ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October
4,
1973
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
)
#72—491
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(WAUKEGAN STATION)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
)
v.
)
#72—492
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
(SABROOKE STATION)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
v.
)
#73—40
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(WAUKEGAN STATION, SABROOKE STATION)
Charles Whalen and Richard Powell of Isham, Lincoln & Beale,
appeared on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company;
Nicholas Dozoryst and Kenneth
J. Guinbiner, Assistant
Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of Environmental
Protection Agency.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelle):
On August
8,
1972, pursuant to variance request filed
by Commonwealth Edison Company with respect to the above-
captioned stations, we entered our Order denying the variances
sought, without prejudice.
The gravaman of both variance
requests was essentially that petitioner should be granted
variances from the relevant particulate regulations appli-
cable to the two plants because petitioner’s
sulphur coal
had resulted in the increase of particulate abatement
equipment consequential to such low sulphur coal use.
(#72—150,
5 PCB 101)
While commending petitioner for its efforts
to achieve
compliance with the sulphur
emission limits by the critical
date,
namely, May 30,
1975, we concluded that the record
does not sufficiently substantiate petitioner’s conten-
tions that the use of low sulphur coal resulted in the
deficiencies ascribed in particulate collection necessita-
ting the variances sought.
9—
387
—2—
In denying the petition,
as to Sabrooke, we observed:
“In short, Edison failed to establish that
its present particulate problems at Sabrooke are
the necessary result of its commendable effort
to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide.
For all
we know,
as Edison’s witness testified
(R.
543),
Sabrooke has been in violation of the parti-
culate standards all along.
If it has been,
the recent use of low-sulphur coal cannot excuse
earlier violations.
While we think Edison
would be well advised to proceed posthaste with
its plan of conversion to oil, which on this
record affords the best and quickest assurance
of long-term reduction of both sulfur and par-
ticulates
(R.
520), we are not convinced from
this record that Edison has been doing all it
could to keep particulates down in the meantime,
or that its present emissions are excusable.
The variance request for Sabrooke must be
denied without prejudice.”
With respect to the denial of the variance for the
Waukegan plant, we stated as follows:
“As stated in the introduction to this
opinion, we encourage Edison to continue its
work with additives to improve electrostatic
collection of particulates from low-sulfur coal,
and upon adequate proof of necessity we would
look favorable upon a limited variance request
to shield the activity from possible penalties.
However, we do not find satisfactory proof of
that necessity in the present record.
The
predicted emissions from units
6,
7, and
8
are not based upon tests of those or comparable
units burning low-sulfur coal
(R.
383).
They
are illustrated by,
or based upon, what an
Edison witness described as
a ‘typical curve
attempting
to predict the behavior of precipi-
tator efficiency with changing sulfur levels,’
which he characterized as showing
a very rapid
deterioration
in efficiency when sulfur content
falls below 1.5
(R.
133—34;
Ex.
23).
No
attempt was made to substantiate this curve,
but it was reportedly based on
‘data’
supplied
by Research Cottrell in 1962
(R. 162-163).
We
have no way of knowing what these
‘data’
are,
or when, where, and how they were obtained.
Indeed, Edison’s witness specifically denied
that he had any firm information as to the effect
of low sulfur coal upon precipitator efficiency.”
9— 368
—3—
In
denying
the
variances,
we
further
observed
that
there
was
no
issue
of
shutting
down
the
plants
involved,
but
rather
on
the
state
of
the
record,
we
did
not
feel
jus-
tified
in
granting
petitioner
the
dual
elements
of
protec-
tion
inherent
in
a
variance,
namely,
the
shield
from pro-
secution
for
violations
of
the
applicable
regulations
and
a
license
for
continuing
pollution
pending
prospective
efforts
to
achieve
compliance.
On
December
14,
1972,
complaints
were
filed
by
the
Agency
against
Commonwealth
Edison
relative
to
both
of
the
foregoing stations.
t72-49l was a three count complaint
relative to the Waukegan station,
alleging
that
Edison,
in
the
operation
of
its
plant, had emitted smoke, odors,
and
particulates
so
as
to
cause
air
pollution
in
violation
of
section
9
(a)
of
the
Act
and in
excess
of
regulatory
limits
in
violation
of
Rule
3-3.112
of
the
Rules
and
Regu-
lations
Governing
the
Control
of
Air
Pollution
(Mr
Rules),
and had
discharged
smoke,
in
violation
of
Ringelmann
chart
limits,
contrary
to
Rule
3-3.122.
The
Rule
violations
were alleged to be violations of Section 9(a) of the
Act,
as well.
The violations
are
alleged
to have been
committed
between
June
10,
1970 and December 11, 1972.
t72-492 was also a three count complaint
with
respect
to the Sabrooke station, alleging that petitioners, in the
operation of the plant, caused emission of smoke, odor,
and particulate
matter
into the air pollution, in violation
of Section 9(a) of the Act, emitted particulates into the
air in violation of Rule 3-3.112 and had failed to obtain
an
installation
permit
for
several
fast
start
turbine
peaking
units,
in violation
of
Rule
3-2.100.
The viola-
tions
are
alleged
to
have
been
committed
between
July
1,
1970
and
December
14,
1972.
On
January
30,
1973,
Commonwealth
Edison
filed
a
new
variance
petition,
again
seeking
relief
from
the particu-
late
regulations
applicable
to
both
Sabrooke
and
Waukegan,
which
variances
were
allegedly
needed
as
a
consequence
of
the
burning
of
low-sulfur
coal
and
the
resulting
ineffi-
ciencies
in
particulate
collection.
Specifically,
the
variances
requested
were
as
follows:
“With respect
to
the
Sabrooke
station,
Edison
requests
a
variance
from
the
station
and
from
the
unit
particulate
emissions
limitations
to
permit
the
continued
use
of
low—sulfur
coal:
(a)
In
Unit
4,
until
that
unit
can
be
shut
down
for
conversion
to
oil
firing
on
Septem—
ber
30,
1973.
(b)
In
Units
3,
2,
and
1,
until
those
units
—
a
—4—
can be shut down for conversion to oil
firing on November 30,
1973, February 28,
1974,
and September 30,
1974, respectively,
on the condition that in the interim those
units will be operated only after all
other available Edison capacity
(excluding.
Powerton Units
1
-
4 and the fast-start
peaking units) has been placed in service,
except that any one of the units may be
operated at the minimum level necessary
to provide steam for water demineralizing
and heating the station, or to prevent
stack deterioration.
For the Waukegan station, Edison requests a variance:
(a)
From the station particulate emission
limit to allow the use of coal at the
station having
a sulfur content of less
that 3;
and
(b)
From the single stack emission limit of
0.60 lbs/MBtu to allow the operation of
Waukegan Unit 5 at loadings above 60
megawatts,
and to allow the operation of
Waukegan Unit 7 at loadings above 315
megawatts, on the condition that those
units will be operated above the limits
indicated only after all other available
Edison capacity (excluding Sabrooke
Units
1
-
3, Powerton Units
1
-
4,~
and the fast-start peaking units)
has
been placed in service, except that Waukegan
Unit 5 may be operated above the limit
indicated when required to remove slag
accumulations in its boilers.”
Recapitulating the pleadings up to this point, we
have an Agency complaint against the Waukegan plant cover-
ing
7 turbine generating units powered by coal-fired
boilers and 2 fast—start peaking units, each powered
by 2 turbojet engines.
Complaint against the Sabrooke
station relates to 4 turbine generating units each powered
by a boiler and 4 General Electric fast-start peaking
units, each covered by two turbojet engines.
Air pollution
1-The Board ordered Edison to only operate the Powerton
Units
(above
50
of their rated capacity)
as the last units
to be placed on line in the Edison system PCB #71-129 and
extended the order by law in PCB #72-295.
9
—
370
—5—
and particulate violation are alleged in both instances,
plus the installation of equipment without a permit at
Sabrooke, and Ringlemann violations at Waukegan.
The var-
iance petition relates to the 4 base load units at Sabrooke,
of which units
1,
2, and 3 are controlled by mechanical
precipitators and Unit 4 by electrostatic precipitators.
The Waukegan station retired Units
1,
2,
and
3 in September,
1972 and 4 baseload units remain in service, designated as
Units
5,
6,
7, and 8, respectively.
The variance petition,
in seeking relief from the par-
ticulate emission limits of Section 2—2.111, 3—3.112, and
3—3.122 of the Air Rules alleges,
in
substance, the following:
the units involved in the petition have an aggregate capa-
city of 1,092 megawatts.
Edison’s estimated peak demand for
the summer of 1973
is 12,810 megawatts.
During the summer
of 1972,
at least 19.6
of Edison’s generating capacity
was unavailable one-half of the time.
Edison alleges
that in view of the known capacity reductions, and increase
in low—sulfur coal limitations over past summers,
it is
probable that Edison will have about 2,600 megawatts unavail-
able during the current summer.
A 14
minimum reserve in
generating capacity is deemed necessary.
Zion Unit #1,
having a capacity of 935 megawatts, is not fully operational
due to licensing problems with the Atomic Energy Commission.
Edison alleges that the 1,092 megawatts attributable
to
Sabrooke and Waukegan will be needed to meet its 1973 summer
peak load and to perform repairs and maintenance on other
units during off peak periods throughout the year in order
to avoid increased outages in the future.
As stated above, Sabrooke consists of 4 base loaded
units having a total megawatt capacity of 146.
Particulate
emissions are controlled from Units
1,
2,
and 3 by mechanical
collectors and #4 by an electrostatic precipitator.
Con-
version to oil is programmed for each of the four units
as follows:
#1
—
September
30,
1974.
#2
-
February 28,
1974.
#3
-
November 30,
1973.
#4
—
September
30,
1973.
The mechanical precipitators were designed to have
95
collection efficiency resulting in 0.14 pounds per
million Btu particulate emission, whereas field testing
disclosed a collection efficiency no greater than
81
and
corresponding increase in particulate emissions,
all in
excess of the relevant Regulations.
No improvement in this
collection efficiency was made by the manufacturer.
Subsequent to the entry of our Order in #72-150, Edison
9
—
371
shut down Units
1 and 3 and operated Unit
2 at 1/3 capa-
city in order to provide steam for demineralizing equipment,
station heating and to prevent deterioration of the stack.
Since said date, Unit
2 has been operated in excess of 12
megawatts and Units 1 and
3 have been placed in service
only when required by demands of the Edison system and then
only after fast start Deaking units have been placed in
service, and withdrawn from service before the peakers,
after the peak has occurred, The electrostatic precipitator
installed on Unit #4 has a design collection effi~1encyof
95.
Testing
of
the precipitator in August of~1972confirmed
that when Illinois coal of re1ativel~high ~ulfur content
(3,4)
was utilized, particulate emissions were within reg-
ulatory limits
(0.38 pcur~dsper mi1lioi~Etu), ~When low sulfur
coal
(0.81)was
burned, particulate emission~increa~èdto
5.57 puurfds pe~xñillion Btu greatly in excess of regulatory limits.
During the years 1969,
1970,
and 1971, natural gas had
been burned at Sabrooke~approximately between 45
and 60
of the station’s generating
fuel.
Presently,
natural gas
is not available at the Sabrooke station.
Conversion
of
the 4 Sabrooke units to oil firing is scheduled during 1973
and 1974 as noted above.
The station
is scheduled for
retirement in October of 1980.
With respect to the Waukegan st.ation,
units
1,
2, and
3, with total capacities of 101 megawatts, were retired in
September of 1972.
4 base load units remain in service as
follows:
Unit
5
-
129 megawatt capacity;
to be retired in 1976;
Unit
6
-
119 megawatt capacity;
to be retired in 1982;
Unit 7
-
250 megawatt capacity;
to he retired in 1988;
Unit 8
-
360 megawatt capacity;
to be retired
in 1993.
After retirement of Units
1,
2, and
3, duct work modi-
fications took place whereby the gas flow from Unit
5
boilers
was divided between the Unit
5
precipitator and the preci-
pitator which had been used for Units
1,
2, and 3.
Additional
duct work is necessary to balance the gas distribution.
Unit
5 has been operating at 60 megawatts or one-half capa-
city since the Board’s earlier decision.
Edison represents
that anticipated emissions will be within regulatory limits
of 0.60 pounds per million Btu.
Unit
5 has been operating
in excess of 60 megawatts during the conduct of efficiency
tests,
to remove slag accumulations and during periods of
peak demand.
Unit
7 is equipped with a Koppers electro-
static precipitator with 98
efficiency collection designed
for Illinois coal.
Actual collections approximate 95
and
average emissions are 0.40 pounds per million Btu when oper-
ating at 315 megawatts using high sulfur coal
(3.1).
Tests
performed December 22, 1972 burning low sulfur coal of
0.48,
resulted in precipitator collection efficiency of
9
—
372
—7—
74
and particulate emissions of 1.87 pounds per million Btu,
approximately three times the regulatory limit.
An additive
known as Koppers K was injected in the Unit 7 flue gas to
improve precipitator efficiency when low sulfur coal was
utilized.
However, plugging problems resulted and while the
system was redesigned, the process was discontinued because
no improvement in precipitator collection efficiency resulted
even when the system was operating properly.
Unit
8 is a 360 megawatt unit equipped with a Koppers
precipitator with collection design efficiency
of 98,
using
Illinois coal.
Tests conducted in September,
1972, indicated
that when low sulfur coal
(0.45
and 0.82)
was utilized,
collection efficiency dropped to 88
and particulate emi-
ssions range from 0.34 to 0.62 p unds per million Btu.
An experimental flue gas efficiency system has been
installed in Unit
S and was scheduled to be in service in
May of 1973.
This system injects gaseous sulfur trioxide
into the flue gas.
With respect to both Sabrooke and
Waukegan, Edison incorporates by reference, previous testi-
mony in *72-150 relating to ambient air quality and the
effect of the two stations thereon.
As above set forth, since the rendition of the Board’s
decision in #72-150 on August
8,
1972, Edison has limited
the operation of Sabrooke’s Units 1,
2, and
3, and Waukegan
Units
1,
2, and 3 until their retirement in September,
1973,
and Waukegan Units 5 and 7 as above-described,
except when operation inexcess of such limits was necessary
for the supplying of steam for demineralization,
slag
removal, precipitator tests, and when necessary,
for system
demands and only after fast-start peaking units had been
placed in service.
Edison represents that the total capacity of its fast
start peakers
is
1,726 megawatts or approximately 8
of
Edison’s total capacity.
Oil is used for these units, the
supply of which has not been assured in the amounts neces-
sary.
Estimated requirements
for oil assume further the
availability of natural gas for use in such units.
However,
Northern Illinois Gas has instituted
a proceeding seeking
to completely curtail its delivery of natural gas to Edison.
If such natural gas is curtailed,
additional oil will be
required for the fast start peaking units.
Edison postulates
as follows:
“With the present oil and gas shortage,
if
the fast-start peakers must be operated before
Sabrooke Units
1,
2, and 3, and Waukegan Units
5 and
7 are operated above their current restricted
loadings, the capability of the fast start peaking
9—373
—8—
units may become unavailable because of an in-
adequate supply of
fuel, and service to Edison’s
customers would have to be curtailed.
If the
Sabrooke and Waukegan units could be operated
above their current restricted loadings prior to
using fast start peakinq units, oil could be
conserved for use when system load demands
require the full capability of those units and
the peaking units.
Use of Sabrooke Units
1,
2,
and
3 and Waukegan Units
5 and 7 at full capa-
city ahead of the fast start peaking units in
effect ~saves’ an estimated two to four million
gallons of oil per month,”
Edison concludes that precipitator efficiency tests conduc-
ted since the Board’s rendition of its August
8,
1972
Order, establish that particulate collection efficiency
of
electrostatic precipitators is impaired when low sulfur
coal
is utilized in units designed for high sulfur Illinois
coal and that increased particulate emissions from Sabrooke
Unit
4 and Waukegan Units
5,
6,
7, and
8 are directly
attributable to Edison’s efforts to reduce SO2 emission
with the
employment
of
low
sulfur
coal.
Flue
gas
additives
have so far not been successful although experimentation
is continuing in this respect as an alternative to back—
fitting precipitators or installing sulfur dioxide removal
equipment on existing units.
Edison further alleges
that continued operation of the Sabrooke and Waukegan units,
presumably at the rates sought by the variance, would have
no adverse impact on the air quality in the Rockford or
Waukegan areas, and that the use of low sulfur coal will
minimize sulfur dioxide emissions at Sabrooke pending
implementation of its conversion program at that station to
oil firing and that continued use of low sulfur coal at
Waukegan will minimize SO2 emissions pending further devel-
opment of flue gas additive systems.
Lastly, Edison
stresses the need for the 1,092 megawatts capacity provided
by Sabrooke and Waukegan to meet the 1973 summer peak
loads and to permit repair and maintenance during the
balance of the year, obviating the likelihood of increased
forced outages.
Variances are sought as hereinabove set
forth with respect to Sabrooke and Waukegan.
The Agency has recommended that both variances be
denied.
With respect to Sabrooke,
the Agency has tabulated
particulate emission data based on operating permit appli-
cations, the variance petition and calculations based on
the foregoing information.
Particulate emission rates from each unit at Sabrooke
are demonstrated to be in excess of allowable rates from
factors ranging from 39
to 25.7 and the weighted site
9—
374
—9—
particulate emission rate of 3.41 pounds per million Btu
is 15.7
times the site standard of 0.217.
It disagrees
with the assertion that Sabrooke has minimized the use of
this station which contention is based on the anticipated
coal use for Unit
4.
It further observes that poor per-
formance of mechanical collectors on Units
1,
2 and
3 is
not attributable to the use of low sulfur coal.
The
Agency contends that Edison’s hardship with respect to this
station is self—imposed because the inadequate reserve
capacity is attributable to the inadequate capacity of the
total system in relation to its current needs and unjusti-
fied and long-term reliance on inefficient mechanical
collectors which increases in use as demand increases.
Lastly,
the Agency disputes Edison’s allegations of net capa-
city in the amount of 10,504 megawatts,
The Agency recommends
that the variance should be denied because of the
resulting excessive particulate emissions,
the adverse
impact on the community resulting therefrom,
the fact that
the hardship,
if any, on the petitioner,
is self—imposed,
the absence of diligence in seeking emission control, and
the absence of relationship between the use of low sulfur
coal and mechanical collectors as used in Sabrooke Units
1,
2, and
3.
With respect to the Waukegan station,
the Agency also
recommends denial, based on essentially the same contentions
as applicable to Sabrooke, detailing computed particulate
emissions substantially in excess of both single stack
0.60 pounds per million Btu and Site 0.24 pounds per mil-
lion Btu regulatory limits.
Unit
5 is incapable of
compliance using either high or low sulfur coal.
No time
schedule for compliance has been provided in this portion
of the variance petition although the operating permit
application indicates compliance by February
1,
1976.
Unit
6 appears to be capable of compliance although the
testing does not indicate in all instances the character-
istics of the coal burned.
No compliance program has been
submitted for this unit, although one has been appended
to the operating permit application indicating compliance
by February 1,
1977 with respect to particulate emissions,
by the use of flue gas injection additives.
Unit
7 showed
violations when 3.2
sulfur Illinois coal is used on loads
inexcess of 78
and compliance on lesser loads.
Collection
efficiencies decreased when low sulfur coal was used and
particulate emissions resulted, greatly in excess of the
regulations.
Again,
no compliance program is set forth in
the variance petition, although the operating permit appli-
cation indicates compliance by April 1,
1977.
Tests
performed on Unit
8 in September,
1972, indicated emissions
below 0.1 pounds per million Btu when 2.2
sulfur coal
was employed indicating collection efficiencies of 98.
When low sulfur coal
(0.45
and 0.82)
was employed at
90
load, emissions equal
to 1.03 pounds per million Btu
9—
375
—10—
and collection efficiencies of 88
were disclosed.
This
emission
would
be
4
times
the
0.24
pounds
per
million
Btu
site emission limit.
Again,
no compliance schedule is
indicated, but the operating permit application indicates
a compliance program based upon the installation
of a
sulfur trioxide flue gas conditioning system which will
be operative by October,
1973.
Particulate emissions from all Waukegan facilities
involved in this variance proceeding are controlled by
electrostatic precipitators.
As stated in the Agency
recommendation, no compliance program for the Waukegan
particulate emissions has been specified in the variance
petition although the operating permit applications do
provide compliance dates.
The Agency asserts that Edison’s
decision to use low sulfur coal has resulted in the increased
particulate emissions consequential to the decreasing
efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator and that this
is a self-imposed hardship.
In addition, the Agency
asserts that the particulate emissions from the Waukegan
station have contributed significantly to the poor ambient
air quality in the Waukegan area.
The Agency recommends
that the variance be denied,
or if allowed, be granted only
for Unit 8 premised on the installation of a sulfur tn-
oxide flue gas system and the submission of a compliance
program covering Units
6 and
7 to be completed within
16 months and subject to the posting of
a performance bond.
By order of the Board, the enforcement and variance
proceedings were consolidated for each station, respectively.
Extensive hearings were held in both Waukegan and Rockford.
We will consider the enforcement and variance requests
as related to each plant, respectively.
Notwithstanding
the severance of the variance petition and the consolida-
tion of its component parts with the enforcement proceeding
respecting Sabrooke and Waukegan, the matter was considered
as
a single consolidated action and much of the material
developed,
particularly with respect to Edison’s total
system and its pervasive fuel and pollution control
problems were applicable
to both proceedings.
Edison’s
case in chief in support of its petition and in defense
of the enforcement actions did develop testimony,
lacking
in the earlier proceeding
(#72-150) that there was a
definite correlation between the use of low sulfur coal,
burned to decrease SO2 emissions and the consequential
decrease of inefficiency of electrostatic precioitators
in abating particulate emissions.
(Fancher Ex.
9
-
10,
Commonwealth Edison Exhibits 32, 33,
34, and 35.)
Elec-
trostatic collection
is affected because low sulfur
results
in high particle resistivity,
a phenomenon not
relevant to mechanical collection.
Accordingly, we are
capable of finding, based on the present record which finding
9— 370
—11—
was not supported by the earlier record that increased
particulate emissions from Sabrooke Unit
4 and Waukegan
Units
5,
6,
7, and
B ar~attributable to Edison’s use of
low sulfur coal burned to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions.
Edison also contends that Sabrooke Units
1,
2,
and
3,
and Waukegan Units
5 and 7 have been restricted to the
extent possible
to limit excessive particulate emissions
and that any further dimunition would result in the inter-
ruption of customer service.
The present record has incor-
porated by reference the record in #72-150, which substan-
tiates the demonstrated
need. for availability of the
Waukegan and Sabrooke facility to assure adequate electri-
cal output during periods of peak demand, adequate service
notwithstanding outage conditions and to enable ongoing
maintenance and repair during both peak and normal service
demands periods.
The present record supports these con-
tentions
(R.
13,
5/14;
R.
187,
5/15;
R.
20—26, 5/14;
R.
193-197, 5/15), absent the production from the Zion
unit,
However, there is discussion of the effect of Zion
on the output of the Edison system in the record
(R.12,
5/14).
The witness discusses an agreement that might allow
the operation of Zion at approximately 50
capacity.
The issue is whether Edison’s past performance
exonerates
it from the imposition of oenalties, and secondly,
whether what has been done and will be done prospectively
by way of abatement is of sufficient degree and magnitude
to justify the granting of variances
to permit such instal-
lation and modification and at the same time, shield the com-
pany against the imposition of penalties for future vio-
lations.
We do not fault Edison for its shift to low
sulfur fuels notwithstanding the fact that such shift
appears to have resulted in an increase in particulate
emissions.
The shift
to low sulfur fuels is in direct
response to the imposition of both Federal and State
sulfur dioxide standards, which presumably will be achieved
by the May 30, 1975 date,
by the use of low sulfur fuel
or the installation of such equipment
as is necessary to
meet the SO2 standards.
Furthermore, we do not believe the
Company is compelled to search for optimum fuel which will
have bcth low sulfur attributes and low particulate poten-
tial.
The problem of both the utility and the Board is
to develop not an optimum fuel, but an optimum system, which
will permit the continued use of the utility’s facility in
the generation of power to service the northern Illinois
community and at the same time, assure a program that will
enable achievement of the air contaminant emission standards
applicable not only to sulfur dioxide but particulates
as well.
The record indicates that Edison has embarked on efforts,
9— 377
—12—
not successful to this point,
to rehabilitate the precipi-
tators to their requisite efficiency when low sulfur coal
has been used.
In addition, sulfur dioxide reduction
systems have been employed at other stations within the
system.
The Sabrooke station, until recently, had been
fueled by natural gas
(R. 83-84, May 30).
Units
1,
2,.
arid
3
are
serviced
with
mechanical
collectors
which,
of
course, are not affected by the interrelation of low sulfur
coal and high particulate emissions
(R.
451, May 17)
.
Unit
4 is serviced by an electrostatic precipitator where such
interrelation does maintain.
Sabrooke’s units
1,
2, and
3 have spreader stoker boilers and were originally equipp~d
with 92.5mechanical
multiclone collectors to which
~pirocones were added, increasing design collection
efficiency to 95.
(R.3,
5/30).
Fly ash reinjection
was eliminated in 1971.
However, collection efficiency
tests conducted on the mechanical collectors demonstrated
efficiency of not more than 81
and resulted in emission
rates
in violation of the Regulations.
No modifications
were suggested by the manufacturer that would bring the
equipment to its designed efficiency of 95
(R.4,
5/30).
As a result,
subsequent to the Board’s August 8,
1972
Order, restrictions were imposed on Units
1,
2, and 3
restricting the capacity of Unit
2 generally to 12 mega-
watts and restricting operation of Units
1 and 3 to periods
when needed by system demands and only when fast start
peaking units were in service
(R.5,
5/30).
Sabrooke Unit
4 has a pulverized coal dry bottom fur-
nace equipped with an electrostatic precipitator with a
design capacity of 95.
Testing in October of 1971
indicated that when low sulfur coal was burned, collection
efficiency decreased to approximately 60
(R.6,
5/30).
Tests conducted in August,
1972 indicated that with high
sulfur coal efficiency ran between 92
and 96
with
emission rates in compliance whereas with low sulfur coal
range between 0,75 to 0.86 sulfur content efficiency
was less than 50
and emission rates were in excess of
five pounds per million Btu, greatly in excess of all rele-
vant standards
(R.
6,
5/30, Commonwealth Edison Ex. S-4).
Natural gas had been used at the station, at times
constituting 90
of the fuel
(R.
164,
5/31).
During 1969,
natural gas produced 60
of the station’s total generation,
which decreased to 55
in 1970 and 45
in 1971
(R.
83,
84,
5/30, Edison Exhibits 5
-
6).
With the unavailability of
natural gas in 1971,
and the resulting increase in parti-
culate emissions, alternative methods were considered which
resulted in the determination to convert proceeding pur-
suant to
a construction schedule calling for shutdown for
oil conversion,
as follows:
Unit
4
—
September 30,
1973;
9
—
378
—13—
Unit
3
—
November 30, 1973;
Unit 2
-
February 28,
1974;
Unit 1
-
September 30,
1974.
The present unavailability of oil-firing equipment and
controls and the delivery schedule necessitates the sequen-
tial shut-down described.
Additionally, oil deliveries
are scheduled on the basis of consecutive conversions.
Low
sulfur coal is presently being delivered to the station
which results in a projected 24—hour average of particu-
late concentration of 146 micrograms per cubic meter
(R.
200,
5/31), approaching the 150 microgram secondary
ambient
air
quality
standard
which
estimate
assumes
all
4 Sabrooke units operating at full load using only low
sulfur coal and adverse meteorological conditions persisting
for the entire period
(R.
200-1,
5/31).
A projected par-
ticulate concentration of 146 micrograms per cubic meter
would have
a significant health impact upon the citizens
in the surrounding area.
The Agency,
in urging the imposition of penalties
and the denial of the variance, with respect to the Sabrooke
station, asserts that Edison was aware of the particulate
emissions in excess of allowable limit-s since Spring,
1971
(R.
27, May 30;
R.
196-235, May 31).
However, the princi-
pal complaints related to sulfur dioxide emissions.
The
Agency also contends that the shift to low sulfur coal to
abate sulfur dioxide emissions should have alerted Edison
to the likelihood of increased particulate emissions,
particularly with respect to the electrostatic precipi-
tator
(Environmental Protection Agency Ex.
60).
Consequently,
the Agency contends that Edison should have sought fuel
with optimum sulfur content to achieve the reduction of
sulfur dioxide efficiency.
The Agency substantiates
that the Company contends that the use of low sulfur coal
results in a higher particulate emission, particularly with
respect to Unit
4 controlled by an electrostatic precipitator.
Furthermore, August, 1972 tests confirm that multi-
clones on Units 1,
2, and
3 were not performing at rated
efficiency and that sulfur content does not affect effi-
ciency of the mechanical collection devices.
There is
rio
dispute between the parties that particulate violations
did and presently occur.
Indeed,
this is the reason for
the variance request.
The issue,
as heretofore stated,
is whether the totality of the circumstances call for the
imposition of a penalty and the allowance or denial of a
variance.
The Agency contends that notwithstanding the
institution of operating restrictions
at the Sabrooke
plant above—described, that little effect on the volume
of emissions has resulted.
Of perhaps greater concern than the regulatory viola-
9—
379
-14-
tions
which
are
admitted
on
all sides, is the impact result—
ing
On
the
community
from
the
plant
emissions.
Citizen
testimony substantiated the Agency’s assertions that
a
nuisance,
at
least
in the immediate area, was consequential
to the Sabrcoke operation ~l. 133,
137,
159, l60~ 181, and
185,
5/31).
Furthermore, Ringiernann limits appear to
have
been exceeded on
seve.ra.
occasions
(R.
68,
69,
5/30;
~,
118--
312,
6/1, EPA exhibit 5—5).
Additionally, the Agency has advanced the proposition
trial: a substantial amount
~f
small
micron
(a micron in
diameter equals
0.0008394
inches) emissions escape from
both the mechanical collectors
and
the
electrostatic
ore--
capacitors
wnicn
resu~can
substantial
health
na~ares~
the
community.
This substantial health hazard will be
discussed
later
ca
an
conjunction
with
the
emissions
from
the
Waukeqan
plant.
With
respect
to
the
Sabrooke
opera-
tion,
we
are
confronted
wIth
admitted
aarticuiate
violaticns
and
nuisance
impact
resulting
from
the
particulate
emissions
affecting the immediate area.
This,
standing alone,, justi-
fies the imposition of penalties and the denial of the
variances requested.
However,
in mitigation, the corollary
of the foregoing violations is
that until 1971,
the station
was
operated :rincipaily on natural gas,
the availability
of
i~hichwas curtailed through
no
fault of
Edison
and.
during
the
period
when
such
fuel
was
used,
the
aresent
pollutional
impact
had
not
occurred..
It
is
undisputed
that
the
mechanical
precipitators
on
jnits
1,
2,
and
3
do
not
perform
as
represented
when
coal
is
burned,
and
that
efforts to upgrade
these facilities
have
been
unsuccessful.
The
record does substantiate, yhich the earlier record
did not,
that
low
sulfur
coal
does have adverse consequences
so
far
as
the
electrostatic
arecipitators
are
concerned
and
Edison’s
efforts
to
lessen
SO•~emissions
have
resulted
in
increased
particulate
emission~
from
decreased
effi-
ciency of the
#4 electrostatic precipitator.
We
note
that
the Company has
embarked
upon a modification program which
will result in the use of
oil
for
fuel
with
resulting
decrease in emissions of both SO2 and particulates.
While
we recognize the possible need for the continued utiliza-
tion of these facilities in the manner and to the degree
requested by the Company in order to assure the supply at
peak demands,
the adequacy of suitable reserves and the
capability of effecting repair and maintenance during
periods of outaqe, we feel that the health of the citizens
deserves protection.
Accordingly, the Board has decided
to limit Edison’s use of the four units at the Sabrooke
station until such time as they have been converted to
burn oil.
The Sabrooke station is only to be used to
avoid a system-wide emergency,
and only after all other
available Edison capacity (excluding Powerton Units
1,4;
Waukegan stations above
315 meqawatts; and the fast-start
peaking units) has been operated.
9—
—15—
On balance, we see no useful purpose in assessing a
major penalty on the facts of this case,
as applied to
Sabrooke and will thus assess
a nominal $1,000 penalty
for violations
of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
and Rule 3-3.112
of the Air Rules.
We grant
a variance to operate Sabrooke
unit subject to the restrictions
found in the order to
follow and consistent with the continuing conversion of
the facilities to oil burning equipment and adherence to the
time schedule for compliance as represented on pages 12
-
13 of this order.
Following conversion to oil, such units
may be operated without restriction from 1(b)
of this
order.
The Waukegan station presently consists of four base
load units generating 946 megawatts, Units
1,
2, and 3
having been retired in September,
1972.
All units are
presently serviced by electrostatic precipitators.
The
gas flow from the Unit #5 blowers is divided between the
Unit #5 precipitator and the precipitators which had been
used for Units 1,
2, and 3.
Further duct work is neces-
sary to achieve equal distribution of gas flow which is
anticipated to be completed by Spring, 1974.
Edison
represents that this unit will be in compliance
if coal
with sulfur content of 1.6
or greater is burned
(R.
284,
5/15),
Since the Board’s decision in #72-150, this
unit
has
been
operated
at
60
megawatts
or
one-half
capacity.
Operation
in
excess
of
this
amount
has
occurred
during
testing,
slag removal, and system demand
periods,
the
latter
occurring when Edison’s fast start peaking units have
been placed in service.
Unit 6 employs
a precipitator designed for 98
col—
lection efficiency using Illinois coal
(R.
284, 5/15),
Actual testing indicates efficiency no greater than 95
when burning coal with 2,26 to 2.65
sulfur.
Edison con-
tends
that when low sulfur coal is burned in this unit,
a carbon carryover problem will result, which can cause
fires and resulting damage to precipitators
(R. 285-286,
5/15,
Fancher
direct).
Efforts to resolve this problem
have
not
been
successful
to
date.
The
Unit
7
precipitator
has
a
design
collection
efficiency
of
98
with actual efficiencies ranging between
83
and 94
and emission rates between 0.32 and
0.82
pounds per million Btu.
Tests conducted in May,
1972
indicated average collection efficiencies
of 95
and
average emission rates of 0.40 pounds per million Btu,
when the unit was operated at a loading of 315 megawatts
and 3.1
sulfur coal was utilized
(R.
288,
5/15, Common-
wealth Edison Ex.
13, R.
13).
Tests conducted in December,
1972 indicated that when low sulfur coal, having an average
0—*1
--16-
sulfur
content
of
0.49
was
utilized
at
309
megawatts,
precipitator collection efficiency was reduced to
74
and
emissions were 1.87 pounds per million Btu.
Since August 8,
1972 Unit 7 has been restricted to 315 megawatts, which
will achieve compliance when Illinois coal is used,
except when increased to meet system demands and after
fast start peaking units have been placed in service
(R.
198—99,
5/15).
After the May,
1972 tests on
Unit
7,
a flue gas addi—
tive process was designed, knows as Koppers K, with a
view towards restoring collection efficiency..
This system
did not prove successful and was subsequently abandoned.
Unit
8 is a 360 megawatt unit using a precipitator
designed for 98
collection efficiency using Illinois coal.
Tests conducted. in September,
1972 indicated that when low
sulfur coal
(between 0.45
and 0.82
was used, collection
efficiency
dropped. to 88
and particulate emissions
ranged. between 0.34 and 0,52 pounds per million Btu.
This
unit
is included in the variance request, notwithstanding
the apparent compliance, because when its emissions are
combined. with others of the Waukegan units, the station
emission limit of 0.24 pounds per million Btu will be
exceeded.
At the present time,
a liquid sulfur trioxide injec--
tion system is being installed on Unit
B, which is expected.
to be operational by September of this year, which,
if
successful, would be used in other units to restore preci~-
pitator collection efficiency lost through the use of low
sulfur coal.
Here again, the Company has substantiated the
fact that the use of low sulfur coal has, indeed,
degraded
the efficiency of particulate collection by electrostatic
precipitators
CR.
285,
287,
293,
297).
Edison argues
that its achievement of the sulfur standards can only be
realized by the use of low sulfur coal, which, at the same
time, produces the increased particulate emissions and that
further developmental work and experimentation are necessary
before emissions in both categories can be adequately
abated.
Lastly, Edison contends that its Waukegan emissions
do not have a substantial adverse impact on local ground
level quality
arid that neither the primary or secondary
ambient air standards will be exceeded as
a result of the
Waukegan stations’ particulate emissijns.
While disputed
by the Agency, Edison contends that the use of low sulfur
coal has enabled the Company to achieve sulfur dioxide
emissions within the primary and secondary annual ambient
air standards on an annual basis.
Edison concludes that
despite deterioration in collection efficiency experienced
where low sulfur coal is utilized, particulate emissions
from the Waukegan station do not result in. ground level
9—382
—17—
concentrations exceeding Federal ambient air quality standards
whereas prior to the use of low sulfur coal and when all
units were operating
at
full load during adverse weather
condition,
there was the possibility that short term
secondary ambient air quality for SO2 would be exceeded,
As
a result, Edison asserts that it should be permitted to
use low sulfur coal with resulting particulate viola-
tions as requested in its variance petitions.
With respect to the Waukegan operation, the Agency,
in
seeking the imposition of penalties and the denial of the
variance, stresses the frequency of particulate violations
from the Waukegan station, both as to single stack limita-
tions and site limitations.
As noted above, while there may
be some dispute as to the degree and intensity of the vio-
lations occurring, neither Commonwealth Edison nor the
Environmental Protection Agency contends that the operations
are in compliance.
Total plant emissions ranged from 0.32
pounds per million Btu, using coalof 2.67
sulfur,
to .0.8 pounds
per million Btu, using coal with sulfur content of 0.3.
These
~iaures do not appear inconsistent with measurements made by
Edison. On the basis of testimony by witnesses, Rosenthal,
Sa.la-
witz, Jones and Antonopolous, we must find that Rule 3-3.112 has
been violated at times both when high sulfur coal and when low
sulfur coal were burned.
Modeling evidence was introduced by EPA witness Melvin
(R.
202,
204,
5/24,
EPA
Ex.
56).
The
data
encompassed
both short term concentrations under worst case conditions
and annual and seasonal mean ground level concentrations,
taking into account the meteorological conditions resulting
from the proximity of Lake Michigan, an element allegedly
not taken into consideration by Edison witnesses who had
concluded the absence of adverse ground level impact from
the Waukegan station, which conclusion the Agency seriously
disputes.
We find that EPA witness Melvin’s testimony has
raised serious health questions.
The concentration levels
projected are:
1)
Maximum
24 hour
Particulate 2100 ug/m3
SO2
4 ppm
2)
Mean
24 hour
Particulate 260 ug/m3
SO2
0.25 ppm
3)
Minimum 24 hour
Particulate 166 ug/m3
SO2
0.17 ppm
Dr. Ruy E. Lorenco, Professor of Medicine and Chief
9—
383
—18—
of the Pulmonary Diseases for the Medical Center at the
University of Illinois, testified that the maximum concentra-
tions projected by Melvin would result in a critical public
health hazard
(R. 31,33,
5/16).
In answer to
a question as
to the significance of the mean values predicted by Mr.
Melvin,
Dr. Lorenco stated:
“0.25
(ppm SO2)
is a number associated with
the increased daily death rate, and if together
with increased particulates present, as in this
example of 260 micrograms per cubic meter, one
could expect statistically significant increments
in mortality and increased absence of industrial
work.”
(R.
32,
5/16)
Dr. Lorenco described the minimum particulate predicted
values as having
“been associated with increased respiratory
diseases in children and increased death rates
for
persons
over
fifty
years
of
age.”
(R.
34,
5/16)
The testimony of Mrs Foley regarding the physical effects
of Waukegan Station emissions upon her husband and herself
graphically illustrated the public health consequences ~re--
dicted by Dr. Lorence and
the
accuracy of Mr. Melvin’s
model.
Mr. Foley chokes, gags,
and vomits when exposed to
Waukegan emissions and is forced to stay indoors unless he
is wearing a gas mask.
Mrs Foley experiences a burning
sensation in her lungs and throat.
(R.
59 and 61,
5/23)
As in Sabrooke,
the Agency stresses the purported adverse
health consequences attributable
to the emission of small
micron particles not controlled by the abatement equipment
presently installed on the furnaces,
together with the syn-
ergistic effects of exposure to sulfur dioxide and parti—
culate emissions concurrently.
Dr, Lorenco stated that particles with a 0.5 to
5
micron diameter cause the greatest health problems since
they are more difficult for the human body to eliminate than
particles over
10 microns
in diameter,
(R.
36,
5/16)
The
Agency states that 75
of particles emitted by a cyclone-
type boiler
(Waukegan Unit
6) are less than 10 microns in
diameter and that 98.5
of these particles will escape
from an electrostatic precipitator.
(R.
108,
113,
5/23)
Agency testimony is that 32
of the particles from a pul-
verized coal boiler (remaining Waukegan units) are less
than 10 microns
in diameter and that 87.8
of those par-
ticles would escape on electrostatic precipitators.
CR.
109,
113,
5/23)
This EPA testimony when compared with Dr.
Lorenco’s testimony bears witness tç the very great health
hazard that the Waukegan unit presents.
9— 384
—
19—
Substantial
evidence
was
submitted
demonstrating
the
subjective impact of the Waukegan emissions on persons
located in the
vicinity
of the plant,
(R.
30,
5/15;
R.
59-
61,
5/23)
In addition, the nuisance attributes of the
settling of large particles on property was testified to
by persons in the vicinity.
(R,
3—9,
5/23/73:
R.
55—60,
5/17/73;
H.
433~-437,
6/l7~”73)
We
find. that operation
of
the Waukegan units
to have resulted. in air pollution
iii
violation of Section 9(a)
of
the
Act,
Waukegan presents a
more
difficult problem of resolu-
tion
perhaps
than
Sabrooke
for several reasons.
In the first
place,
the
adverse
poliutional
impact
on
the
community
is
manifest, both as
to
the
health
and
comfort aspects
and.
the detrimental effect on surrounding property, which
condition is brought about,
in part,
by the location of
the Waukegan station at lake level and the location of
the major portion of the city on the contiguons bluff
resulting in stack emissions being virtually at ground. level.
Furthermore,
as compared with Sabrooke where conversidn
to oil will presumably bring the operation into compliance
in
the
near
future,
Edison
appears
to
be
seeking
an
open-
end
variance
for
Waukegan.
Its
response.
of
course,
is
that
in
its
efforts
to
minimize
sulfur
dioxide
emissions,
the
use
of
low
sulfur
coal
has
degraded
the
electrostatic
precipitators,
necessitating
further
experimentation
in
additives and other abatement equipment and devices that
will
enable
the
precipitators
to
perform
to
the
degree
of
efficiency
to
bring
the
particulate
emissions
into
compliance.
Coupled with
this,
of course,
is
the
continuing
need
for
use
of
the
facility
to
achieve
system
demands
during
peak
and
outage
periods.
We
do
not
fault
the
company
for
its switch to low
sulphur
fuel,
in
an
effort
to
achieve compliance with the
sulfur dioxide regulations.
However, this happening,
in and
of itself, cannot justify an open-end variance of the
sort and to the degree sought by the Company with respect
to its Waukegan facilities without some limitation as to
time of compliance and degree of emission.
We believe that
the Company has presented adequate proof that the burning
of low sulfur coal does,
in fact, degrade the precipitator
efficiency.
CR. 531, 195—196,
234,
5/31/73)
Furthermore,
on the state of the record,
the change in operation which
has certainly increased the rate of particulate emissions,
at the same time sulfur dioxide emissions were decreased.
The Board notes that the monthly average sulfur content of
the coal consumed at Waukegan has ranged from 0.97
to
2.
Low sulfur coal
is that coal which contains less than
1
sulfur by weight.
Remaining is the need to determine
what steps whould be taken to bring the operations into
compliance, and how long we may reasonably allow.
The
9— 385
—20—
company,
as to Waukegan, has not given us a definitive
time schedule, and we find this to be
a serious omission
in its variance petition.
However, rather than deny the petition a second time,
and require resort to the variance process over again,
we will grant a six--month variance as to Waukegan, subject
to the condition that the total station be restricted
to
315 ~~iegawattsoutput.
In the event of a system—wide emer-
gency, the station may generate more than
315 megawatts
only after all other available Edison capacity (excluding
only the fast-start peaking units) has been placed in
operation.
This restriction upon the use of the Waukegan
station
is to insure that the citizens of Waukegan be
protected from adverse health effects which could result
from the operation of the station.
The Board notes that
in the event of an episode, Edison would be subject
to
the episode requirements found in chapter
2, part IV,
of
the Air Rules.
The variance is subject to the further
condition that the Company will submit
a definitive com-
pliance program setting forth with particularity the dates
that it will bring its operation into compliance
in
Waukegan.
We will reserve jurisdiction for such other
orders as may be necessary based upon such submission.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
VARIANCES
(PCB
#73--40)
IT
IS
THE ORDER of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that
six months variances be granted to Commonwealth Edison
Company from both the station and unit particulate emission
limitations contained in Rule 3-3.112 of the Rules and
Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution, and
Rule 203
(g), Chapter
2, Air Pollution Regulations,
to
permit the continued burning of low sulfur coal at the
Sabrooke and Waulcegan stations until April
4,
1974,
as follows:
1.
With
respect
to
Sabrooke
Station:
(a)
For
Unit
#4
until
that
unit
can
be
shut
down
for conversion to oil firing on September 30,
1973;
(b)
For Units
#3,
2,
and
1, until those units can
be
shut
down
for
conversion
to
oil
firing
on
November 30,
1973, February 28,
1974, and
9—
386
—21—
September 21,
1974, respectively, on the condi-
tion that in the interim these units will be
operated only after all other available Edison
capacity (excluding Powerton Units
#1
-
4, the
fast-start peaking units, and the Waukegan Station
above 315 megawatts)
has been placed in service,
except that any one of the units may be operated
at the minimum level necessary to provide steam
for water demineralizing and heating the station,
or to prevent stack deterioration.
2.
With
respect
to
the
Waukegan
Station:
(a)
From the station particulate emission limit,
Rule 3-3.112 of the Air Rules, and Rule 203(g),
to allow the use of coal at the station having
a
sulfur content of less than 3;
and
(b)
From the single stack emission limit of 0.60 •lbs/
MBtu and the site emission limit of 0.24 lbs/MBtu,
Rule 3—3.112 of the Air Rules,
and Rule 203(g)
on the condition that the total Waukegan Station
not be operated above 315 megawatts
(one-third
of
total rated capacity),
unless all other avail-
able Edison capacity
(including the Sabrooke
Station and the Powerton Units #1
-
4, but
excluding the fast-start peaking units)
has
been placed in service.
All of the foregoing variances as
to the Waukegan
Station are subject to the following terms and condi-
tions:
Cl)
Emissions in excess of applicable regulatory site
and unit limits shall be permitted only when
necessary to meet peak summer demands, system
demands when outages necessitate utilization of
such facilities and to adequately assure nec-
essary maintenance and repair within the system.
(2)
Within
30 days from the date hereof, Commonwealth
Edison Company shall submit to the Board and the
EPA a definitive schedule setting forth the steps
that will be taken to bring its Waukegan Station
into compliance with the relevant particulate
regulations applicable to both the station and
the individual units comprising the station.
(3)
Commonwealth
Edison
shall
submit
reports
to
the
Agency and the Pollution Control Board stating
when
the
facility
has
exceeded
315
megawatts,
and
the
circumstances
existing
necessitating
9— 387
--22—
such use,
Such reports will be submitted within
two working days.
3.
Edison is
to
establish
a
nine station network of Hi-Vol
samplers and 502 monitoring devices.
Location of the
monitoring networks and all
other
relevant details shall
be subject to Agency direction and approval.
Daily
data is
to be furnished to the Agency.
4.
Edison shall prepare a detailed analysis
of
the impact,
upon Edison’ s generation system, if the
individual
units
at
Waukegan were shut down until such time as they
comply with existing rules and regulations.
Such
analysis shall include a listing of all planned outages
for maintenance shut-downs
in the Edison system, both
as to dates of shut-down and output of
the units.; all
emergency
shut-downs
in
the
Edison
system;
and.
the
impact
of
Zion
production
upon
Edison’s
system
output.
This analysis shall be provided
to
the Agency
by
December 4,
1973.
5
The Board retains jurisdiction for the entry of such
further orders as may be appropriate for Waukegan
based
on
the
submissions
directed
to
be filed by
Edison.
In
addition
to
the
foregoing,
Edison
shall
continue
with
experimentation
in
the
use
of
additives
to
achieve
compliance
by its electrostatic precipi~
tato.rs
and
shall
report
to
the
Agency
and
to
the
Board
such
action
as
it
has
taken
with
respect.
thereto~ and
the
results
achieved.
6.
Edison
shall
post
a
$500,000
bond
with
the
Agency
by
November
4,
1973
to
guarantee
its
performance
and
com~
pliance
with
this
Order.
Such
bond
shall
be
reduced
in
the
following
manner:
(a)
$100,000
for
each
unit at the Sabrooke Station,
when
it has been converted to oil subject to the
schedule contained in this order;
(b)
$50,000 when the duct work modification on
Waukegan
Unit
#5 is complete;
(c)
$40,000 when the air monitoring equipment has
been installed
and. operated. at the Waukegan
Station; and
(d)
$10,000 when the Agency receives the report
required by clause
4 of this variance order.
9—388
—23—
ENFORCEMENT
(PCB #72-491, #72-492)
1.
Edison shall pay the sum of $1,000 as penalty for violating
Sections
9(a)
of
the
Act
and
Rule
3-3.112
of
the
Air
Rules at their Sabrooke Station.
2.
Edison shall pay the sum of
$30,000 as penalty for
violating Sections 9(a)
of the Act and Rule 3-3.112
of the Air Rules at their Waukegan Station.
Such payment shall be made by certified check or money
order payable to the State of Illinois and shall be
made to Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Drive, Springfield,
Illinois,
62706.
I, Christian L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, certify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted by the Board on the
~3/
~‘
day
of
~
1973, by a vote of
.~
to
..
~~
~)
/)7
9—389