ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
7,
1974
CENTRAL ILLINOIS LIGHT
COMPANY
)
PETITIONER
v.
)
PCB
73-65
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESPONDENT
WILLIAM
B.
WOMBACHER,
ATTORNEY,
in behalf of CLMTEAL IlLINOIS
LIGHT
COMPANY
PRESCOTT E. BLOOM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTOANLY
GENERAL,
in behalf
of
the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by Mr.
flarder)
This action involves a request for variance
from Rule
204
(c)
(1)
(A).
Central
Illinois
Light
Co.
(CILCO)
requests variance for
its R.
S. Wallace and E.
D. Edwards power generating stations.
More
specifically, relief is requested to exceed
the
sulphur dioxide em-
ission standards which will become effective on May
30,
1975.
Variance petitions were filed on January 31,
1973.
Amendments
to said petition were filed on November
5,
1973.
The Agency filed
its recommendation of March 14, 1973, recommending
a denial
or~
both
plants.
The matter was set for hearing on
May
29,
1973.
Hearings
were held on the following dates: May 29,
30,
31; June
~,
4,
6,
7;
July 25, 26; August 21; September 17,
18,
1973.
As would be indica-
ted from the many ‘sates of hearings, alarge volume of testimony was
entered into evidence.
This testimony,
coupled with lengthy exhibits,
serves as an excellent base for the Board~.
It is particularly note-
~iorthyin this action.
The subject of sulphur dioxide abatement tech-
nology is still relatively new and a recent update, such as is con-
tained in this action,
is vitally needed.
The subject power generation plants are both located in the Peoria
major metropolitan area,
and hence are regulated to a 1.8
lb/minl3TU
sulphur dioxide emission rate.
The R.S. Wallace station operates with
the following equipment and under the following conditions:
—2—
Boiler Desig.
Date on Stream
Fuel
Part.
Con-
Turbo-Gen.M~
trols
1
1925
Gas only
NA Standby
1
& 2”~
2
1925
NA Standby
1
& 2
2
3
1925
NA Peaking
1
& 2
4
1925
NA Peaking
1
&
2
1939
NA Peaking
1941
NA Peaking
7
1949
Washed
coal
95
ESP.
8
1949
95
ESP.
~267
9
1952
95
ESP.
10
1958
95
ESP.
rIllis
facility utilizes washed Illinois
coal and
by the Agencyt
S
cal—
culations emits
4.89#/M~’1BTUsulphur dioxide into the
atmosphere
(Agen-
cy recommendation
Pg.
3)
The
E.
S.
Edwards
station operates with the
following
equipment
and
under the
following conditions:
Doiler Sesign
Date
on Stream
Part,
Cont,
MW
Washed coal
98.5
ESP.
1~
2
1968
725
1972
This
facility
also uses
Illinois washed coal and by the Agency~s
calculations
emits
4. 89
#/MMBTU
sulphur
dioxide into
the atmosphere.
Both stations combined use
a total ci 2,628~000 tons
of coal per year
and emit 134,780 tons/yr.
of sulphur dioxide.
One major question was woven throughout the entire
proceedings.
This question dealt with
the timeliness
of the
petition.
Petitioner
seeks
relief
from Rule
204
(c)
(1)
(A) which
is
not
effective until
May,
1975,
and ttierefore
in granting
a variance now
the
Board
would
in
essence
be
varying
a rule
which
is not yet
in existence.
The
Board,
however,
fully
realizes Petitioner~s plight.
It
is
evident that
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
1975
plans
must
be
formulated
and
acted
upon
now
(although
it may
~nlready
be
too
late
for May 1975
com-
pliance),
The above deals
only in the case
whereby compliance will
be brought about by
mechanical/chemical
desulphurization.
In the case
of
a possible alternate
fuel
supply compliance
could
possibly result
before
the required date.
The Board has
on many occasions granted var-
iances
in
advance of
the
enforceable date although
the variance invar-
iably overlaps at least partially
into
the
effective date.
In the in-
stant case any variance
granted would not
extend into the effective
date,
The Board
is restricted
by Section
36
(B)
of the Environmental
Protection Act which
states
that
a variance
may be granted up to one
year.
Therefore
a variance from 204
(c)
(1)
(A) would not give Pet-
itioner the telief
sought.
What Petitioner
seems to be seeking
is
in
—3--
effect a stay of the regulations
as they pertain to them.
This
is an
entirely different matter and is not in the scope of
the, instant case.
The Board finds itself with just two options.
The first option would be to deny the variance on the facts elicit-
ed.
It
is the Board’s decision that this would serve no useful pur-
pose.
As mentioned,
a great deal of valuable information has been gen-
erated during this procedure, and this information could and should be
used in a more timely variance petition.,
The second option open to
the Board is to d~ismissthe petition as premature without prejudice.
This option seems much more logical and will be the final result of
said action.
In dismissing this action tlie Board makes
a number of points:
I.
The following review of testimony entered will be made to facil-
itate any future actions of this type.
The Board suggests
that the
proceedings
in this action can be incorporated into any future
action
as a case in chief.
Any
party to a future action can, of course,
add
to or update the original testimony, but it is expected that expensive
testing
(e.g., Modeling of Air Quality)
can be reused.
II.
The Board anticipates that it will shortly hold hearings on
the entire sulphur regulations.
What the outcome of such proceedings
will be at this point
is not known
(at the date of this writing an
Agency recommendation has not been received.).
But it
is evident
that
whatever the outcome, Petitioner,
along with all other sulphur
dioxide
emitters, will be affected.
It is hoped that some of the
information
generated during the instant proceedings will be introduced
as evidence
during the upcoming sulphur dioxide proceedings.
Petitioner has stated that the only methods available to
achieve
compliance are:
1)
use of natural gas,
2)
use of
low sulphur oil,
3)
use of low sulphur coal,
4)
use of desulphurization tembnioues.
Tes-
timony was elicited in regard to all of
the above possibilities.
I.
Use of Natural Gas: Mr.
Charles E. Gagnier,
an employee of CIL-
CO, entered the main testimony as to availability of natural
gas
as
a
possible fuel supply
(R. 50—123).
He testified that procurement of
natural gas has been under his direction since 1965
(R. 50).
Problems
with CILCO’S two main suppliers’
(mainly Panhandle)
ability to deliver
gas has been apparent since 1971.
Panhandl&s curtailment during 1972
amounted to 8.5
and projections
(by Panhandle Gas)
for the 1973-74
heating season anticipate a maximum curtailment of 300,000 M.C.F. per
day
(R.
59).
Witness testified that the prospects for any increase
in gas supplies are extremely dim
(R.
62).
Witness further commented
that CILCO, like every other major gas distributing company,
is
under
restrictive selling orders from the Illinois Commerce Commission
(R.
66), and stated that in his opinion,
“It
(gas)
is simply not available
as a
viable
alternate to meeting fuel requirements of those units.”
(R.
67) The~ewas no Agency rebut to the above testimony,
and from the
rapidly ~growingnumber of cases before the Board using
a similar ar-
gument (e.~g.,~Koppers1PCB 73-365, J,R.
Short, 73-251,
Crest Container,
73-348),
the
Board feels that gas
is not at this time a viable alter-
—4—
nate.
II.
Use of Low Sulphur Fuel Oil: Again the
main
testimony was el’
icited from Mr. Gagnier.
Mr.
Gagnfer testified
~hat at this time
#2
low sulphur oil is not available
to CILCO
(R.
74)
,~
and
that
at
this
time CILCO does not
use oil
to fire any of its units,
but
does
use
345,000
gal.
of
oil
for
ignition purposes
(R.
76).
Witness
stated
that
in light
of discussion
held with vendors
as to the
possibility of se-
curing additional
~2 fuel
oil,
he
feels
that oil is
not a viable alt-
ernate
(R.
76)
.
Under cross-examination
the witness
testified that
CILCO
had not explored
the possibility of importing
low-sulphur
oil
(R.
99)
nr.
3.
C.
SkuoCi
(consultant
for
CILCO)
testified
that
he
has
had
exacreuc:
.1
cOlivCrta.LnCj
power
plants
from
coal
to
oil firing
(R.
140)
,
onE
Lent one
of
the
problems
of
converting
to
oil
would
be
land
area
at:
t:Jnflcce
(for
oil
storage
facilities)
.
His
“ball
park”
esti—
fur
couversionto
oil
at
the
Wallace
Station
would
be
“nine
to
tee nilIioe Collars and at Edwards
not
quite
twice
that
much.”
(R.
146)
As
in
Cue
case of natural
gas
the
shortages of low sulphur
fuel
oil
are
eecocrcij
increas
ingly
clear.
Recent federal
guidelines
regarding
fuel
TJocafions
gill
even
further
restrict
utilities
from
utilizing
cc
to qecerate
power,
Iii.
Use
of
Lee_Sulphur
Coal:
fee suaject
of
low
sulphur
coal
ccs~racusa~ift
in
some
cietaii.
hr.
Gagnier
testified
as
to
CILCO’S
a.
~
i
~Ln:
ua~o
log
uloiu~
~olr~
uet
Exhictt
#1
was
introduced
waicu
is
a
summary
of costs
oar million
f3TU
for
various
coals.
The
1j~jJ~L
ctl~ciu~~1aL
~iu
cost
of
fuaLqlt
would
cc two times the cost
at
the
coal
upon
shiument from Wyomicq.
Witness
further pointed out
feat
die
eveilabilicy
of railroad
cars
may
be
a
problem
(R.
87)
,
and
~nat
eased
on
economics
low sulahur coal
is
not
a
vi~le
alternate
to
Illinois
coal
(h.
90)
.
Under cross—examination
the
~lidity
of Pet.
Ux~iieiL
11
was
attacked.
IL
was
coicted
out
that
freight
rates are
eased
on
single
car
loads
(C.
93)
•
and
Liiat
it
is
more
economical
to
snia
multi—car
loads
(id
97).
hr.
Grucer
testified
as
to
various
teonnical
problems
which
would
cc
encountered
upon
conversion
to
Ion sulpour coal,
Testimony
was
el-
icited
as
to
tne
proeler:
with
fly ash
removal
usinq
low
sulphur
coal
(11.
134)
IL
was
alleged
teat
tee
low
sul~hur
content
causes
the
en-
suing
fly
ash
to
be
resistant
La
removal
by
electrostatic
precipita-
tion,
because
SO.
is
a
conductive
gas
(R.
135)
Witness
estimated
the
cost
of
conversi~n
to
lee
::ulphur
coal
including
cost
of upgraded
el-
ectrostatic areclpitatoru
at about $l5/kw,
Sir,
(9.
Nichols
(Southern
Research
Institute)
was
called
on
to elaborate
on
the problems regard-
ing
low
sulpriur
coal.
hr.
hichols
testified that he had a crew
con-
duct efficiency
tests
of the Wallace Station’s ESP~s,
and
conducted
a study for CILCO on tEe feasibility
of conversion to
low
~sulphur
coal
(R.
239)
.
He
further testified that
if low sulphur
coal
were
burned
at Wallace using the existing ESP’s,
their efficiency
would drop
off
markedly.
Pet.
Exhibit
#5 was introduced,
giving
a
summary of this
effect,
The following table shows the expected increase in fly ash
at both Wallace and Edwards,
—5—
Unit
#1
Current Eff.
Est. Eff.
Ratio of
2 1/2
s. Coal
Low sul.
coal
Emissions
Wallace
#7
88
67
2.7
#8
83
60
2.3
#9
97
87
4.3
Edwards
#1
98.5
92.0
5.3
#2
98.5
92.0
5.3
#3
96
93.7
6.3
In order for the stations to be in compliance
with
the
particulate
matter
standard,
while
using
lowsulphur
coal,
fIr.
Nichols projected
that
a
load
factor
of
30
would
be
a
probable
maximum
(R.
252),
Un-
der
cross—examination
Mr.
Nichols
stated that the abovementioned
problems
were
of
a
technical
nature
and
there was
a reasonable poss-
ibility of solution
(R.
262)
fIr.
Otis
Gibson
(Illinois
Coal Operators’
Association)
testified
as
to the
economic impact on
Illinois
if CILCO were to divert
its
ourchases
out of the state.
He
testified that
in 1972 Illinois
mines
produced 65
114. tons
of coal
(11.
390)
(Note
CILCO uses
2
(GM
tons/yr.)
of which about 50
is consumed in
Illinois.
There are about 20,000
people engaged in the coal
mining business
in Illinois
(H.
394)
,
and
gross
receipts
from
the
sale
of
coal
run
$320
III.
98
of
all
Illinois
coal
is
considered
high
sulphur
(H.
399)
.
Mr.
Gibson
testified
that
three
coal
mines
had
closed
down
in
Illinois
(production
4
MM.
tcns/
yr)
due
to
environmental
reasons
(H.
402)
.
He
also
testified
that
there
has
been
a
shortage
of
coal
cars
in
the
country
for
quite
a
few
years
(H.
408),
This
testimony
concurs
witii
SIr,
Gagnier’s
(H.
87)
Upon
cross—examination
it
was
well
pointed
auL
that
any
loss
of
Ill-
inois
coal
sales
would
result
only
if
Illinois
coal
were
used
as
is,
This
says
that
Illinois coal could be
used in conjunctipn with pre- or
post-cleanup
operations
(H.
418)
The record
is
clear
that
low sulphur coal
is
a potential
alternate,
Testimony highlighting the
technical and
availability
problems
was
not
adequate
to prove that either problem
is insurmountable.
The
record
is
rather
weak
as
to
how
much
real
effort
Petitioner
expended
in
pur-
suing
this
alternate.
IV.
Use
of
Desulphurization
Techniques:
A
great
deal
of
testimony
was
elicited
regarding
the
state
of
the
art
of
desuiphurization.
In
order
to
present
the
facts
as
concisely
and
clearly
as
possible,
the
testimony
will
be
presented
by
major
plants discussed.
Following this
discussion
there
will
be
an
analysis
of
attempts
or
progress
made
by
Petitioner
in
this
regard.
Mitsui
Plant:
Perhaps
the
area
of
greatest
discussion
and
disagree-
ment
centers around
the
SO2
desuiphurization
process
used
at
the
Nit—
11
~-431
—6—
sui
Aluminum
Company located in Omuta City,
Japan.
A number of ex-
hibits were entered which outlined operations
at this plant
(R. Ex.
3A,
3,
8,
11,
P.
Ex.
8,
19).
In addition many witnesses testified
as to the operation of this plant.
Pet.
Exhibit llA outlines the general operation of the Mitsui
plant.
This
plant
generates
156
MW of electricity by use of a coal-
fired
boiler.
The
boiler
utilizes
a
combination
of
coal
and
a
low
grade
fine
coal
called
“coal
slime.”
The sulphur content
is
in the
neighborhood of 2.
The unit is designed to remove 80
of the incom-
ing sulphur from a high percentage
(86)
of the 319,000 scfm flue gas
flow.
The
operation
for
desulphurization
is
two
Venturi
scrubbers
using calcium hydroxide
(from carbide sludge)
as
a
scrubbant.
This
then is a lime slurry system.
As
a byproduct, the system produces
large
volumes
of
calcium
sulfite
and
calcium
sulphate.
Presently
this sludge is pumped to a holding pond
and
stored.
The
Mitsui
Com-
pany has plans
for an additional 200 mw. installation utilizing lime-
stone
as
a scrubbant.
It
is hoped that the sludge generated from
this process
can
be
converted
to
gypsum
which
can
then
be
used
for
wallboard.
The
process
was
started
up
on
March
29,
1972,
on
scrubber
“B”
and
on
April 10, 1972,
on scrubber
“A”.
Performance
tests
were
complet-
ed
on
May
13,
1972,
and
on
October
17,
1972,
the
plant
was
shut
down
for
power
plant
maintenance.
From
November
7,
1972,
to
June
12,
1973,
the
plant
was
run
on
one or the other scrubber.
On June 12, 1973,
both scrubbers were operated in tandem at 45
of the total flue gas
each.
On
July
5,
1973,
the
unit
was
shut
down
for
boiler
maintenance
and the
units
inspected.
There
is
no doubt that this unit has
had
tae
highest
degree
of success of all desul~hurization
units
in
exist-
ence
today.
Much
controversy
centers
around
the
modes
of
operation
of
the
Mit-
sui
plant
as
related
to
American
power
plant
operations.
This
point
was
first
brought
out
by
Mr.
Gagnier
(R.
206).
The Mitsui plant is
run to supply
electricity to
a
steady
state
unit
and
is
defined
as
a
base
load
unit,
that
is,
it
does not suffer
swings
in
demand.
It
was
alleged that
this
swingloading
would
change
the
flow
of
flue
gas
to
the scrubbers
and
thereby
interfere
with
L/G
ratios
(R.
215).
Mr.
A.
U.
Slack
(T.V.A.)
further elaborated on this problem.
He testified
that
the control
oF
pH in the scrubbant is extremely important in re-
ducing scaling on the unit, and that if
one
has
a
“swinging
load”
con-
trol
of pH would be extremely difficult.
Mr.
F.
Princiotta
(U.S. Environmental
Protection
Agency)
testified
that the unit
is basically a base load unit, but that there were occas-
ions
under
which
variations
did
occur
(R.
560)
.
He testified that the
variations
were
not
infrequent.
Mr.
Princiotta
further
pointed
out
that
to
the
best
of
his
knowledge
when
the
load
swings,
the
liquor
flow
to the scrubbers
is kept constant and pH is adjusted by addition
of
carbide
sludge.
Dr.
H.
E.
Hesketh
next
testified.
Dr.
Hesketh
wan
the
author
of
a
number
of
reports
on
the
Mitsui
plant
and
had
risited
the operation as recently as July
1973.
He stated that
pH
samples
are
taken about every 1/2
hour
and
that
control
of
pH
was
not
difficult
Cr.
716)
11
—
432
—7—
He
also
testified
that
the
process
could
be
adapted
to
U.S.
swing
load
plants
with
no
problems
(R.
717)
(See
Pet.
Ex.
11k
pp.
27-28.)
The
second
main
contested
point
was
that
of
open
vs
•
closed
loop
operations.
This
is
in
regard
to
reutilization
of
chemicals
from
re-
circulation
ponds.
This
point
is
very
important
as
it
directly
affects
operating
and
raw
material
costs
•
It
also..significantly
affects
vol-
times
of
sludge
produced
as
byproducts.
The
testimony
on
this
point
is
a
bit
confusing.
:‘
Mr.
Gruber
felt
that
based
on
the
literature
the
plant
does
not
recycle
its
effluent
and
is
thus
an
open
loop
system
(R.
209).
Mr.
Slack
also
testified.that
it
is
an
open
loop
system
(R.
323).
He
stated
this
because
the
pond
liquor
is
unsaturated
and
that
one
of
the
effects
of
this
is
possible
water
pollution
(R.
329).
How-
ever,
under
cross-examination
the
witness
testified
that
he
did
not
know
that
there
is
effluent
coming off
the
sludge
pond
(R.
378).
Mr.
Princiotta
testified
that
as
a
result
of
samples
taken
from
the
Mitsui
pond
it
is
indicated
that
closed
loop
operation
is
used
part
of
the
time
(R.
555),
and
that
they
try
to
operate
in
a
closed
loop.
Dr.
Hes-
keth
testified
that
he
feels
that
under
normal
rainfall
conditions
the
system
is
closed
loop
and
that
under
high
rainfall
conditions
overflow
of
ponds
can
cause
an
open
loop
effect
CR.
713).
The
third
main
point
of
contention
is
the
scrubbant
used.
The
Mit-
sui
plant
uses
carbide
sludge
which
is
a
form
of
lime
(calcium
hydrox-
ide).
There
was
much
testimony
as
to
the
differences
between
the
sludge
used
in
Japan
vs.
the
available
form
ot
lime
in
the
U.S.
Both
chemical
activity
and
scaling
were
discussed.
Mr.
Slack
testified
that
there
were
significant
differences
between
freshly
hydrated
lime
and
carbide
sludge
based
on
his
conversation
with
the
National
Lime
Association
(R.
326).
He
felt
that
carbide
sludge
would
not
scale
to
the
extent
that
lime
would.
Mr.
Princiotta
stated
that
experimental
evidence
by
a
few
operations
has
shown
no
significant
scaling
differences
between
the
types
of
lime
(R.
616).
Dr.
Hesketh
offered
the
results
of
a’.study
he
performed
to
try
and
clear
up
this
problem.
Regarding
the
area
of
reactivity
the
following
was
found.
SAMPLE
REACT!VITY
(RELATIVE)
Slaked
Pebble
Lime
1.00
Slaked
Lime
0.78
Wet Carbide Sludge
(USA)
0.60
Dry Carbide Sludge
(Japan)
0.57
Wet Carbide Sludge
(Japan)
0.48
The
main
finding
is
that
while
the
Mitsui
plant
is
operating
well,
there
are
significant
questions
as
to
its
total
appitcability
to
U.S.
power
plants.
In
snininary,
the
evidence
on this
plant
would
tend
to
favor
the
Respondent’s
position
that
the
technology
is
directly
trans-
latable
to
the
U.S.
This
is
stated
because
the
main
witnesses
for
Re-
spondent
(Hesketh,
Princiotta)
had
direct
contact
with
the
Mitsui
plant,
while
other
witnesses
were
depending
in
part
on
second—hand in-
formation.
11-433
—8—
Tennessee Valley Plant: The T.V.A.
in cooperation with the Federal
Environmental
Protection
Agency
has
been
active
in
desuiphurization
techniques
for
years.
Mr.
A.
Slack
testified
as
to
the
progress
and
problems at these installations.
Mr. Slack said that the T.V.A. has
chosen limestone ~over lime as
a scrubbing medium because it
is
econ-
omical and is
less sensitive to scaling.
The pH is also easier to
control
(R.
332).
Chemco is presently under construction at the T.V.A. Widow Creek
station with
a 550 M.W.
limestone scrubbing unit.
This
is due to be
completed in early 1975.
Mr. Slack stated that he considers the
unit
to
be
a
test
unit
and
that
although they are encouraged by past work,
they have no guarantee of success
(R.
334).
Mr. Frank Princiotta
testified
that
limestone
is
not
less
expensive
(R.
566).
Shawnee
(T.V.A.)
pilot
plant
is
a
small
10
mw
unit.
It
is
used
to
test
various
different
conditions.
The
unit
was
built
by
Bechtel,
for
maximum flexibility.
It can evaluate four scrubber types
(Resp.
Ex.
3).
The
types
of
scrubbers
tested
are
marble
bed,
Venturi,
after
spray,
and turbulent contact
(R.
571).
It
was
admitted
that
reliabil-
ity
studies
have
only
been
carried
out
for
the
last
three
months
(R.
572).
Mr.
Princiotta
testified
that
based
on
experience
at
Shawnee
there
are
some
erosion
problems;
however,
it
is
hoped
that
upgraded
parts
will
alleviate
this
(R.
574).
Shawnee
has
had
no
problems
with
pump
wear
(R.
576),
nor
any
significant
problems
with
mist
eliminator
pluggage
(R.
578).
It must be remembered that this plant is only of
10 mw capacity
and
is
used
to
generate
information
for
laicger
plants
(100+
mw).
It
cannot
be
considered
to
be
a
viable full—scale plant.
Will
County
(Corn
Ed
plant):
This
plant
is
located
in
Romeoville,
Illinois.
It
is
a
limestone
scrubbing
system
with
throwaway
product,
manufactured
by
Babcock
&
Wilcox.
The
plant
was
started
up
in
Febru-
ary
1972
as
a
175
mw
retrofit unit.
There are two parallel scrubbing
systems containing Venturis for particulate removal and turbulent con-
tact adsorbers for SO
removal
(Res.
Ex.
3).
Mr.
D. Gifford, who is
the project engineer ~or Corn Ed in charge of the Will County station,
testified as to the reliability of the Will Co. station
(R. 428—439).
During 1972 the
(A) scrubber has operated for 29.5
of the time and the
(B) scrubber for 25.5
of the time.
Simultaneous operation was 469
hours or 9.6.
The longest continuous period of operation was 21 days
for
(A)
and 6 days simultaneously.
The largest problem has been mist
eliminator pluggage.
Other problems were reheater pluggage, electri-~
cal trips, joint
failure, plugged lines, vibration, nozzle pluggage,
and other mechanical problems.
The history of problems repeated
it~
self
during
1973
with
scrubber
operating
time
even
lower
than
for
1972,
In this unit both scrubbers are needed to handle the total gas
f1c:~1
Mr. Gifford also elaborated on the problems of waste disposal,
s~
that
the
sludge
has
the
consistency
of
toothpaste
(R.
437),
and that
it is not ~suitab1e as landfill.
The magnitude of the problem
was
—9—
pointed out in that if the unit operated at 70
capacity a~d
the
sludge
was 33
solids, there would be
350,000
tons or 259,000 yds~. This
would cover
a five—acre area
32 ft. deep in one year
(R.
438).
Mr.
Princiotta
testified
that
he
had
visited
the
Will
County
station.
He
felt
the
major
problem
had
been
dimster
pluggage
and
that
they
were
well
on
the
way
to
solving
that
problem
(P..
569).
Monsanto
CataJ~ytic
Oxidation
Process
.at
Wood
River,
Ill.:
This
plant,
owned
by
Illinois
Power
Company,
is
the
first
commercial
opera-
tion
of
a
catalytic
oxidation
system.
The
plant
is
a
100
mw
coal-fired
unit.
Electrostatic
precipitators
precede
the
catalytic
oxidation
unit
to
prevent
pluggage
of
the
catalyst
bed.
The
plant
produces
a
salable
H2SO
byproduct.
The operation is being partly funded by the Federal
Envi~onmenta1Protection Agency.
The original cost estimate was $6.8
MM,
costs to pate are $9.1 MM.
The system is still not functioning
(R. 265—69)
The
plant
went
on
line
September
4,
1972,
and
has
operated
only
part
of
17
days
(less
than
200
hrs.).
The
major
problem
has
been
fouling
of
the
catalyst
bed
due
to
problems
in
the
reheaters.
The
use
of
oil
rather than gas
in the reheaters had given rise to an oily film which
plugged the system.
Work is underway to redesign the unit
(R.
272).
The
following
other
plants
were
mentioned
in
the
testimony.
These
plants are, or shortly will be, coming on stream.
PLANT
MW
NEW OR 1~ETRO
STARTUP
FUEL
Duquesne
Light
100
P.
May
1973
2.3
Coal
Kansas
City
840
N
1973
3.2
Coal
Power
Boston Edison
150
R
1972
Oil
Ohio
Edison
1800
N
1974—75
3.0
Coal
There
are
additionally
many
other
plants under construction using
all types of available technology.
Statements of witnesses
as to the
availability
at
the present technology
is widely argued.
The next year
should present major answers,
as many problems are undergoing study and
many
plants
are
undergoing
revisions.
One of the
main
questions
in
the
instant
case
is what has the Petition-
er done in the way of adding to the technology developed,
or what at-
tempts at compliance have been made.
Unfortunately data surrounding
CILCO’s expenditures relating to desulphurization are muddled.
The Board
would be very interested
in getting clarification on these points.
The
major points
in question are CILCO’s pilot study at the E.
D. Edwards
plant
and
CILCO’s
anticipated
work
at
Duck Creek.
This information would
weigh
heavily
on
Petitioner’s
claim
to
have
made
a
“good
faith”
effort
to comply.
Much
testimony
was
elicited
as
to
CILCO’s
past
pollution control ex-
penditures.
Mr.
P.. Viets testified
(RV 1 to RV—52)
as to these expend-
—
10
—
itures, stating a total in excess of $13 MM.
These figures relate main-
ly to
equipment
used to control particulates.
Many of the items men-
tioned,
e.g.,
stack modifications and ash handling equipment and con-
version to gas, are of dubious value
in
ascertaining Petitioner’s
“good
faith.”
It is also important to note
that
the instant case deals with
sulphur dioxide control and
not
particulate control,
The expenditures
Petitioner has made in relation
to
particulates
are
no more than what
has been required of every other major
facility
in
the state in similar
circumstances.
These monies cannot
be used as
a
justification
for var-
iance from sulphur dioxide regulations.
Resp.
Ex.
2 was tendered.
This
is
a report
outlining
a
cost
study
for
a
pilot
plant
SO.~unit
at
the
E.
D.
Edwards
plant.
Mr.
Haynes
(CILCO
employee)
testified that the pilot
plant
was
now
in
a
shakedown
period
at E.
U.
Edwards
(R.
536).
Testimony
as to the
intended use of the
study is
not available.
The Board
is
left
to
ponder the question.
From
Resp.
Ex.
2 the following data
as
to
the size and
scope of the project
were gleaned.
Total estimated
cost
$234,802
Duration of initial test
6 months
Volume
flow
10,000
cfm.
Scrubbant
Limestone
comparisons
with
the
T.V.A.
project which
treats
30,000 cfm or
10 mw
would
indicate this
to
be
a rather small
3-4
mw installation.
The
ques-
tion still
remains
as
to whether this unit was intended
as
a
prototype
for
the
Duck
Creek
plant.
Petitioner entered
Ex,
#3 which
is
an SO~~control
study for the R,
S.
Wallace and P.
0.
Edwards
stations.
Petiti6ner~s Exhibit
#4 updated
the cost
estimates
to
1972 dollars.
When
all
factors
are considered,
the final estimates were $31.5 MM for
R,
S. Wallace
and
$63
MM
for
F,
D,
Edwards.
Estimates
for operating costs were about
$2 MM/yr. and
$5.1 MM/yr.
at Wallace and Edwards
respectively.
Under
cross-examina-
tion
it
was
determined that
much
of
the
anticipated
costs were based
on estimates of contingency and inflation.
Although the
Board
has
not
enough
information
to
rule
on
the
validity
of CILCO~s
figures,
it is
safe
to
say
that
the
estimates
would
vary
depending
on
who
is
doing
the
calculations.
Testimony alluded to
the
anticipated
Duck Creek
installation.
In
its recommendation the Agency states that CILCO plans
to
construct
a
new generating station with SO~~
scrubbing
(Pg.
2).
Mr.
P..
Viets
tes-
tified
(1W 14)
that $4l,000,00~3was
committed
by contract or by intent
for pollution control devices
at
Duck
Creek.
Of
this
$20~
MM was sla-
ted for SO2 removal equipment.
During cross—examination
it was very
unclear as to whether SO2 removal
at
Duck
Creek
is planned, budgeted,
or committed.
There was some argument over whether the subject of Duck
Creek was germane to the instant case.
The
Board feels
it is.
This
point will not only display what attempts Petitioner is making toward
future compliance, but also
will
be
part
of a discussion regarding the
Wallace and Edwards case.
—
11
—
Petitioner claims that if ordered to abate its sulphur dioxide em-
issions, an unreasonable and arbitrary hardship would be incurred by
itself
and
its
customers.
The
above-stated
cost
figures
fo~ desulphur-
ization equipment are alleged as proof in part of the hardship which
would
befall
Petitioner.
Even
if
the
Board
were to accept the $31.5 MM
and
$6~
MM
figures
gicren above, Petitioner has not shown how this ex-
penditure
would
cause
an
arbitrary
hardship.
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
these
sums
of
money
are
great,
and that one would not expect this
type of expenditure without a reasonable’ chance of success.
However,
future proceedings should show in detail how this expenditure would af-
fect both Petitioner and its customers.
Petitioner’s
allegations
as
to hardship on its customers were left untouched.
Respondent’s Exhibit
13
shows
that
attempts have been made to convince the Illinois Commerce
Commission to pass environmental costs on to the consumers
(this could
he,
if accepted,
a hardship on consumers)
;
however, this action has not
been finalized.
Petitioner has failed to show how curtailment of part
of
its facilities would affect the public at large.
In other recent
actions,
e.g.,
Commonwealth
Edison
v.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
PCB 73-295, much testimony attesting to the public’s need for the sub-
ject capacity was elicited.
Testimony of this type was lacking in the
instant case.
Also lacking was testimony detailing Petitioner’s abil-
ity to purchase electricity to make up for possible curtailments.
An-
swers to questions such as this are necessary to determine hardship on
the consumer.
The last
major
point
of
concern
to
the
Board
is that of environmen-
tal impact.
Modeling studies have been conducted by both the Petition-
er and the Agency.
Mr. Gruber
(for Petitioner)
testified as to
a study made on SO2 dis-
persion
(R. 433-506).
A study on the
R.
S. Wallace Station was con-
ducted using one equivalent stack and on the E.
D.
Edwards plant using
two stacks.
Eight different wind directions were used,
and 1965 to
1969 Peoria meteoroligical data were used in the study.
Only three
out
of
seven
atmospheric
states
were
used (unstable,
stable, and nat-
ural).
The study was alleged to have taken into account such variables
as stack height,
full load operating conditions of the plant, and var-
iations in terrain.
All studies were conducted around
a twelve-month
calendar year (Petitioner’s Exhibits 10,
11,
12).
The primary ambient
air quality standard for SO2 is 0.03 ppm annual arithmetic mean.
Under
cross—examination
the
dispersion model was attacked for var-
ious reasons.
The concept of utilizing one equivalent stack was admit-
ted to be different than actual stacks.
Also the model may not yield
the highest concentrations because of simplifying assumptions.
The
main attack centered around the proposition that terrain was not ade-
quately taken into account.
It must also be noted that the figures por-
trayed in the exhibit represent only the sources contributing to ambient air
SO2 concentrations and background is excluded.
Another important point
is that the data generated is for annual means and does not take into
account inversions.
There is no estimate of 24 hr. concentrations
(standard
0.14
ppm).
11
—437
—
12
—
Mr.
L. Haynes explained Pet. Exhibits
13,
14,
15,
16 which are maps
of the Peoria area with
SO., data for the years 1968,
69,
70, 71,
72,
and 73.
This data was obtained by four different acceptable monitoring
methods.
The
data
show
that
in
most
cases
the
SO2
concentration
is
trending downward, and in many cases meets the air quality standards.
The thrust of these exhibits was to show that when the isopleths gener-
ated in Pet.
Ex.
9, 10,
11,
12 are superimposed on Exhibit 13, the mod-
el data is very conservative.
The following table will help to under-
stand the data tendered:
Location of
Reported SO
Concentration
Max.
Proj.
SO2
Data
Station
68
69
2
70
71
72
73
Wallace
& Edwards
____________________________________
Per CILCO Model
Sheridan
0.022
.015
.017
—
.007
.006
0.002
South Stanley
0.022
.020
.020
.018
—
—
0.015
Caroline
& Jeff.
0.026 0.023
.020
0.016
—
—
0.010
West
Washington
0.062
0.062
.048
.043
—
—
0.002
Jefferson
.048
.030
.035
.031
—
—
.001
Liberty St.
—
—
—
—
.036
.032
.011
At
this point
in
the
proceedincs
Petitioner
introduced
Exhibits
17
and
18 which
are
compliance
plans
for
both
R.
S.
Wallace
and
E.
D.
Edwards.
The
plans
call
for
reduction
of
the
H.
S.
Wallace
load
to
13
average
yearly
load.
This
program
is
to
begin
in
1976,
From
1976
Wallace
will
be
used
as
a
peaking
unit
only.
The
Edwards
compliance
plan
calls
for
only
continued
monitoring
and
the
nosalbilaty
of
installation
of
SO2
abatement
equipment
“as
soon
as reliahie
602
emission
control equipment
becomes
cornmerci~allyavailacle.”
The Poard~f~nds
that these are not
viable
compliance
plans.
A compliance plan
is one which will allow an
emitter
to come
into
compliance
with
an
applicable
regulation.
A
state-
ment which in essence proposes to continue exceeding the limit with
vague promises for the future is
insufficient,
nor
ds
a
statement that
Petitioner
is contributing a minor portion
of the
pollution in the area
sufficient.
Regulations are passed
not
only
to protect the quality of
the ambient air but also to
allow
“room”
for
future
expansion.
Mr.
Gary
Melvin
testified
for
the
Agency
regarding
Air SO2 Modeling
(GM 3-57).
Mr. Melvin stated that
the Gruber
model
was adequate as
a
24-hr. model, but did not go far anough,
in that
it
does
not
yield
data
on
short—term
concentrations.
Exhibit 17
was introduced
to
show
what
3-hr.
concentrations
would
be
around
the
Wallace
Station
under
certain
we~atherconditions.
Under cross-examination it was pointed out that
the weather data used was in part assumed and tended to yield higher SO2
concentrations,
It was also pointed out that part of the model was con-
ducted using full plant load at varying sulphur levels.
One fact seems apparent about dispersion modeling:
The assumptions
used to generate the data can drastically affect the final results.
It
11
—438
—
13
—
is
also
clear
that
under
the
best
conditions
CILCO’s
emissions
have
a
negligible impact on the community, whereas under the worst conditions
the impact is significant.
Summary:
Although the record in this case is voluminous, many vit-
ally important parts were left unanswered.
Regarding the subject of
hardship, Petitioner has not followed up its initiatives regarding
hardship.
Much of the data pertaining
to the use of low sulphur coal
was
weak
in
that
it
did
not
fully
explore
the
economics
of
multi-car
load
coal
shipments.
The
status
of
coal
dèsulphurization technology
is
admittedly
open
to
question.
It
is
clear
that
at
any
future
action
of
this
type
a
new
wealth
of
information
will
be
available.
CILCO
should
be
able
to
add
to
this
information
by
relating
specifics
as
to
its pilot study and its work at the proposed Duck Creek facility.
The
Board
h~s held
that
research
and
~development
may
be
a
viable
alternate
to
a
firm compliance plan
(Union Oil Corp.
v. Environmental
Protection
Agency,
PCB
72-447)
however,
the
burden
of
proof is squarely on the
Petitioner.
Regarding
the
subject of environmental impact: Again the burden of
proof
is
on
the
Petitioner.
When
faced
with
data
that
is
only
partial-
ly
complete,
or
which
only
gives
favorable
results,
and
such
data
is
strongly
rebutted,
the
Board
will
endeavor
to
insure
that
the
residents
of
the community are protected.
Data must not only show that on the
average citizens will be protected, but also that periodic excursions
will
not
he
harmful.
In dismissing this Petition as premature, the Board wishes to again
emphasize its rationale.
Petitioner has filed for a variance from a
regulation which will not be effective until 1975.
A variance is
in
fact
a
shield
from
prosecution
for
violations
of
our
rules
and
regula-
tions.
If there
is no violation,
there
can
be
no
variance.
The
Board
does
not
make
advisory
rulings.
Here
the~action
is
not
ripe.
(Swords
v.Environmental
Protection
Agency,
PCB
70-6;
Environmental
Protection
4ge~v.Bord~Borden0hemical~ompany,
PCB
71-23;
City
of
Carbondalev.
nvironrnental_Protec~~o~.,~ncy,
PCB 73-430).
It
was
on
its
face
an
iproper
peti~Ton.
Significant~T~~K~Tunds
were
expended
by
both
~rties
to
present
testimony
in
an
attempt
to
gain
a
variance
which
~uld
not
be
granted
under
the
Environmental
Protection
Act.
It
is
aain
hoped
that
if
a future action of this type is required, some of
the time and funds expended can be recovered by incorporating this
record.
This Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law of
the
Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of
the
PollutFon
Control
~bard
that
Petitioner’s
—
14
—
request
for
a
variance
be
dismissed.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Mr. Henss dissents.
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
~‘)4~
day
of
______________,
1974,
by
a
vote
of
‘1
to
_______
