ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 5, 1974

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

)

v.

)

PCB 73-113

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY     

)

MR. LARRY P. EATON, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, appeared on behalf

of the Environmental Protection Agency;

MR. ROBERT BRODERICK, POPE ~ DREll~’1YER, appeared on behalf of

Union Electric Company

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelle):

This enforcement action was initiated by the Agency with a

Complaint filed on March 14, 1973, and an Amended Complaint was

filed on September 7, 1973.

The Agency charges that Respondent was in violation of

Section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (“Act”) and

Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution. Respondent is charged with such violations

from on or before July 1, 1970 and continuing through the date

of the filing of the Amended Complaint. In addition, 62 days

in 1971 and 1972 are listed during which alleged violations took

place.

Union Electric Company is a Missouri Corporation, authorized

to do business in the State of Illinois; is engaged in the

business of generating,transmitting, and distributing electric

power and energy to the public in portions of Illinois, Missouri

and Iowa. Respondent owns and operates 6 steam electric

generating stations, one of which is a 500 megawatt plant located

on the I~IississippiRiver at Venice in Madison County, Illinois,

and is known as Venice #2 Plant (Venice Plant). The violations

are alleged against the Venice Plant (R. 5, 6).

A hearing was held on October 18, 1974 at which no testimony

was given but the following facts were stipulated by the Agency

and Respondent. The numbers below refer to paragraphs in the

Stipulation.

14—587

-2-

3.  The construction of the Venice Plant was completed in 1950,

at which time the plant had eight pulverized coal boilers, each

of

which discharged into its separate stack and all of which

stacks

were equipped with electrostatic precipitators with a

design efficiency of ninety percent (90) as to six (6) of such

stacks and ninety-five percent (95) as to two (2) of such stacks.

4.  On April 15, 1968, the Company submitted an Air Contaminant

Reduction Program which, as amended on July 18, 1968, was approved

by the Air Pollution Control Board on July 25, 1968. This Program

as approved, provided that by June

1972, the 

Venice Plant would be

in compliance with the Illinois part:i.culate regulations which

would he exceeded only when the Company experienced a system

emergency which would occur so infrequently that the Venice Plant

would be essentially in full compliance wIth the particulate

regulations after June 1972.

On May 6, 1971, the Company received a letter from the

then Manager of the Bureau of Air Pollution Control advising that

approved variances expired at the end 

of one (1) year, that the

Bureau had no record of the Company’s request for an extension and

suggesting that the Company might seek a variance if it would impose

an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship on the Company to bring the

Venice Plant into immediate compliance with the Environmental Protec-

tion Act.

6. In response

to the

above described letter and, although

it had been implementing its Program 

which the Air Pollution Control

Board had approved on July 25, 1968, the Company on July 20, 1971,

filed its Petition for Variance asking in the alternative that

it either be permitted to continue and complete its approved

program or

that it be granted a variance from the applicable

particulate air quality standards established by the Pollution

Control Board until Deceriber 31, 1972, to enable it to complete

the conversion of boilers one (1) through six (6) of the Venice

Plant to oil burning which the Company was then engaged in doing.

7.  The Company’s Petition for Variance was never acted upon and

on October 17, 1972, the Pollution Control Board, at the Company’s

request, dismissed the Petition without prejudice and found, as the

Company represented, that the Venice Plant had been derated,

pursuant to the Company’s approved Program, that the Venice Plant

was in compliance 

with the regulations and that a variance was no

longer necessary and that the Company was engaged in converting

six (6) of the Plant’s boilers to oil burning.

8.  The conversions of boilers three (3), four (4), five (5)

and six (6) of the Venice Plant to oil burning were completed

on November 11, 1972, December 11, 1972, March 6, 1973 and December

29, 1972, respectively, and have since such dates, when operated,

14—588

-3-

burned only low sulphur No. 2 fuel oil. Boilers one (1) and two (2)

of the Venice Plant were taken out of service for conversion to

oil on April 1, 1973 and after that date, have burned only low

sulphur No. 2 fuel oil whenever they have been operated. The

remaining boilers of the Venice Plant, boilers seven (7) and eight (8)

have been derated to comply with the provisions of Rule 3-3.112 and

whenever they have been operated since on or about January 1, 1973,

have burned low sulphur (approximately 1.5 sulphur) coal.

10. If the proceedings were to be tried, the Agency would produce

evidence tending to prove the allegations made in the original

and amended complaints and the Company would contest the existence

of and the degree of the violations charged against it. For

the purpose of this Stipulation only the Company agrees that

the Board may find the Agency’s anticipated proof to be credible.

12. Since the modifications o:F the Venice Plant as described

in paragraph 8 have taken place, including derating, and conversion

of boilers one (1) through six (6) from coal-burning to oil-burning,

and boilers seven (7) and eight (8) to low sulphur coal, complaints

of the Plant’s operation have ceased and the Plant is now in

compliance with Section 9(a) and Rule 3-3.112.

Based on the information contained in the Stipulation (Paragraph

10) we find that Respondent has been in violation during 1971

and 1972. The violations pertained to Section 9(a) of the Act and

to Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution.

However, we take note that Petitioner was in the process of

implementing the Air Contaminant Reduction Program approved by

the Air Pollution Control Board on July 25, 1968. Further,

when that program became inadequate, Respondent proceeded to

come into compliance with the new Rules and Regulations by

converting six boilers to low sulphur oil, two to low sulphur

coal and derating the boilers.

No violations are alleged after September 19, 1972. On

October 17, 1972, the Board dismissed Respondent’s Petition

for Variance without prejudice at Petitioner’s request because

it was then in compliance.

We are therefore accepting the stipulation and assess the

stipulated penalty of $750.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

14—589

-4-

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF TIlE BOARD THAT:

Respondent pay a penalty of $750 for violation of Section 9(a)

of the Act and Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and Regulations

Governing the Control of Air Pollution. Payment is to made

within 35 days from the date of this Order to:

State of Illinois

Fiscal Services Section

Environmental Protection Agency

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

2.  Respondent is ordered to cease and desist from the violations

found, and to comply henceforth, in the operation of the

Venice Plant, with all provisions of the Environmental Protec-

tion Act and the Board’s Air Pollution Control Regulations

to the extent same may be applicable to the operations of the

Venice Plant.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the 51~t day of December, 1974 by a vote of 

~—O

Illinois Pollution

7~)

Control Board

14—590