ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
January 16, 1975
CITY
OP
CAPLYLE,
Petitioner,
)
v.
PCB.
73—264
1.
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent,
MR
•
JAMES
E.
BTJCRPIILLER,
appeared
on
behalf
of
Petitioner;
MR.
JOHN
PALINCSAR,
appeared
on
behalf
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OP
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle):
The
City
of
Carlyle
(“Petitioner0)
filed
a variance
petition on June 26, 1973.
On
July
13,
1973
the
Board
determined
that
this
petition
was
inadequate and
ordered
it
dismissed
with
leave
to
file
an
attended
variance
petition.
On
September
4,
1973
petitioner
filed
an
amended
variance
petition
seeking relief
from
Rule
203(g) (1)
(B)
of
the
Air
Pollution
Regulations.
Petitioner
filed
a
motion
for
continuance
and
a
waiver
of
the statutory
9(1-day decision rule on November
19, 1973 in order to conduct stack tests. Petitioner filed
an amendment to its variance petition on Pebruary 15, 1974
reflecting the results of stack tests conducted on January
16 and 17,
1974.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
filed a reccimnendation to deny the variance petition on
May
30,
1974.
No hearing was held in this matter.
Petitioner operates a municipal power plant
located
within
the
City
of• Carlyle in Clinton County.
Petitioner’s
power
plant
has
a capacity of 9,250 EN.
The subject of
this
variance petition, boiler 12, has a capacity of
3,000
RN.
Boiler #2 is a coal-fired,
chain
gate,
stoker
type
of boiler.
This
boiler
is
served
by
a
160
foot
stack
which
lacks
any
pollution
control
equipment.
The
stack
tests
conducted
by
petitioner show
that
boiler
#2
emits 1.41
pounds per million
Btus
(lb/MBtu).
Petitioner’s
Pebruary,
1974 amended variance
petition
seeks
relief
from
Section
9(a)
of
the
Environmental
Protection
Act,
Rule
2—2.53
of
the
Rules
and
Regulations
Governing the Control of Air Pollution
(Air Rules), and
Rules 103 (b) and 104 of the Air Pollution Regulations.
15—237
—2—
Petitioner, together with 11 other municipalities are
presently seeking an interconnection with Illinois Power
Company and other members o~the Illinois-Nissouri power
pool.
This request was filed in December of 1974 before the
Federal Power Commission
(~FPC”). Petitioner alleges that
to require compliance with the Act,
the Air Rules,
arid the
Air Pollution Regulations would be arbitrary and unreasonable
during the pendency of the petition before the FPC,
Petitioner
alleges that it will be in compliance by May,
1975.
Petitioner
states that it is unable at this time to commit itself to a
compliance program during the pendency of its petition
before the FPC (Docket E-7514).
Petitioner proposes to
achieve compliance by interconnecting with Illinois Power
Company after an FPC ruling to do
so, Petitioner states that
it will be in compliance because it will use boiler
#2 for
standby and will use equipment or fuel
to achieve compliance,
or may be able to retire the unit.
If not ordered to connect,
petitioner still alleges compliance by 1975.
The Agency recommends that the Board deny the variance
request.
The Agency alleges that without an order to interconnect
by the FPC, that petitioner would be unable to be guaranteed
a steady supply of fuel oil.
This coupled with the Federal
Energy Office requirement of mandatory use of coal in coal-
burning facilities would prohibit the conversion
of this
unit to oil burning to achieve compliance. The Agency further
argues that petitioner has not shown an economic hardship in
that it has not had an electric rate increase since 1946.
The Agency states that the boiler #2, which has been used
since 1950,
should be amortized for the value of its entire
useful life and that either petitioner should install controls
on boiler #2 or retire and replace the boiler.
The Agency alleges that if the FPC ordered interconnection,
that because of the substantial savings of $341,250 in-
terest
from the delay in installation and $13,200 savings
by the purchase of economy power,
petitioner would be able
to afford control equipment for boiler #2.
The Agency
further alleges that petitioner has pledged not to retire
boiler #2 in the event of an order to interconnect with
Illinois Power.
The Agency alleges that petitioner has
pledged the use
o~
boiler #2
in
its proceeding before the
FPC (Agency Exhibit A,
at
pages
9,
15, and 20).
The Agency
further alleges that if
the
oiJ shorthge and resulting
supply problems persist, that petitioner would
then
be
forced
to
use boiler
#2 over other oil burning units at its
power plant.
Therefore the Agency alleges that even with an
order of interconnection that petitioner should proceed to
install controls on boiler #2.
15—238
—3—
The
Board
finds
petitioner
to
he
in admitted
violation
of
Rule
2--2.53 of the Air Rules which sets
a maximum
of
0.6
lbs/NBtu
for
particulate
emissions,
petitioner
admits
to
discharging 1.41 lbs/MBtu of particulates.
Petitioner’s
request
is
similar
to that
in
City of Highland v.
EPA, PCB
73—288,
13
PCB 167
(July
25,
~
dismissed the City of Highland variance petition.
Both the
City of Highland and Carlyle are co—petitioners in
the
proceeding before the FPC
to seek an
interconnection
ruling.
Petitioner has presented no compliance program
to indicate
the method by which it will achieve compliance by May,
1975.
Petitioner proposes a delay while it seeks an FPC ruling.
The petition before the
FPC
has been pending for a number of
years
(since at least May
1972)
with
no resolution
in
sight.
Petitioner has pledged the use of boiler
#2
as a standby
unit in the event of an interconnection agreement,
and
proposes to use boiler #2 as a standby unit if not ordered
to interconnect.
The use of a
unit on standby purposes
would still require compliance with the numerical emission
limitations.
These limitations found in the Air Rules were
first adopted on March
26,
1965,
Petitioner has presented
no ambient air quality data which reflect
the
effect of its
emissions now in excess of allowable limits.
Petitioner has
presented no economic hardship which would demonstrate an
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship if required to comply
with the existing standards.
For these reasonsq the Board
finds that petitioner
is not entitled to the requested
variance relief on the record before us.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
ORDER
The variance request filed by the City of Carlyle is
hereby denied
without prejudice.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
1,
Christan L. Noffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order
were adopted
on
the /~~_dayof January,
1975 by
a vote of V—O
~anL,~1o~
Illinois Pollution
trol Board