12 —515

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 13,

1974

CITY OF MASCOUTAH,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

 PCB 74—53

ENVIRONMENTAL

 PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

William Poston, Attorney for Petitioner

John Palincsar, Attorney for EPA

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Henss):

City of Mascoutah seeks variance from Section

 9(a)

 (air

pollution)

 of the Environmental Protection Act, Rules

 103(b) (2)

(operating permits)

 and 104

 (compliance programs)

 of the Air

Pollution Control Regulations and Rule 3-3.112

 (particulate

emissions)

 of the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution for two coal fired boilers at its municipal

power plant.

 Petitioner also seeks relief from the Board Order

in EPA vs. City of Mascoutah, PCB 72-219 entered on January

16,

1973.

 In PCB 72—219 Petitioner~stwo coal fired boilers were

the subject of an enforcement action by the Agency.

 In that

action Mascoutah agreed to an order whiöh included the

following language:

~2(a) Fuel oil burners for the No.

 2 boiler shall

he in compliance with all relevant regulations by

July

 1, 1973 and shall be used prior to said date

only for emergency operations when its failure to

be in use would curtail electrical services to the

 City of Mascoutah.

 In the event such emergency

does exist,

 the City shall notify the Agency within

24 hours after operation as

 to the extent and

nature of the emergency and the circumstances of

operation.

(b) Boiler No.

 I shall be in compliance with all

relevant regulations by April

1,

 1973 and shall

—2—

operate prior to said date only when emergency

conditions exist as set forth in sub—paragraph

(a)

 above;

 and subject to the same terms

 arid

conditions of notification to the Agency.

(c) Performance bond in the amount of $40,000

in form satisfactory to the Agency to guarantee

performance of the foregoing provisions of this

Order shall be filed with the Fiscal Services

Division, Environmental Protection Agency,

2200

Churchill Road,

 Springfield, Illinois

 62706.”

The

City now petitions for variance from paragraphs 2(a),

 2(b),

and

 2(c)

 of the Order.

City of Mascoutah owns and operates an electric power

generating station known as the Mascoutah Municipal Power Plant.

Electric power generated by this station is the sole source of

electricity for the residents,

 schools and industry of Mascoutah

and for a small unincorporated area adjacent to the City.

Generating capacity at the power plant is supplied by two coal

 fir’ed boilers,

 two steam turbine generators,

 four diesel engines,

and two dual fuel engines as shown in the following table:

Nameplate

 Capability

Unit No.

 Type

 Rating

 (KW)

 Installed

 (KW)

 Condition

1

 Steam Turbine

 1,500

1967

 1,500

 Good

2

 Steam Turbine

 2,000

1967

 2,000

 Good

1

 Diesel Engine

556

1950

556

 Good

2

 Diesel Engine

556

1950

556

 Good

3

 Diesel Engine

 1,136

1958

 1,136

 Good

4

 Dual Fuel Engine

 2,070

1968

 2,070

 Good

5

 Diesel Engine

986

1965

 —0—

 Being rebuilt

due to fire

6

 Dual Fuel Engine

 2,277

1972

 2,277

New

Boilers No.

 1 and

2,

 the subject of this variance are both coal

fired boilers.

 Boiler No.

 1 utilizes a baffled settling chamber for

controlling particulate emissions while Boiler No.

2

 is equipped

with a Buell 5-10 Multiclone collector.

 On February

1,

 1973 Boiler

No.

 1 was subjected

 to a stack test by an independent testing service.

 Results

 of the stack test showed the boiler to be in compliance

with

applicable

Rules

and

Regulations.

Fred

Smith,

employed

the EPA as Source Emission Expert, recommended

acceptance of the

results.

 An operating permit was issued for Boiler No.

 1 on

June 28,

 1973.

 Boiler No.

 2 was issued an operating permit on

June 21,

 1973 with the condition, however, that coal consumption

not exceed 609 lbs./hr.

—

514

—3—

As required by Part 2(a) of the Order in

PCB 72-219 Mascoutab

purchased the oil burners for Boiler No.

2.

 Although it had not

been ordered to do so, Mascoutah decided to purchace and install

oil burners

 for Boiler No.

 1 at the same time in order to meet

the 1975 sulfur emission standards.

 The coal currently used by

the power plant contains 3.44

 sulfur.

During an

 inspection of the power plant in February 1974,

an Agency investigator discussed operations of the two boilers

with T.

W.

St.

 Cyn, power plant superintendent. According to

the EPA investigator,

 St. Cyn

said conversion of Boiler No.

was about 75

 complete but the conv~rsionof Boiler No.

 2 had

not yet commenced.

 This information

 is in conflict with

Petitioner!s statement made in January 1974 on page

 4 of its

Petition for Variance that a new fuel oil burner has been in-

stalled on Boiler No.

2.

 St. Cyn told the Agency investigator

that all work on the oil conversion had been halted,

 Petitioner

had not informed the Agency in advance of the cessation of

conversion efforts.

Petitioner states that in the time. between the purchase date

and installation of the oil burners,

 “the availability of fuel

oil to

the City of Mascoutah became limited as experienced

throughout the United States in 1973”.

 Therefore,

 the City,of

its own volition and without notification to the Agency or this

Board, decided to postpone the installation of oil burners which

had been ordered by the Board.

No reason is given for ignoring the Order

 to complete the

oil conversion of

 Boiler No.

 2 by July 1,

 1973 except that

Petitioner questions the “practicality”

 of the installation,

This decision by Petitioner

 is perplexing since Petitioner had

previously agreed to the posting of a $40,000 compliance bond as

ordered in Part C of our Order and the City did voluntarily under~

take the conversion of Boiler No.

1.

Petitioner was advised by its fuel oil supplier in July 1973

that the supplier would be “unable

to

supply any additional

product

 for your consumption after

the 31st day of July,

 1973”

(Petitioner Exhibit A)

 We are not told how much oil will he

supplied or what it means not

to

receive “additional” product.

Mascoutah delayed six

months after hearing from its supplier

before filing for variance.

The Board is well aware of the problems involved in attempts

to secure adequate supplies of fuel oil.

 However,

 the fuel oil

picture has changed considerably since

Petitioner received the

notification from its fuel oil supplier almost a year ago.

At

12 —515

—4—

Paragraph 18 of its Recommendation,

 the Agency cites a section

of the Energy Users Report

 (No.

 39, May

9,

 1974)

 indicating

that Petitioner

 is entitled to 100

 of its current requirements

pursuant to Federal Energy Office Regulations No. RF-31:

 0101.

Peak loading on the utility’s distribution system was

6100 KW in 1971,

 6900 KW in 1972 and 7050 KW in 1973.

 A peak

load of between 7350 KW and 7500 KW is projected to occur

during the summer of 1974.

 Petitioner states that the total

generating capability of the power plant excluding Boiler No.

2

is

 8095 KW, only 600 KW greater than the expected peak load for

1974.

 The City claims that the “firm power” available should be

5818 KW

 (about 72

 of the limited plant capability).

 Petitioner

does not define what it means by “firm power”.

 Diesel Engine

No.

 5 which experienced an explosion and fire on August 8,

1973

is tentatively projected by Petitioner to be back in operation

by June

1,

 1974.

ifl

computing the plant capability at 8095 KW Petitioner

apparently used the aggregate power capability of Boiler No.

1,

both dual fuel engines, and three of the four diesel engines

(omitted Diesel No.

5).

 This

 8095 KW figure can be questioned,

since Petitioner projects the renewed operations

 of Diesel

Engine No.

5

 (thereby adding 986 KW) by June

1,

 1974 and states

that Boiler No.

1

 (1500

KW)

 “is not in operating condition be-

cause of the partially installed fuel oil burner”

 (Amendment No.

2, page

3).

Further clouding the issue

 is the Agency calculation that

Petitioner~stotal generating capability absent Boiler No.

 2 is

9581 KW

 (Agency Recommendation,

p.

9).

 This

is

 500 KW higher

than the capability that can be determined by adding the name-

plate rating of all units except Boiler No.

2.

Mascoutah is attempting

 to negotiate a 138 KW electrical

interconnect with Illinois Power Company for the purchase of

off—peak

power

“sufficient

carry

Mascoutah1s

peak

load

(10

MW)”

Under

this

arrangement

Petitioner

claims

that

would

able

economize on normal fuel oil usage and divert the oil thus saved

to

 fuel oil burners on Boilers No.

 1 and

2.

The proposed interconnect plan was initiated in December

1965

upon

the

filing

complaint

Petitioner

with

the

Federal

Power

Commission.

Petitioner

advises

that

the

Federal

Power

Commission

has

not

yet

ruled

the

proposed

interconnect.

Negotiations with Illinois Power have allegedly reached

the

 point

preparation

final

contract.

Although

the

Federal

Power

Commission

 has not ruled on the proposed interconnect, Petitioner

believes

such

conttacts

could

possibly

executed

within

months.

—5—

Several questions arise on consideration of the proposed

interconnect based on information supplied by

Petitioner and

the Agency.

 Petitioner contends that the purchase of 138 KW5

of off-peak

power would be “sufficient to carry Mascoutah’s

peak load”.

 This peak load

is now said to be

10

MW

 (10,000

KW)

whereas Petitioner previously represented the

estimated peak load

for the summer of 1974

 to be 7500 KW.

 Even

if Petitioner could

substantiate 2500 KW increase over that previously projected,

it is difficult to conceive how a 138 KW additional supply

 (1.38)

could possibly be construed as “sufficient to carry Mascoutah’s

peak”.

 Even more confusing is the Agency’s figure of 138,000

KW which is 13.8 times the apparently inflated 10,000 KW peak

load.

Obviously the Board must deny this variance.

 There is

simply not enough consistent evidence provided from

which the

Board can determine even the basic facts and issues of this case~

Petitioner apparently disregarded our Order in PCB 72-219 and,

in so doing, might have created a “self imposed” hardship.

 There

isno way to determine whether or not Petitioner has installed

the oil burners on Boiler No.

 2 since th~petition makes one

claim and the Agency makes

 a completely different claim based

upon its investigation.

 If, Petitioner began installing the oil

burners on Boiler No.

 1 which was already in compliance,

 rather

than on Boiler No.

 2 as ordered, then Petitioner has created

its own hardship by having Boiler No.

 1 out of service for

work that should have been performed on Boiler No.

 2 by July 1,

1973.

 Such a course may ultimately jeopardize the $40,000

performance bond.

 However, we believe that forfeiture of bond

should not be attempted until Mascoutah

 has had opportunity to

review this Opinion and address the questions raised herein.

In the event Petitioner desires

 to request a variance for

Boilers No.

 1 and

 2 at some time in the future it should carefully

note the issues discussed in this Opinion.

 In particular,

Petitioner should prove:

 a) why

it needs a variance for Boiler

No.

 1 when that boiler is in com~1iancewith

the particulate

standard and already has

 an unconditional operating permit until

May 1975;

 b) why Petitioner chose to ignore Part 2(a)

 of our

Order in PCB 72—219 if in fact it has not installed the oil

burner on Boiler No.

2;

 c) whether or not Diesel Engine No.

5

is now operative;

 d) progress on the power line interconnect

negotiations with Illinois Power and how a 138 KW supply would

be “sufficient to carry Mascoutah’s power load’~ e)

 details of

actual quantiti~s:offuel oil received since January

1,

1973

relative to plant requirements;

 f) Petitioners attempts

 to secure

additional quantities of fuel oil from sources other than Sun Oil

Company; and

 g) why~Petitioner’s hardship should not be regarded

12—517

—6—

as

 “self imposed”

 justifying

the

denial of variance and for-

feiture

of compliance bond.

If a new variance petition

is filed it should be subjected

to public hearing.

 Citizens in the area of the power plant

have complained of ash,

 soot,

 dirt, grit and fumes emitted from

Petitioner~s facility.

 Laundry, automobiles and homes have

been affected.

These

 people have the right under

Section 9(a)

of the Act to b~protected from air pollution and this right

 cannot be ignored.

 Perhaps

 a public hearing will

assist the

parties in developing a better record.

 The record in the

current proceeding is entirely inadequate for the grant of a variances

We find that Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof

that compliance with the Act,

 the Regulations and the Board Order

will impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship.

This Opinion constitutes the Board~s findings of fact and

conclusions of

 law.

ORDER

It is

 the order of the Pollution Control Board that the

Petition for Variance filed by City of Mascoutah be denied

without prejudice.

I,

 Christan L,

 Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order was adopted

this

 j~day of

 1974 by a vote of ____to