ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAI~D
March
14, 1974
)
SECRETARY OF STATE
)
)
)
v.
)
PCB 73-469
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dumelle):
Petitioner filed
a variance petition on October
30, 1973
which sought relief from
the
Pollution Control Board’s Regulations.
On November
8,
1973 the Board required that Petitioner amend the
Variance Petition within
30 days because
the initial Variance
Petition was inadequate in that it
did
not contain information
as
to the amount of particulate matter
to be discharged,
the
nuisance,
if any,
or health hazards.
Petitioner submitted an
Amended Variance Petition on December 20, 1973 which contained
emission rates
for particulate and sulfur oxide emissions.
The
Agency filed
a Recommendation on March
11,
1974.
No hearing was
held.
Petitioner operates
a steam generating station which supplies
steam and hot water
to the State of Illinois Capitol Group
Governmental Office Complex located in the City of Springfield,
County of Sangamon,
Illinois.
At
this steam generating plant,
Petitioner operates two 100,000
lb/hr. gas-oil fired Erie boilers and
three
50,000
lb/hr. coal-fired Springfield boilers.
The three
50,000 lb/hr.
coal-fired boilers are the subject of this
variance
petition.
Each boilers
is vented to
a. separate 70-feet high
stack.
Because Petitioner allegedly cannot obtain fuel oil or
natural gas for its Erie boilers
it must operate the coal-fired
boilers.
Petitioner’s variance request
is
for a variance from
Rule 203(g) (1) (B)
of the Air Pollution Regulations
(Air Regulations).
The effective
date of Rule
203(g) (1) (B) of the Air Regulations
is May 31,
1975.
Potit:ioner,
an existing source,
must comply with Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules
and Regulations Govern-
fling the Control of Air Pollution
(Air Rules) which
contains
a
maximum allowable particulate emission rate
of 0.6 lbs.j’MBtu
input.
The Agency has calculated that Petitioner’s maximum particulate
emission rate under Rule
203(g) (1) (B)
of the Air Regulations would
be 0.16 lbs./MBtu
input.
Petitioner’s calculated emission rate
of 2.48 lbs./MBtu is greatly in excess of the allowable under both
the
emission limitation
found in the Air Rules
and the Air Regulations.
~1
-~583
-2-
The Agency has recommended that Petitioner’s variance
request be denied
or
that in the alternative,
if
a variance
be granted,
it should be granted only under limited conditions.
The Agency’s Recommendation contained
a recital of the past
six year history of Petitioner’s facility.
A petition containing
the names
of 234 individuals who alleged they are adversely
affected by emissions from Petitioner’s facility was submitted
as Exhibit A of the Agency’s Recommendation.
The Agency states
that
since
1967, Petitioner has been the subject
of hundreds of
citizens’
complaints encompassing
annoyances from smoke,
soot,
grease,
odors,
and particulates.
The Agency further alleges that
citizens have mentioned property damage and have alleged adverse
health effects caused by Petitioner’s
operation.
Petitioner states that
“it
is not anticipated that under
normal operating conditions and weather that the above emissions
would present
a health hazard or nuisance to the public”.
This
statement
is clearly at odds with Petitioner’s past history when
operating the three coal-fired boilers.
Petitioner has failed to
provide any compliance schedule
to bring its facility into com-
pliance with Board regulations.
Petitioner requests
a variance
to operate its facility without control equipment.
Petitioner
has failed to explore
the feasibility of control equipment for
both
the control of particulate and sulfur dioxide emissions which
become effective on May 31,
1975.
The Agency stated
in its Recommendation that the:
“The
State of Illinois governmental facility should
be no less responsible for a claan and healthful
environment than the counterparts
in ~private industry.
Indeed,
the State of Illinois has no justification
for any one Agency to enforce the ~11ution
laws against
private citizens, while
other State Agencies are given
license
to degrade air quality without fear of retri-
bution.
The Secretary of
the State of Illinois’ Klein
Street Station should be
a model for private industry
to emulate, not an embarrassing inconsistency in
State policy of pollution regulation”.
The Board wholeheartedly agrees with the Agency’s statement con-
cerning Petitioner’s facilityand non-compliance with Board
regulations.
However,
the Board has
in past cases granted
short term variances to petitioners who have been adversely
affected by shortages of natural gas and oil; and required these
petitioners
to file compliance programs with the Agency.
This Opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of facts
and conclusions
of
law.
-3-
The Board hereby grants Petitioner
a variance from
Rule
203(g) (1) (B)
of the Air Regulations until October
1,
1974
subject
to
the following conditions:
1.
Petitioner shall develop
a sufficient
Compliance Program to
achieve compliance;
said Compliance Program shall be designed
to achieve
compliance
by May
30,
1975.
2.
Petitioner shall submit within 35 days
said Compliance Program
to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Variance Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield,
Illinois 62706
Illinois Pollution Control Board
309 West Washington Street
Chicago, Illinois
60606
3.
Petitioner shall submit,
in writing, quarterly progress
reports to:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Air Pollution Control
Variance Section
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
6270 6
4.
Petitioner’s make every effort to obtain and use oil or
natural gas for its Erie City boilers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
~
day of March, 1974 by
a vote of
_____________________
Illinois Pollution
rol Board