tall

stack

[as

provided

in

subparagraph

(a)

hereof]

can be

completed

and

it

shall

further

appear

that

Respondent

has diligently

and in good faith

pursued

the

timely

installation of the tall stack, then such tail stack

installation shall not be

required

by

the

terms hereof.

In the event that Respondent shall be relieved under

this subparagraph

(h)

of the requirement to

install

the

tail

stack, Respondent, whenever generating electrical

energy,

shall,

to the extent the appropriate fuel

is

available

to

it, utilize either

the

gas

turbine

generator

or

the

diesel

engine

generator,

both

as

described

in

paracraph

9,

prior

to

the

uti:Lization

of

the

coal

fired

units.

I)

Respondent

shall

file

with

the

Agency

quarterly

crogress

reports

detailing

its

progress

in

completing

the

program

herein

provided

for,

including

but

not

limited

to

both

the

financing

of

the

program

and

the

steps

taken

to

accouplish

the

necessar~

const.ruction.

The

reports

shall

be

sent

to

Control

Program

Cocrdinator,

Division

of

Air Pollution

Control,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

I:LljT1O~S.

Such

reports

shall

cover

the

calendar

quarters

and

shal:1.

he

due

within

21

days

•of

the

final

day

of

each

such

calendar

quarter.

A

final

report

shall

he filed

upon

completion

of

the

proeram

herein

provided

for.

j)

Nothing

herein

shall

be

construed

to he

an

ad-

mission by Respondent of the existence of a violation

of Section

9(a)

of the Act

(Ill.

Rev.

Stat,,

ch, 111-

1/2, ~

1009(a)

(1971)).

In order to avoid the expense,

inconvenience

and

diversion

of

City

officials

from

more

constructive duties which could accompany protracted

hearings to determine whether such a violation might

exist, Respondent agrees that in the event the Board

finds a violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act, Respondent

shall remit and shall pay the sum of $1,500 to the

State of Illinois

(remitted to the Fiscal Services

Section, Environmental Protection Agency).

Such pay-

ment

is in consideratioi~of settlement of the issues

raised in the Agency’s complaint.

---

—6—

We have reservations about the length of time set out

in paragraph

(a)

of the settlement agreement for the completion

of the stack.

We feel that one year would probably be an

adequate period of time within which to construct the stack.

Apparently, Peru desires the extra time in order to effect

the interconnection agreement

--

of constructing the stack as provided in paragraph

(h).

Agency Motion for Oral Argument on this issue,

March

31,

1975, was denied in an Order dated April

4,

time required to construct the stack.

Brief filed on April

7,

past the date agreed to by the parties.

any remedial steps having been taken.

In lieu of

brief, Peru filed a letter on April

8,

the settlement proposal.

persuasive.

relief entitled the residents of the area.

Interconnection with Illinois Power will allow Peru to place

necessitate renewed operation.

stacks as an effective means of abating pollution.

timely boiler blowdowns,

should help to alleviate many of the citizens’

of alternatives,

there is no indication

May 31,

1975.

of

a compliance plan for, the requirements

and 204.

On the contrary,

regulations by municipalities intending to achieve compliance

16—350

---

—7—

by interconnection with Illinois Power, City of Highland v.

EPA,

PCB 73-288,

13 PCB 167

(1974) and City of Carlyle v.

EPA,

PCB 73-264

(January 16, 1975).

We hold here only that the

proposed settlement plan should help alleviate many of the

nuisance complaints at issue in this cased

Although Peru denies admission of a violation of Section

9(a)

in the proposed settlement

(paragraph

j),

we have found

sufficient evidence in the record to warrant such a finding.

We accept Peru’s agreement to pay the sum of $1,500 as a

penalty for this violation.

To help ameliorate citizen

fears of stalled implementation of the plan proposed herein,

we feel a cease and desist order is appropriate.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent, the City of Peru,

shall immediately

undertake to implement paragraphs

(a)

through

(j)

of the

stipulated settlement contained herein.

2.

Respondent, the City of Peru, except in accordance with

the provisions

of this Order, shall cease and desist from

further violations of Section

9(a)

of the Environmental Protection

Act.

3.

Respondent, the City of Peru,

shall pay the sum of

$1,500 as

a penalty for the violations of Section 9(a)

of the

Environmental Protection Act found herein.

Penalty payment by

money order or certified check shall be made payable to:

Fiscal Services, Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill

Road,

Springfield, Illinois

62706, within 35 days of this Order.

4.

If repair of the multiclone collectors and construction

of the tall stack are deemed necessary

a performance bond in the

amount of $100,000 shall be filed with the Agency within 35

days.

5.

Within

35

days

of

the

adoption

of

this

Order,

the

City

of

Peru shall execute and forward to the addresses noted below,

a certificate of acceptance

in the following form:

16

—

351

---

—8—

I

(We)

having read and fully understood the Order of

the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 73-516,

hereby accept said Order, understanding that such

acceptance is irrevocable and renders binding

all

terms

and conditions thereof.

Signed:

____________

__________________________

Title:

__________

________________________

Copies

of

such

certificate

shall

be

submitted

to

the

Illinois

E.nvironmental

Protection

Agency,

Air

Division,

2200

Churchill

Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706

and

the

Office

of

the

Attorney

General,

Environmental

Control

Division,

188

West

Rando.lph

Street,

Chicago,

Illinois

6C6Ol.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

.hereby

certify

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

were adopted

on

the

J~~~day

of

April,

1975

by

a

vote

of

Christan L. Moffétt, C

Illinois Pollution Co

ol Board

16