ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 19, 1974

WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER COOPERATIVE

PETITIONER

I

V.

)

PCB 74—394

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESPONDENT

MR.

T.

C. RAMMELKAMP, ATTORNEY,

in behalf of

WESTERN

ILLINOIS POWER

COOPERATIVE

MR. MICHAEL GINSBERG, ATTORNEY,

in behalf of the ENVIRONMENTAL PRO-

TECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Marder)

This action involves a request for variance from Rule 2—2.53 of

the Rules and Regulations governing the control of air pollution.

The Petition,

filed on October 29, 1974, requested relief for a coal-

fired boiler.

On November 18, 1974,

an amendment to the Petition was

filed, seeking additional relief from Rules

203 and 204

as they would

apply subsequent to May

31,

1975.

Relief is requested until July

1,

1975.

No hearing was held on this matter and ~the Agency recommended

(October 29,

1974)

a grant of said variance.

This request is for a

continuation of variances granted in the following previous docket

numbers: PCB 72-441, January

30,

1973; PCB 73—471, January 24, 1974;

PCB 74—150,

July 18, 1974.

Said variances granted relief to Petition-

er to allow the installation

of a wet scrubber control system.

The

reader is referred to the above records for a more detailed discussion

of the relevant facts.

Petitioner owns and operates an electric generating facility loc-

ated in Pearl Township, Pike County,

Illinois.

The maximum load of

this station is

22 mw, and is generated by four pulverized coal-fired

boilers.

Fuel for the boilers

is an 80

coal,

20

coke mixture.

The Petitioner has, since the inception of the original variance

(PCB 72-441), been engaged in a compliance plan to meet the require-

ments of Rules 203 and 204.

Said compliance plan entails the use of

a Riley Stoker Corporation wet scrubber.

This scrubber is alleged to

be capable of meeting the particulate limits dictated by Rule

203,

as

well as reducing the SO2 emissions to conform with Rule 204.

Petition-

er’s emissions and regulatory requirements are as follows:

Emissions

Rule 2—2.53

Rule 203

(g)

Rule 204(c)

Control

Part.

l.51#/mmBTU

0.8#/mrnBTU

0.l#/mmBTU

-

93

SO2

6.5#/mmBTU

6.0#/mInBTU

8

14

—

769

---

—2—

Although no detail is given

as regards the operation of the proposed

scrubber, it is assumed that by using water as a scrubbant, the 8

re-

duction can be obtained.

In an affidavit attached to Petitioner’s variance request, the prob-

lems in attaining compliance by the anticipated January 30, 1975,

date

were discussed.

Mr. John

L. O’Donnell

(affiant)

stated that delivery

of

by-pass

damper

valves

and

piping

systems

has

been

delayed

until

March

1975.

Petitioner alleges, and the Agency concurs, that the deliv-

ery delays were beyond the control of Petitioner.

Petitioner then de-

tails a new compliance schedule which anticipates testing of the sys-

tem by June

2,

1975.

Petitioner further alleges that a date of July

1,

1975, would provide a needed cushion for slippage.

The Agency agrees

that the

proposed

timetable

is

reasonable

in

light

of

the

equipment

delays.

It

must

be

noted

that

this

is

the

second

delay

in

Petitioner’s

orig-

inal

compliance plan

(see PCB 74-150).

Unexpected design problems nec-

essitated a six—months’ delay until January 30, 1975, and here we have

equipment delays necessitating yet another six months.

The Board, how-

ever,

feels that in both instances Petitioner has diligently attempted

to comply in as short a time as possible.

It is hoped that this will

be the last such delay

—

any further variance requests will require de-

tailed explanation from Petitioner.

The

environmental impact caused by Petitioner’s emissions is alleged

to be small,

in that they are located in a sparsely settled area, and

the Agency has had no public comment on the facility.

Details in re-

gard to environmental impact were spelled out in the Board’s first Opin-

ion on this matter

(PCB 72-441), and would still apply in the instant

case.

The Board feels that the installation of

a wet scrubber to eliminate

particulates and to

a lesser degree sulphur dioxide is

an excellent com-

pliance plan, and one that should be encouraged.

Balancing all fact-

ors,

the Board finds an extension of the variance to be in order.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law

of

the

Board.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that Petitioner is

granted variance from Rule 2—2.53 until May 31, 1975, and from Rules

203 and 204 from May 31, 1975,

until July 1,

1975, subject to the fol-

lowing:

All conditions imposed by the Board in PCB 74-150

14

—

770

---

—3—

shall remain in full force and effect.

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

Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted by the

Board on the

l9thday of

December

,

1974, by

a vote of

4

to

0

14

—

771